On Mar 8, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > > Pardon my interjecting, but I think you may have misread Russ's point. > I _believe_ he was saying that, if a codebase is encumbered by patents > not available royalty-free (e.g., only under 'RAND' terms), then the > software in question ends up being effectively proprietary in > jurisdictions where the patent is enforceable, irrespective of the > software's licence -- as long as the software continues to implement the > patented method, anyway: Derivatives that no longer do that would be > open source if the licensing and other relevant facts permit. >
BTW: How is this different from, say, the US export control provisions? In both cases, a codebase is encumbered by external, and "localized" restrictions. So does this mean that software distributed out of the US, no matter the OSI license, isn't "really" open source? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
