On 16 January 2014 13:37, Andrew Lih <[email protected]> wrote: > 3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a > bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and > confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets > wind up paying the patent pool lots of money. For smaller users? Those > onerous terms sound like they apply to you but you can disregard them. This > is NOT a good state of affairs for a conscientious, detail-oriented free > culture contributors. > http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html
Given Commons' attitude on even incredibly unlikely copyright risks ... it's just ridiculous to assume such a provision on a format would be allowed to pass. I see at least one person has deemed it a snowball-pass after just a few hours. I find this ... unlikely. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
