Monday, November 22, 2004
Click here to see Paul Arne's Bio!
Previous Posts
- Import Issues
- More Microsoft and Patents
- Microsoft's IP Indemnity
- Microsoft Broadens IP Indemnity
- Microsoft Claims to Open Protocols?
- Open Source Losing its Way?
- Open Source and Trademarks
- Open Source Acceptance: Role of Analysts
- Open Source Acceptance
- Open Source Acceptance
Disclaimer
This Blog does not create an attorney/client relationship
with you and does not provide specific legal advice to you or your company. Certain legal concepts have not been fully
developed and certain legal issues have been stated as fact for which arguments
can be made to the contrary, due to space constraints. It is provided for educational purposes
only. In addition, all participants,
including Paul Arne, other members of Morris, Manning & Martin, and all
those providing comments, may take positions that they do not fully endorse or
that their companies or law firms do not fully endorse, for the purpose of
exploring the legal and business issues discussed. No positions taken by any participant should
be viewed or asserted as his or her true belief or legal position.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
1 Comments:
The article links to an op-ed piece: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1730592,00.asp
Interestingly, he tries to claim that it's a Bad Thing that there are over 50 OSI-approved licenses, but it's a Good Thing that a new version of the GPL be released. (Though he doesn't have any actual suggestions for the content of GPL3)
On another note - I tend to alter the boilerplate offer of GPL software for new GPL software I write myself - the standard boilerplate offers it as GPLv2 or, at your choice, a later version of the GPL.
This seems very risky to me, since what goes into GPLv3 is beyond my control.
So I license my GPL software as GPLv2 for now.
Post a Comment
<< Home