The important phrase is... your patent license from such contributor... (emphasis mine). Compare that to Apache 2 License, which says in S3... any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed (again, emphasis mine).
The patent clause is almost toothless. Apache 2's patent clause terminates all patent rights under the license to anyone who files a patent infringement claim against the licensed project. The MS-PL protects Microsoft and other big contributors who have patents but does nothing to establish a patent commons around the work to protect smaller contributors.
And I still haven't heard of anything approaching a release candidate for perl6, or ponie, or pynie. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention...
There haven't been any. They're all a ways off; no one's working on any of them full time, which means we're all squeezing one year of work into eight.
First, fair use will only occur if original works are created and original works will only be created if people have some chance of earning a living from them.
I've had seven books published and never expected to make a living off of any or all of them. That doesn't mean I look the other way when someone violates my copyright, but creation is not solely a matter of financial recompense for me. I'm not the only person who feels that way, either.
You don't know what snarled or stop and go driving are like until it takes you 45 minutes to go 10 miles on a 8- to 10-lane interstate every damned day.
Hm, sounds like you've been on 405 and I-5 North from approximately the Fremont bridge to Delta Park!
The stores can return unsold inventory to the publisher for refunds. At least, that's how it works in book publishing. Sell-in is nice, but only sell-through matters.
Nobody has ever been able to show a Microsoft patent that Mono infringes. If you can demonstrate one, please share it.
How about #6,920,461 and #6,959,294? I can't really claim that I understand, but implementing complete WinForms behavior seems difficult without hitting both patents.
It's a bit rude to the authors and publishers to post copyrighted material on the Internet without their permission. The last I checked, the Pragmatic Bookshelf e-books used no DRM, so it's not like they're treating legitimate customers poorly either.
Decades of boring trivia has decimated the numbers of intelligent readers.
Someday, I want to draw a cartoon with nine Roman soldiers standing and lying one on the ground. One of the survivors can say "This decimation isn't as bad as I thought it would be."
Slashdot Mirror
The important phrase is ... your patent license from such contributor... (emphasis mine). Compare that to Apache 2 License, which says in S3 ... any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed (again, emphasis mine).
The patent clause is almost toothless. Apache 2's patent clause terminates all patent rights under the license to anyone who files a patent infringement claim against the licensed project. The MS-PL protects Microsoft and other big contributors who have patents but does nothing to establish a patent commons around the work to protect smaller contributors.
Ah, the advantage of bundled software on multi-vendor hardware!
Sort of a caldera?
The GNU tools made Solaris usable. (I realize that's quite a polemic, but ask a lot of old-school Solaris administrators.)
Oh, it is. It is.
There haven't been any. They're all a ways off; no one's working on any of them full time, which means we're all squeezing one year of work into eight.
Actually, people are working on it. It's Pynie; Patrick Michaud wrote a basic compiler for it in about eight hours.
Doesn't the creator of a work have the moral right to name that work?
I've had seven books published and never expected to make a living off of any or all of them. That doesn't mean I look the other way when someone violates my copyright, but creation is not solely a matter of financial recompense for me. I'm not the only person who feels that way, either.
It does take a lot of bravery to assume that Novell will be the first software company to emerge successfully from a partnership with Microsoft.
You certainly do under the GPL, at least until you distribute that code.
Get on 405 N off of 26 W at 5:15 (often anytime between 4:30 and 6) and try to get to Vancouver. It can be messy.
Hm, sounds like you've been on 405 and I-5 North from approximately the Fremont bridge to Delta Park!
You might like clang from the LLVM project.
More accurately perhaps it's "If you share with others, you must allow them to share in the same way."
I don't know about spiffy, but it would be a license violation.
The stores can return unsold inventory to the publisher for refunds. At least, that's how it works in book publishing. Sell-in is nice, but only sell-through matters.
How about #6,920,461 and #6,959,294? I can't really claim that I understand, but implementing complete WinForms behavior seems difficult without hitting both patents.
It's a bit rude to the authors and publishers to post copyrighted material on the Internet without their permission. The last I checked, the Pragmatic Bookshelf e-books used no DRM, so it's not like they're treating legitimate customers poorly either.
If I've learned anything from the Internet, it's that you should never negotiate with poor spellers. They "r" quitting indeed.
By "almost" you mean "not at all", right?
The right to redistribute a derivative work of someone else's copyrighted code.
Someday, I want to draw a cartoon with nine Roman soldiers standing and lying one on the ground. One of the survivors can say "This decimation isn't as bad as I thought it would be."
The version in dispute was AL 1.0. AL 2.0 wasn't out yet when this issue first arose.