- From: Daniel Berlin <dannyb@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:03:57 -0400
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Daniel Berlin<dannyb at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, H?kon Wium Lie<howcome at opera.com> wrote: > >> This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't >> understand your reasoning. > > I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going to have to > agree to disagree, because it's clear neither of us are going to > accept the other's viewpoint. > > My understanding of the example is consistent with the LGPL's goal > statement at the start: "Therefore, we insist that any patent license > obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full > freedom of use specified in this license." > The goal statement, at least to me, makes clear the example is talking > about obtaining a patent license that covers the library directly, not > that covers something that uses the library. Missed a sentence somehow. My understanding of the example is also consistent with the actual legal clause in front of the example, and I use it to inform my position on the example. Taking a example from a paragraph out of the surrounding context and trying to claim it stands alone seems a bit strange to me, but i'm just a simple engilawyer.
Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 18:03:57 UTC