similar to: [Bug 1471] Mention of patent issues in rsync docs

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1471 Summary: Mention of patent issues in rsync docs Product: rsync Version: 2.6.2 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: rubbish@shearer.org

Hi, We are in the business of developing/productizing Multimedia codecs for embedded systems. Recently, Vorbis has gained good popularity. We are also developing it. But we face few problems related to patents. Vorbis claims to be patent free. Is there any particular search made for possible patent infringements and corresponding report published? We need to convince our customers sometime

Does the reason Theora is relatively safe from patent infringement lawsuit have more to do with it actually not being encumbered, or is it because its use is decentralized? For example, FreeType is not patent-free, nor is Linux, yet they succeed because on the one hand, they are open source, and those who maintain them do not guarantee anything regarding patents, it is up to each individual user

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

Hi radeonhd, nouveau, mesa3d developers, Firstly, thank you all very much for all the important work you do. I've been working as a part-time developer on the "Spring RTS" project (open-source game engine) which runs on linux (and other os). Some time ago I tried the engine on the open-source ATI radeonhd driver, which I understand to be partly based on mesa 3d, and all textures

Sprint Nextel is sueing vonage, voiceglo and theglobe.com for infringing on VoIP patents. Sprint Nextel claims to have about 100 patents on VoIP technologies. Does anyone know which ones this article is talking about, and if so does asterisk have any of those features? The reason I am asking is that the article is vague, Vonage uses a fairly standard codec set, I dont know about the others.

Hi David, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been a bit buried: On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:12 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> The TL;DR version of this is that I think we should discuss relicensing all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception clause. See below for a lot more details. > > I agree that this is a problem.

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a

Hi everyone, first of all, I searched through the archives for any posts resembling this, I didn't read all posts about the patents so if this has been suggested before I apologise. I read in an article on C|Net (I think, it was linked from Slashdot anyway) that Thompson are threatening to sue you if Ogg Vorbis becomes a success. Which is evil, and I'm also mad at them because they never

I've dug down as far as I could on www.uspto.gov for anything remotely close to what is going on with Verizon and all searches end with only two possibilities in regards to what is going on. So unless the patent was issued to someone else and Verizon bought it, these are the only two possible patents this case could be based on... US 7,142,646 B2 Voice mail integration with instant

Hi everyone. Reading all this posts about patent issues, I thought of something: if, by some wild chance FhG (or some other audio company) manages to prove in court that vorbis is breaking their patent rights, you could do something like LAME developers did: release only source code and let people do the compiling so that only users that are living in countries where patents on algorithms are

Hi everyone. Reading all this posts about patent issues, I thought of something: if, by some wild chance FhG (or some other audio company) manages to prove in court that vorbis is breaking their patent rights, you could do something like LAME developers did: release only source code and let people do the compiling so that only users that are living in countries where patents on algorithms are

Just a question about the state of Vorbis, if I build an application using Ogg is there a chance anyone sue me to death due to some stupid patent violation. Is the method used in the Vorbis compression, decompression and streams free of any patent violations? *** Frank M. Siegert, frank<at>this.net, frank<at>wizards.de *** WWW @ http://www.this.net/~frank * http://www.wizards.de

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > On 20 Oct 2015, at 17:46, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > You could ship the non-combined program. > > IE You can ship an llvm jit and a gpl2 program, and jit the program > > on the user's machine. > > NeXT

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >> >>> >>

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution. > > Please, no. > >> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. > > To me, this is the most acceptable

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion started in October 2015, and continued in September 2016: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html As with those emails, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:13 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 3 Nov 2016, at 15:55, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > >> I and the other libc++ contributors were all happy to have our code > relicensed under the MIT license (or contribute it under those terms > originally), so there is some pretty clear evidence

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:03 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 3 Nov 2016, at 14:50, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> In particular, various corporate lawyers were worried about this > scenario that neuters defensive patents): > > Lawyers see risk everywhere, so i'll just go with "various corporate >

On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >>> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> Please explain: why? > > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license > doesn't