Talk:Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:52, 20 August 2008

Law Unassessed

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Parts of this article are Copy&Paste

This text shares a paragraph or two with page 11 of this document — except that the paper in the link admits to its FOSS bias.

As the article was rather one-sided on the topic of patents i just stripped much of those bias and instead concentrated the contents more on the licensing aspects including the problems that RAND still might represent. I hope this improved the overall situation. --Alexander.stohr 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Dispute

There is a dispute marker on the article. It mainly tells about that there are not enough sources for founding the provided statements. This might be the case - but i dont see much point to mark this to the reader when no one really objects here on the details presented by the article. --Alexander.stohr 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really in conflict with free software

The section about RAND being in conflict with free software is not really accurate. RAND is not a license, but rather a set of conditions a license must meet. Nearly all free software licenses meet the conditions of RAND. A better way to discuss the relationship of RAND to free software would be to say that to be a free software license, a license has to meet more stringent conditions than it does to be a RAND license. Thus, if a standards body only requires that things be under a RAND license, they might or might not also be under a free software license, whereas anything under a free software license would also qualify as a RAND license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.the.bastard (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads more like an opinion tract or essay. 71.134.252.36 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == Not really in conflict with free software ==
 The section about RAND being in conflict with free software is not really accurate. RAND is not a license, but rather a set of conditions a license must meet. Nearly all free software licenses meet the conditions of RAND. A better way to discuss the relationship of RAND to free software would be to say that to be a free software license, a license has to meet more stringent conditions than it does to be a RAND license. Thus, if a standards body only requires that things be under a RAND license, they might or might not also be under a free software license, whereas anything under a free software license would also qualify as a RAND license.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tim.the.bastard|Tim.the.bastard]] ([[User talk:Tim.the.bastard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tim.the.bastard|contribs]]) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Article reads more like an opinion tract or essay. [[Special:Contributions/71.134.252.36|71.134.252.36]] ([[User talk:71.134.252.36|talk]]) 03:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)