[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sun IPR statement on XPointer
- From: Paul Grosso <email@example.com>
- To: Christian Nentwich <firstname.lastname@example.org>, AndrewWatt2000@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:05:16 -0700
I believe you are quoting from the *old* IPR statement (to
which Eve linked in her message that presented the new one)?
There is no paragraph numbered 5 in the new IPR statement.
It appears that you've started an entire thread based on this
At 10:50 2001 04 25 +0100, Christian Nentwich wrote:
>Actually, this is the paragraph that scares me:
>>5. In no event shall Sun or You be obligated to extend the covenant not
>>to sue granted hereunder to any product not incorporating a fully compliant
>>implementation of the XPointer Specification, or to that portion of a
>>product not incorporating a fully compliant implementation of the XPointer
>>Specification regardless of whether a fully compliant implementation of the
>>XPointer Specification was incorporated in another portion of that product.
>is this supposed to ward off microsoft ? :) What if some open source
>developers decide not to implement ranges because they can't be
>bothered, but producing a good product otherwise? Will they be sued?
>Sounds a bit like control-freakery to me..