Re: SELinux to GPL or not to GPL

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 16:36:25 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: OLS LSM BoF session"

    cc's trimmed.
    forrest whitcher wrote:
    >On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:46:19 -0700 (unchecked - local sync NTPstrat4)
    >Crispin Cowan <crispinat_private> did inscribe thusly:
    >>This is misinformation. What JMJones says applies to TRADEMARK, not 
    >>patents. Patent holder's rights endure, regardless of prior actions. See 
    >>the UNISYS/GIF patent fiasco.
    >I have to differ on this.
    >I've worked for 20 years in medical devices, in areas where virtually no
    >device can be developed without consideration of your own and competitors's
    >Our patent attorneys were very clear on the effects of not persuing 
    >violations, you can effectively lose much of the value of your patent
    >not doing so.
    >This does not imply that the patent will become invalid, rather that
    >your ability to obtain a judgement in court will be hampered if you 
    >fail to inform / take action wrt violators.
    That's exactly what I meant, so we seem to be in agreement.
    In contrast, if you do not enforce your Trademark, you can lose all 
    rights to the mark. Which is why TM holders get SOOO anal about 
    acknowledging their marks.
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:
    Available for purchase:
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 08 2002 - 16:37:35 PDT