Re: business models [was patent stuff]

[Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>]

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Alan said:
> > I would worry much more about the million odd patents IBM have, where
> > IBM have no general statement of this nature than the Red Hat ones.
> > Perhaps once the Red Hat statement is published IBM can be persuaded to
> > show willing ?
> 
> For what it's worth, the Red Hat statement is at:
> 
> 	http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
> 
> No patent enforcement against you if you're using a Red Hat-approved open
> source license - their list does not include BSD.

The Red Hat-approved licences don't include LGPL either.

Red Hat's definition of "Open Source/Free Software" ("means any software
which is licensed under an Approved License.") could do with some
clarification.

I wonder what their stance is if I dual license under BSD and GPL.  Do I
have to be explicit about it?  Or is that too loose - must it be GPL only?

I wonder if that means I have to explicitly list my high performance web
server, which takes advantage of the patented directory lookup of
course, as dual licensed under GPL and LGPL, or if that is taken as
implied.

etc.

-- Jamie