On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 21:22 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 18:25 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 14:43 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > > Anyone intersted in further study could easily discover the U.S.
> > > patent numbers that were originally licensed to NemeSys. (Not Tascam!)
> > > If someone cannot do that for themselves then they probably could
> > > figure out someone who does know the numbers and ask so they could
> > > read the patents for themselves.
> > >
> > > Please note that while I am greatly disappointed that all of this has
> > > happened I still thinkLS is a really great piece of work and I, for
> > > one, still have great respect for all the folks that have done this
> > > work.
> >
> > If the issue really is a patent dispute involving a patent that is 1) a
>
> AFAIK, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a patent issue. That
> question does exist for LS, but I do not believe (and I am not certain
> here) that it is related to the reason for the license change in CVS.
In CVS a while back, I suppose. AFAIK all 0.3.x (x >= 1) tarballs have
the same non-GPL license.
-- Fernando
Received on Fri Dec 9 08:15:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 09 2005 - 08:15:15 EET