In article <gjo5tj$3ra$11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > United States: JFTC Issued Microsoft Ruling On Its NAP Clause
> > Practice
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| On September 16, 2008, Japan Fair Trade Commission
> >| (the "JFTC") issued a ruling against Microsoft Corporation
> >| ("MS") regarding its use of a so-called "NAP" clause in its
> >| software licenses. The MS NAP clause prevented licensees
> >| from asserting certain intellectual property rights against
> >| MS and its customers.
> > `----
> >
> > http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=71976
>
> They keep trying, though.
Wait...aren't there some open source licenses that include clauses that
terminate your license rights if you assert patent rights against the
software? Will they run into the same problem in Japan?
As it stands, the above post is off-topic spam to COLA. To make it
on-topic, it should include an explanation of what a "NAP" clause is,
and then relate it to licenses used in Linux.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
