• From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@a...>
• To: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>, AndrewWatt2000@a...
• 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
misunderstanding.

paul

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..
>
>Christian Nentwich

• References:
  • Re: Sun IPR statement on XPointer
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: Sun IPR statement on XPointer
    • From: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Can XML Schemas Support Document Systems (WAS RE: ZDNet Schemaarticle,and hiding complexity within user-friendly products)
• Next by Date: XSL Line Breaks/Indentation - Please !!!
• Previous by thread: Re: Sun IPR statement on XPointer
• Next by thread: Re: Sun IPR statement on XPointer
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread