Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)

From: Frank van Harmelen ([email protected])
Date: 10/23/01

Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
Previous message: Jim Hendler: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
In reply to: Jim Hendler: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
Next in thread: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Jim Hendler wrote:

> However, I'm happy to be
> protected by normal copyright law and suggest we sign the damned
> thing and move on.

Hear, hear!
Couldn't agree more.

Frank.
   ----

Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
Previous message: Jim Hendler: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
In reply to: Jim Hendler: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
Next in thread: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST