Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel

[Kai-Martin Knaak <kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steven Michalske wrote:

> In a perfect world this would not be an issue.  But lawyers can use that 
> clause as a loophole to invalidate legitimate patents.

The notion of software patents is by no means obvious. In fact, it is 
subject to serous doubt. See the undulating tale of conflicting judgments
by the  (European) Court of Justice.


 
> Big point here, I was talking to some of the google compilier guys 
> and finding out that most of the big compiler guys around consider 
> gcc to be a dead man walking, largely due to GPLv3 issues. This is
> not limited to Google either, but includes Apple

Neither of them is notorious for their contributions to the gcc
code base. They both have the resources to roll their own compiler 
from scratch. Why don't they?


> and many of the other players.  

like the FSF? 



> The latest revision of the gpl threatens input from companies.  

smells like FUD


> Not the only reason,  I am more than willing to share code, even
> at no cost.  Although, I'm not selfish enough to demand that all
> of their work must be given freely to me.

There is no such clause in GPL3

The cases of openoffice shows how important the absence of loopholes
in the GPL is to the continuous freedom of open sources software is. 
Oracle demonstrated how big players try to chain software written by 
others to their legal stronghold.

---<)kaimartin(>---
-- 
Kai-Martin Knaak
Email: kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ãffentlicher PGP-SchlÃssel:
http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x6C0B9F53



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user