[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel

hit send too soon....

On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak <kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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?
It is used as an argument for the gpl.  With quotes of,  without the gpl gcc would not have c++ or the objective c compiler.  But I can't stand behind that statement,  because it assumes the worst out of everybody.  Apple has released lots of core technologies without the demands of gpl distribution rules.  Launchd, clang and llvm, libdispach, blocks(closures) for c code, part of clang, Webkit. And many others.

>> and many of the other players.  
> like the FSF? 
>> The latest revision of the gpl threatens input from companies.  
> smells like FUD
It's from lawyers, that are paid to protect patents.

Where I work we had big review processes to protect ourselvs from violating the v2 license,  now we have an explicit ban.

>> 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.

This is not in the gpl,  but often with the users/developers perception.  

"How dare you make money off of my code, and not give the changes back 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.

And not having loopholes is a good thing,  no disagreement.  But here the gpl did the same thing,  put in a patent,  and everyone gets free access to it and your related patents.  That put a loophole in the patent system.

Realistically there should be no patented material in the code.
> ---<)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

geda-user mailing list