From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5679 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 21:12:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 5669 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 21:12:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:12:54 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F2EQG-0004eO-6P; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:12:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Using XML in GDB? Message-ID: <20060126211252.GA17685@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060126055744.GA29647@nevyn.them.org> <43D8BB89.4090900@st.com> <20060126134124.GA3107@nevyn.them.org> <43D8E573.1060004@st.com> <20060126163832.GA7113@nevyn.them.org> <200601262103.k0QL3Jdo030305@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200601262103.k0QL3Jdo030305@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:03:19PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:38:32 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > I'm not going to pursue this for now because of IP issues; the terms on > > the SPIRIT documents make me leery of using them for an open source > > program, at least without talking to a lawyer about it first. > > Are these documents public? If not we should stay away from this > stuff. But if they are public, I can't see why we cannot implement an > interface specification. You have to register and agree to their terms to get a copy: www.spiritconsortium.com. However anyone can register, which wasn't obvious to me the first time I looked. Implementing an interface specification is not necessarily OK depending on one's jurisdiction and what patents are involved; that's one of the reasons there's a lot of people who object to software patents :-) It is entirely possible to write an interface such that any use of it would require a patent license, or more than one. I'm not saying that that's the case here, but the disclaimer certainly suggests that it may be: b) COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPIRIT SPECIFICATION MAY REQUIRE USE OF ONE OR MORE FEATURES COVERED BY PATENT RIGHTS OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF A CONSORTIUM MEMBER OR THIRD PARTY. THE MEMBERS TO THE CONSORTIUM HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSORTIUM SPECIFICATIONS, NOR DO THE MEMBERS TO THE CONSORTIUM UNDERTAKE A DUTY TO ADVISE USERS OR POTENTIAL USERS OF THE CONSORTIUM SPECIFICATIONS OF SUCH NOTICES OR ALLEGATIONS. Anyway, my curiousity has been effectively engaged. I'll take a look at it. If necessary I can find some US legal advice about the terms. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery