Re: Using XML in GDB?

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:12:52 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>
> 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.

No software patents here yet ;-).  And some laws that explicitly allow
for interoperability.

> 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.

This doesn't really say anything.  They're just covering their ass and
you're completely responsible for your own actions.

> 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.

Those lawyers really got you folks by the balls isn't it?  It's almost
as if you're back to the days where you need yo ask the
priest/rabbi/imam for permission for everything you do.  Well, I
suppose the FSF could provide the necessary advice.

Mark