From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20444 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 21:41:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 20434 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 21:41:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:41:28 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0QLesct008721; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:40:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0QLes6P004267; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:40:54 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k0QLesNa008856; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:40:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:57:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200601262140.k0QLesNa008856@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060126211252.GA17685@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:12:52 -0500) Subject: Re: Using XML in GDB? 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> <20060126211252.GA17685@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00284.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:12:52 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > 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