From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19984 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2010 14:26:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 19968 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2010 14:26:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:26:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C62A2BAC50; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Mpx4r6UVXCmr; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FC02BAC43; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C65560E.2060001@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:26:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb References: <215382.96867.qm@web112514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C64D224.1030001@adacore.com> <350785.50982.qm@web112515.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <53EE6DB2F971468D9FEEC38287F36875@igor> In-Reply-To: <53EE6DB2F971468D9FEEC38287F36875@igor> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 Martin Schröder wrote: > paawan oza wrote: >> If I understood correctly, >> >> -> if the idea is patented by the organization then it may not be >> discussed. > > I am not a lawyer, but I think that the contrary is true. As soon as the > idea is patented, you're absolutely free to discuss it in whatever detail > you desire. Of course, you should at least mention that the idea is > patented. I was talking from gcc's point of view of what was desirable, not giving a legal opinion on whether such discussion was legal :-) >> -> if idea is not patented but implemented under GPL (which uses and >> modifies original gdb source code), then it can be discussed. > > Yup. If you can freely get the source code, you can freely talk about its > details. After all, whatever the source makes the machine do, can also be > emulated inside the human brain. ;) This is wrong, see my previous discussion > >> -> that means organization has no way to claim the idea legally in >> any terms > > That's the point of patenting (claiming that you invented it), and the > reason why patents should only be awarded for actual manufacturing processes > instead of ideas or concepts. And some argue that software is nothing but > concepts and ideas. ;) This is wrong, you can protect things by trade secret, and the fact that the original base code was obtained under a GPL license does not change that (in fact it is the GPL license that allows this to be done).