Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb

["Martin Schröder" <gschroeder@onlinehome.de>]

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 mean, that's the whole purpose of patenting: To open up the implementation 
details to allow the progress of science, while ensuring that you still get 
money for it. A patent is simply a trade where the state offers full 
protection of the law that the methods described in the patent were invented 
by you and all they demand back is that you get rid of the trade secrets 
therein and open up the methods for science to exploit. And if they expand 
upon it, they can either pay your licensing fees, sell it to you, or wait 
till the patent expires.


> -> 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. ;)

> -> 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. ;)

Apart from that, there's pretty much only "prior art". If they can prove 
that they had the idea first, the same idea becomes difficult to patent. Of 
course, you can still use and sell it, but you run the risk of the original 
implementor eventually patenting the process.



Just my two cents,
    Martin.