Re: overloaded function handles

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Søren Hauberg<address@hidden> wrote:
> tor, 30 07 2009 kl. 09:01 +0200, skrev Jaroslav Hajek:
>> I'm not sure what to do now. Maybe a compile-time flag disabling the
>> possibly infringing feature would help? (I doubt it, though).
>> I don't know the US laws. In CZ, for instance, usage of a patented
>> invention for non-business purposes does not constitute an
>> infringement. If a similar clause applies in the US, many users would
>> be safe just because of that.
>>
>> Maybe it would be sufficient if Octave displayed a message at startup
>> that certain features may be subject to patent claims, and that users
>> should be aware of it. After all, I think nobody can actually
>> guarantee that Octave infringes no patents even now (for instance, as
>> I said, I think symbol_table::fcn_info is at least pretty close to
>> infringing the same patent).
>>
>> If this is considered too much of a danger by US users, then I think
>> we should just fork a patent-free branch for the US, and omit this
>> feature and other possibly patented future features (such as JIT
>> acceleration).
>
> I have the wonderful luxury of not being a US citizen,

I wouldn't call it a "wonderful luxury", but neither am I, so your
opinion has the same weight as mine...

> so my opinion
> caries less weight (I'm not the one who could be potentially damaged).
> That being said, I find all your suggestions silly, because the American
> patent system is so ridicules that we are most certainly already
> infringing on a bunch of patents already. Heck, you can hardly develop a
> "Hello, World" application these days without infringing on something.
>

A slight difference is that with this particular feature we are almost
100% sure, as the patent was searched, brought up and quoted. This

>
> So, my opinion is to ignore the issue (but as I said, I'm not the one
> who could get burned, so it's easy for me to say this).
>

I would stretch it even a little farther - I wouldn't like the feature
to be removed or severely crippled (yes, performance also matters)
just to workaround a US patent (and I still say workaround would be
darn hard), because I want to use it. OTOH, I understand that this may
be a really big problem for users from USA, so maybe we should really
fork. This particular patent is fairly broad (intentionally, no
doubt), but even if it can be worked around, future patents may not
be.

Finally, one more, slightly silly idea: What position would the
Mathworks take on this matter? Maybe they wouldn't actually mind to
make some sort of license disclaimer, giving Octave users from USA the
license to use the feature? Or at least for non-commercial use
(provided that it's not automatically guaranteed by the law)?


-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz