Re: Beyond GCC 3.0

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Joe Buck wrote:

> > > So, copyright assignments are required for checkins on branches, but not
> > > patent licences?
> > 
> > We don't even have good rules about patents on the mainline, but nobody 
> > should be checking in code known to infringe patents anywhere, obviously.
> 
> The standard FSF copyright assignment paperwork includes the requirement a
> patent license from the employer.  Of course, that doesn't protect against
> a third party bringing a patent complaint.

The question was based on the observation of new-regalloc-branch (which
has been said to be affected by various patents).  While some patent
holders may have incidentally signed disclaim.future in the past and so
agreed that

	   We affirm that we will do nothing in the future to undermine this
	release.  If we have or acquire hereafter any patent or interface
	copyright or other intellectual property interest dominating the
	works, or the programs to which these works constitute changes and
	enhancements, or use of those programs, then the Free Software
	Foundation and the general public will be permanently and irrevocably
	licensed to use, in these works and in the programs they enhance,
	without royalty or limitation, the subject matter of the dominating
	interest.

, I thought that at least IBM had a special assignment/disclaimer version
which made a much more restricted patent grant (for any patents
implemented in the specific changes from IBM, or something like that).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk