From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9570 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2004 00:47:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9175 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2004 00:47:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (68.164.203.246) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Nov 2004 00:47:43 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (HELO dberlin.org) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.6) with ESMTP-TLS id 7581377; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:47:43 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Mike Stump cc: Biagio Lucini , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gomp@nongnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <200411230916.36569.lucini@phys.ethz.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00871.txt.bz2 On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 23, 2004, at 12:16 AM, Biagio Lucini wrote: >> I have made an enquiry to the OpenMP ARB, appended is the answer I >> received. >> My understanding of the meaning of "public domain" is that we are free to >> put the code under GPL+exceptions. > > My take, I think their email reply is evidence that they have no clue > what-so-ever. I'd suggest that you ask them a yes or no question, and that > you accept no another answer other than yes or no. Now, as to the question, > can I do X, where X is all the code that you think might infringe. Also, > bear in mind, what the person says has no legal weight, if they person you > are talking to has no legal standing. It's never a good idea to make assumptions about what principles the law follows :). In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true. Take a gander at the law of agency, in particular the principle of "apparent authority" (and also the principles of various forms of estoppel). Of course, you'd end up in court in this case, which you'd want to avoid, but you don't get to hold yourself out and give legal answers on behalf of your employer without any consequences :). Which brings us to the part where i say this isn't legal advice, doesn't represent IBM, blah, blah, blah, blah :) --Dan