Re: [RFC 0/1] Contributing a compound object to the libpthread

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>]

On 19/06/2018 09:42, Oleh Derevenko wrote:
> Adhemerval,
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Adhemerval Zanella
> <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Regarding the note of DJ Delorie -- the patent covers the
>>> synchronization method (the approach), not a particular
>>> implementation. You will not be able to create an implementation of
>>> yours without violating the patent anyway. So, don't worry about the
>>> effects of looking in the code.
>>>
>>> That said, I understand that my idea is not going to be accepted at
>>> this time. I would like to apoligize for you time I have taken. In
>>> case anyone is going to change their opinions on the matter feel free
>>> to contact me.
>>
>> To be clear: it is not your idea that is being rejected, but rather
>> your imposing rules we need to accept so you can disclosure your idea.
> 
> All the patent texts (except for those that contain sectecy matter)
> are publicly available from the USPTO or similar corresponding
> national/international patent management offices. In particular, there
> is a search form at the USPTO website you can use to view any present
> or past patents and published applications. The sole idea of patents
> is to create and save descriptions any other skilled individuals can
> later use to re-create the inventions. Just, an exclusive use period
> is granted to authors as a reward for their binging the inventions to
> public. Later, after patents expire, they can (and should) be used to
> advance everyday life of all the humanity (or other more humble
> purposes -- whatever they are good for). In my opinion, most of the
> patents in the database are good for nothing and are just wasted
> money. Or they can be treated as enforced losses businesses have to
> take due to the competitive environment they exist in. But sometimes
> there are things that are worth the application/maintenance fees paid.
> 
> So to resume, there is no problem in disclosing the idea. And it
> already was disclosed here and is permanently being disclosed at the
> USPTO website. I posted a link to it.
> 

I am far from Copyright and patent expert and correct if I am wrong,
but my understanding is for GNU projects all your description does not
mean anything if you, the one holding the patent, do not sign a 
Copyright assignment for FSF so any projects which the idea or code
derived from it are protected for Copyright enforcements by third 
parties (you inclusive).