From deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com  Sun Apr 26 20:40:56 2009
From: deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com (Deepayan Sarkar)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:40:56 -0700
Subject: [Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
In-Reply-To: <8b356f880904260933p4cb169b9k495608c8b772f977@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b356f880904240953l30d173c6jaf80df45809b2ce1@mail.gmail.com>
	<XFMail.090426122423.Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk>
	<8b356f880904260933p4cb169b9k495608c8b772f977@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb555e660904261140x3268b095o8b897b9a7ad6f481@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/26/09, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Ted Harding
>
> <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>  > On 24-Apr-09 16:53:04, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>  >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ted Harding
>  >> <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>  >> [...]
>  >>> ...inspires someone to incorporate the same language extension
>  >>> into a GPL'd FORTRAN interpreter/compiler. I think I could then
>  >>> be vulnerable, or they could, on the grounds that I/they had pinched
>  >>> the idea from the commercial product.
>  >>
>  >> Unless you have a confidentiality agreement of some kind, or the idea
>  >> is covered by a patent, you can pinch any ideas you like from other
>  >> products.  Copyright law does not cover ideas.
>  >
>  > Well, I'm not so sure about that ... back in 2002/2003, National
>  > Instrument sued the MathWorks (MatLab proprietors) on the grounds
>  > that the MathWorks Simulink graphical development tool infringed
>
> > on National Instruments' patented rights in such an idea....
>
>  That was a patent case.  We were discussing copyright licenses. Please
>  read up on the difference before speculating.

And you can read Stallman's take on it here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

-Deepayan



[Rd] Closed-source non-free ParallelR ?
Deepayan Sarkar