Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> > One of which is that [for the purpose of this hypothesis] you had to
> > purchase the right to develop using these palladium features.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:51:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Where does your hyphotesis say that?
I just now stated it.
I had tried to make the completely proprietary nature of the functionality
clear earlier, but presumably I wasn't successful.
> And in which jurisdiction can the supplier of Palladium legally forbid
> the third party that I give my modified GCC to (and who does not have
> any contractual relation with the supplier) from continuing my
> development work?
If the functionality in question is interoperation with proprietary
palladium features, and if everyone who has palladium has to buy into
a license that says they won't try to reverse engineer those features,
what would this matter?
Finally, remember that I'm talking about a hypothetical vaporware
palladium which probably has little to do with the palladium product
which will presumably be released in real life.