[ILUG] EU Rejects Patent Software Law - For Now

[Brian Foster]

  | On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:27:14PM +0100, Brian Foster wrote:
  |  > 2nd pedantic quibble --- [ main() ] is not a [ standard
  |  > conformat ] definition of main()  [ ... ]  the two valid forms
  |  > are  int main(void)  and  int main(int, char **)  [ ... ]
  |  > and NO, it is not true that  foo()  and  foo(void)  mean the
  |  > same thing; in C, they do not.  [ ... ]
  | 
  | Well, I didn't say that it was the same thing, I was talking
  | about return types. *scratches head*

 I concur, you were.  I also elucidated those comments from
 my reply, leaving only an outline of the definition of main().
 I then made several (pedantic) comments on the form I quoted,
 but did not and do not challenge your correct description of
 its functionality.

 in other words, my guess is a closer reading would help.
 the head-scratching reply (mostly understandably) assumed
 I was commenting on what was originally said, not (somewhat
 mysteriously) on the parts I had quoted.   (and I don't
 believe my quotes were out of context?  apologies if they
 were, that was not intentional!)

  | >  I have not read the patent in question, nor have I read this
  | >  thread very closely.  but it did strike me that all(?) of the
  | >  code posted so far seems to assume a location in memory has
  | >  exactly one address.  i.e., the possibility of the memory
  | >  being double-mapped (as one example, to two different virtual
  | >  addresses in the same process) is not handled.
  | 
  | Hmmmmm, I'm not so certain a language-level operator could ever
  | genuinely cope with this, a system-call [ may be needed ].

 I concur with yer basic observation.
 but I can think of strange ways around the problem.

 leaving aside hardware assist (e.g., an instruction) or
 languages sans pointers (e.g., Java), it's unknown to me
 if the claim is for a language-level operator, or what
 language(s) said operator could be used in, or if calling
 the hypothetical function _is_ the operator?

 it is that last possibly which is not so silly.
 lexically and semantically in many(?) languages, a function
 call-return is a binary operator:  one operand is the
 function to be called, the other is the (list of) arguments.
 (and please don't say you need to test the return value,
 making two operators; you don't, at least if the function's
 definition is sufficiently demented --- an exercise left to
 the reader.)

 anyways, please allow me please to clarify:  I concur with
 what Colm said in the posting I commented on, and also with
 Colm's remarks above.  I am extremely skeptical of software
 patents.  and at face value, the patent under discussion is
 absurd.

cheers!
	-blf-
-- 
Experienced (20+ yrs) kernel/software Eng: | Brian Foster   Montpellier,
 • Unix, embedded, &tc;  • Linux;  • doc;  | blf at utvinternet.ie   FRANCE
 • IDL, automated testing, process, &tc.   |  Stop E$$o (ExxonMobile)!
Résumé (CV) http://www.blf.utvinternet.ie  |     http://www.stopesso.com