Maxthon, you surprise me. You are again treating this list as if everyone was under Chinese jurisdiction.
Please don't treat the fact YOU have legal shelter as if the project and everyone involved in it has the same legal protections or wants to expose the project to problems. A lot of things are simply grey areas that there is no need to involve the project with. While you breaking the NDA may be safe for you and might not establish liability of others that received the information, how about just not risking and finding out? :-) David has previously documented on this very list how the GNUstep runtime deals with small objects. Since the solution works alright and Apple's solution sounds marginally different (including functionally), do we need to discuss this (or anything under Apple Developer NDA) any further? :-) On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Maxthon Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > I am no lawyer too but given my status of citizen of China (a sore point > too, and never been out of it) the US laws does not apply, and Chinese laws > provided no protect other than civil losses on that. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2013年6月15日, at 21:41, Robert Slover <[email protected]> wrote: > > To add some pertinent detail, trade secrets are by definition not governed > by copyright because they are unpublished. This is a double-edged sword; > keeping a trade secret offers no protection from anyone else discovering > the secret by legal means, but it also does not expire. If you are good at > keeping your secret, you have an indefinite monopoly (examples are the > formula for Coca-Cola as well as the seasonings for KFC chicken) - but > anyone can legally duplicate it at any time and it is safe for them to do > so. However - if a trade secret is misappropriated through improper means > (like someone under NDA blabbing about it), the secret holder becomes > legally entitled to certain forms of relief, such as a court imposing > injunctions against use of the secret by the parties it was divulged to, > financial damages, and more. In certain jurisdictions, like the US, > revealing the secret is a crime in and of itself - in the US, it is a > federal crime. > > Most things I have been under NDA for have been so obvious that I don't > know why they bothered, other than to keep corporate lawyers happy. > Particularly for software, where it seems that similar ideas percolate to > the surface independently and nearly simultaneously, keeping one's mouth > shut is the surest way to keep options open for others. That consideration > is of course in addition to the plain and simple ethics of sticking to both > the letter and the spirit of any contract you have signed. If you can't or > won't keep your promises, don't make them. > > --Robert > > On Jun 15, 2013, at 6:24, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> > wrote: > > With NDAs there is no such thing as "fair use." What you're told at WWDC > is usually considered trade secret information, particularly when they are > giving you inside information about how something is implemented. > > I am not a lawyer, so I am relying on my experience with such matters to > discuss this. NDAs typically are built on what is considered to be > proprietary or trade secret information. They typically don't cover what > is considered to be "common knowledge" that is anything you created > yourself without referring to the information covered in the NDA, anything > someone else created without improper access to the trade secret > information or anything that you can prove was commonly known to the > general public. > > That's why I was warning you. Typically it's dangerous to assume what is > and is not covered without consulting someone > > > GC > > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Maxthon Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can fair use, can't I? Their NDA is built on top of copyright. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2013年6月15日, at 18:08, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Maxthon, >> >> Just a friendly reminder. :) >> >> Please be very careful about what you disclose here, if you are under >> NDA. I don't want a posting here to become any grounds for Apple to cause >> any issues for GNUstep. >> >> Gregory >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Maxthon Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I am watching a video session from WWDC 2013 and Apple revealed their >>> way of implementing tagged pointers: use the sole LSB, 1 for tagged pointer >>> and 0 for normal ones. This is applied across all platforms, i386, amd64, >>> armv7 and armv7s (compatible to armv7a in Coretx-A15 and partly compatible >>> with AArch64 in 32-bit mode) >>> >>> Okay technically I am still under NDA so this is pretty much what I can >>> say. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnustep-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gregory Casamento >> Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant >> yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa >> (240)274-9630 (Cell) >> http://www.gnustep.org >> http://heronsperch.blogspot.com >> >> > > > -- > Gregory Casamento > Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant > yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa > (240)274-9630 (Cell) > http://www.gnustep.org > http://heronsperch.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > Gnustep-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnustep-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev > > -- Ivan Vučica - [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
