Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Daniel Ravicher found 283 software patents that, if upheld as valid by the courts, could potentially be used to support patent claims upon the Linux Kernel. I wonder how many more for Free Software in general! I used to estimate around 100,000 patents for a 2000-era GNU/Linux distro, based solely on the size of code base. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 7:25 AM > From: "Jean Louis" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: neiljer...@gmail.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, "Richard Stallman" > , tecos...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP > server > > I can understand that GNU and Org shall ignore patents and continue without > putting attention. Lawyers worth their salt will also tell you to ignore them. > Jean > >
Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
I can understand that GNU and Org shall ignore patents and continue without putting attention. Jean
Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
Daniel Ravicher found 283 software patents that, if upheld as valid by the courts, could potentially be used to support patent claims upon the Linux Kernel. I wonder how many more for Free Software in general! - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 6:50 AM > From: "Jean Louis" > To: "Richard Stallman" > Cc: neiljer...@gmail.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, tecos...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP > server > > * Richard Stallman [2020-12-15 08:48]: > > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > > > Do you have evidence it is not patented? > > > > That sort of question is not useful to ask. > > No one _ever_ has evidence that any given thing > > is not patented. > > I was expecting a reference where Microsoft explains it is free in one > way or the other, whereby I could not find it myself. > > Jean > >
Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
* Richard Stallman [2020-12-15 08:48]: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > Do you have evidence it is not patented? > > That sort of question is not useful to ask. > No one _ever_ has evidence that any given thing > is not patented. I was expecting a reference where Microsoft explains it is free in one way or the other, whereby I could not find it myself. Jean
Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Do you have evidence it is not patented? That sort of question is not useful to ask. No one _ever_ has evidence that any given thing is not patented. Unless we see a specific practical problem, the thing to do is just ignore the danger of patents. The danger does exist, but worrying about it in advance is futile and damaging. It is like worrying that a meteorite might fall and hit you. There is a small chance of that, but worrying about it is useless. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
* TEC [2020-12-14 21:48]: > > Hi Jean, > > Please read my previous emails before re-iterating the same points. > > LSP is not patented, it's just referenced in a patent about MS's fancy > remote development extension. Do you have evidence it is not patented? A patent need not be implemented fully. What LSP is is described in that patent I have referenced. I wish it is not patented. Can you provide reference that disputes the reference I gave you? Remember, I wish it would not be so. Jean
Re: LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
Hi Jean, Please read my previous emails before re-iterating the same points. LSP is not patented, it's just referenced in a patent about MS's fancy remote development extension. Jean Louis writes: > Enrich it with unencumbered patent-free solutions. That's what I'm doing :) -- Timothy.
LSP is Microsoft's patented protocol - Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server
* TEC [2020-12-14 20:24]: > > Jean Louis writes: > > > [LSP is a evil plot from microsoft] > > Hi Jean, > > I can see that you're overly concerned about Microsoft being able to > somehow exert control over this. It may assuage your concerns to see an > example "technology stack" that Org-LSP could fit into. Not interested in patented processes. Before any Emacs or GNU software such as Org within Emacs or Emacs or other software start interacting by using patented protocols one shall consult attorneys of GNU. Once attorney confirm that it is alright then go ahead. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-patents.html and https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.html > Microsoft has provided a /standard/ that a huge number of editors/IDEs > have adopted with /independent implementations/. At this point there is > /nothing/ M$ could do to interfere with how the above works. In Emacs world we have Emacs standard. There is no need to rely on Micro$oft's patented LSP language server protocols. There is so much more than you think that M$ can interfer with how the above works. > You seem to be focusing on the term "server" in the name. This seems to > be a red herring in this case. In LSP the server is analogous to "emacs > --daemon" and the client to "emacsclient". Yes? Don't insist on something that is not, I fully understand what it is. I am talking of bigger picture and giving you references that may or may not expand your awareness. > I appreciate your concerns Jean, and am aware of Microsoft's history, > however I do not believe there is any factual basis for your conclusions > in this instance. See the patent https://uspto.report/patent/app/20190149346 > There is no need to loose sleep over an LSP Server for Org existing :) > On the contrary, I think it has the potential to ultimately enrich the > Org community (see previous discussions). Enrich it with unencumbered patent-free solutions. Adopting patented technologies in GNU projects shall be verified by GNU attorneys. Jean