[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
|
i totally understand the due-diligence part of signing up for submitting
code to eclipse.org .
i want to help avoid anyone putting forth effort on something that seems
quite common but which, in the end, will be unusable because because
due-diligence turns up what may be a dubious but still legal patent, and
eclipse.org doesn't plan on fighting any such battles.
organization members may then find themselves having to "roll-their-own"
and fight their own legal battles regarding such patents ... and this is
a completely defensible situation on the part of eclipse.org .
it's just that creating commercial products using eclipse as foundation
in which customers require certain features that eclipse.org might not
fight for will mean a slightly different level of planning. it probably
also means some amount of duplication of effort by multiple eclipse.org
member companies for certain somewhat obvious situations ... and in such
situations, they resources might be best spent on a "legal fund" to
battle such patents vs each company doing this on their own.
the calculus max-min point is certainly where the cost of the legal
battle outweighs the cost of the duplication of effort.
input from eclipse.org members familiar with the organization's
philosophy in this regard is absolutely welcome, including URLs to any
discussions on this topic. i would have to guess they've already had
some lengthy discussions about it ...
++ kirk
Recoskie, Chris wrote:
Part of the IP due diligence process that you agree to use when
submitting code to Eclipse.org is that you do not reasonably believe
that the software is affected by any patents, and that if you/your
company do hold such patents, that you grant Eclipse.org and its users a
royalty free license to the patent(s).
Chances are that if you find out that code you submit is covered by
someone else's patent, then the "offending" code would have to be pulled
and done differently.
I don't think that the Foundation wants to get into the business of
patent litigation. They are not the EFF. If it is something relatively
unimportant then I would assume that it would not be in their interest
to pursue a case. What if it were something more fundamental? Perhaps,
you never know. I don't think they'd sit idly and let someone cripple
the IDE market with a bogus patent. Maybe Bjorn and/or Mike can comment
further. I can't speak for the Foundation.
And for reference, I make no personal claims as to the validity or the
enforceability of the patent in question :-P Like I said, I'm just
letting you know it's there.
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
Texas Instruments, Toronto
http://eclipse.org/cdt
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kirk Beitz
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:46 PM
To: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
still ... there was other prior art (i can think of one IDE i was
associated with that had a "mixed" mode that sounds identical to the
TI
offering, right down to the language of the 2002 patent ... an IDE
which
had this integrated facility as far back as 1998) ...
i'll grant that it's not all that surprising that the u.s. patent
office
saw fit to grant a software patent for something like this despite the
probable prior art.
i guess the reason i'm following on to this thread is that i wonder
what
the eclipse organization's stance would be on this or any other patent
for which it believed prior art existed. let's say a patent popped up
for breakpoint buttons beside source-lines. does the eclipse
organization have enough of a vested interest to go to bat on keeping
such a thing? enough clout? where is the line drawn?
i'm not at all trying to pick a fight here with chris or TI, but this
mixed assembly view does provide a good example. let's say eclipse
users overwhelmingly want a mixed-mode in an editor window, and we
know
it's not rocket-science to implement this. let's say only for the
sake
of argument for the moment that TI is not so willing to just grant
usage
rights to this particular patent to eclipse.org. will the eclipse org
cave to the precedent of the TI patent? if so, i guess chris's
original
point has a lot of bearing on the direction eclipse contributors are
going to pursue with simultaneous source/assembly debugging.
++ kirk
Recoskie, Chris wrote:
Yeah the reasons for putting it in the same editor window were
somewhat
ephemeral IMO. In CCS, once you switch into what we call "Mixed
Mode"
you are disallowed from editing the code so you pretty much lose
most of
the benefit of it being in the editor.
There are a few nice things though. It syncs your cursor position
when
you switch back and forth between modes so it's easy to look up the
instructions for a given line of C code and then go back to editing
the
C source. Since it's linked to an editor it also picks up the
syntax
highlighting from the editor for the C source statements.
The disassembly is refreshed based on changes to target memory but
no
round-trip hot swapping of code unfortunately. That *would* be cool
:-)
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
Texas Instruments, Toronto
http://eclipse.org/cdt
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:18 PM
To: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
Well, the Using Visual C++ 5 book that I have in front of me right
now,
copyright 1997, shows their Disassembly View which interleaves
source
and
disassembly.
Mind you it's a view and not an editor. But then, why would you
edit
in
this
window? Does the assembly get updated based on the source changes
you
make?
Can you edit the assembly and have the source updated? (That'd be
cool,
BTW
:).
What was the original use case again?
Cheers,
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC member
http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Recoskie,
Chris
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:30 PM
To: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
I'm guessing the person I was talking to was referring to US patent
#
6,493,868. Like I said I'm not a patent lawyer so I'm not going to
comment as to whether or not it is truly applicable or not. It
seems
very broad and I'm not sure of the rules as to how it does or does
not
apply to specific features in IDEs.
Anyway take a look and due your due diligence. It may be a non
issue.
=====================
United States Patent 6,493,868
DaSilva , et al. December 10, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Integrated development tool
Abstract
An integrated code development tool, comprising of an editor, a
project
management and build system, a debugger, a profiler, and a
graphical
data visualization system. The editor is operable to provide a
source
code view which is simultaneously capable of integrating with said
debugger to provide for stepping through code and setting
breakpoints,
and integrating with the output of said build system to display
source
code interleaved with corresponding assembler code created by said
build
system.
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
Texas Instruments, Toronto
http://eclipse.org/cdt
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:51 AM
To: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
If this is true, it's extremely surprising. Interleaved
source/disassemble is a staple in many debuggers. How a company
would
go about successfully patenting the implementation of such a
feature
in an open source product is puzzling, to say the least.
Copyrighting
an implementation is one thing; patenting the idea is another
story.
John
At 10:28 AM 5/10/2006, Recoskie, Chris wrote:
A caveat:
I have heard that TI holds a patent on showing interleaved
source/disassembly in the editor window (but not in other
windows,
so
the current Disassembly View does not infringe this patent as I
understand it). I don't think it would be any sort of problem to
get
this patent licensed royalty-free to Eclipse for such a feature,
but
it
is an IP issue that will have to go through due diligence for
sure.
Disclaimer: I am not a patent lawyer and I have no authority to
license
the aforementioned patent, if it exists, on behalf of TI.
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
Texas Instruments, Toronto
http://eclipse.org/cdt
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Device Debugging developer discussions;
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
Ewa,
What are the BV bug numbers? They're not Bugzilla reports from
what I
can
tell.
I entered a bugzilla report for "Jump to Line" a while back
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=118147
We are also very interested in mixed disassembler/source mode
debugging. It seems this would be best implemented if indeed all
three modes are provided in the editor. Your suggested approach
seems
feasible to me; the debugger could generate files on the fly.
The
trick would be to make that approach look natural to the user,
so
he's not aware that he's looking at a temporary file.
John
At 08:46 PM 5/9/2006, Ewa Matejska wrote:
Hi,
I'm soliciting ideas for enhancements to the Editor to improve
the
embedded development experience.
Possible ideas are:
1. Add the "Jump to Line" option the editor margin menu.
BV118147.
2. Merge the Disassembly view into the Editor. This could be
achieved in having a special read-only debug file for each
debug
session whose state would toggle between source, disassembly
and
mixed in some way. Related bug is BV39644.
These ideas will be captured at:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/DSDP/DD/Editor
Chris Recoskie, as the lead of the Disassembly View, what do
you
think of idea#2?
Thank You,
Ewa.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
--
- Kirk Beitz - vox:(858)272-8858 - fax:(858)273-8858 -
cell:(619)888-9408
-
- mailto:kirk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - CodeWarrior -
http://www.codewarrior.com
-
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
--
- Kirk Beitz - vox:(858)272-8858 - fax:(858)273-8858 - cell:(619)888-9408 -
- mailto:kirk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - CodeWarrior - http://www.codewarrior.com -
