Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak)

clark@quarry.zk3.dec.com (Chris Clark USG)
8 May 1997 21:20:26 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Lots of things are happening with ACM TOPLAS toplas@cs.umd.edu (1997-03-31)
gawk memory leak [was Re: Lots of things are happening with ACM TOPLAS arnold@mathcs.emory.edu (1997-04-02)
Re: gawk memory leak albaugh@agames.com (1997-04-03)
Re: gawk memory leak bobduff@world.std.com (1997-04-06)
Re: gawk memory leak pfoxSPAMOFF@lehman.com (Paul David Fox) (1997-04-13)
Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) elan@jeeves.net (Elan Feingold) (1997-05-04)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) krish@cs.purdue.edu (Sailesh Krishnamurthy) (1997-05-08)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) clark@quarry.zk3.dec.com (1997-05-08)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) dds@flavors.com (Duncan Smith) (1997-05-09)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) pfox@lehman.com (Paul David Fox) (1997-05-13)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) boehm@mti.mti.sgi.com (Hans-Juergen Boehm) (1997-05-17)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: clark@quarry.zk3.dec.com (Chris Clark USG)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 May 1997 21:20:26 -0400
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
References: 97-03-165 97-04-020 97-04-022 97-04-037 97-04-070 97-05-019
Keywords: legal

> This surprises me, as Digital has a toolkit out there called ATOM
> (the OM standing for "Object Modification") and it ships a client,
> who's name escapes me at the moment, that has similar features as
> Purify. Anyone know the scoop on this?


The name of the client is Third Degree. Since patents and licensing
are legal issues, I would be real surprised if anyone "in the know"
commented on them in a public forum like this. It's just one of the
facets of an adversarial justice system and takes us on a path far
from comp.compilers. I look at the third degree code every day, as
part of one of my contracts, but I am not paid to make comments on
(either for or against) whether it violates any patents, and in fact,
I would be surprised if there weren't a contract clause keeping me
from volunteering such comments.


More importantly, I think there are a lot of "interesting" things in
third degree (some potentially relevant to comp.compilers) and most of
them are only tangentially (at best) related to the details of object
modification.


-Chris Clark
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.