[ddutt@xxxxxxxxx]

Hi Mark,

I'd like to respond in a different order than your email :)

Mark H. Wood writes:
 > 
 > I don't see how the GPL could "nullify a patent".  A patent merely says
 > that a method or abstract mechanism is the property of the holder and he
 > can control the use of that idea by others.  Allowing others to use the
As I indicated in my earlier response to Ronnie, GPL does have ambiguous text
that makes lawyers nervous. I've fought that battle and know. The problem is
made more troublesome due to the length of time it is taking to obtain
patents. If a company A has filed a patent for a protocol and would like to
release the decoder while waiting for the patent, it enters into an even more
messy legal swamp.

 > I suspect that there is some confusion of ideas here.
 > 
 > (Preface:  this is not legal advice.  If you want legal advice, hire a
 > lawyer.)
This is the primary reason why I think that in the end, rather than debate
legal battles, if we can agree that modifying the license for the plugins is
OK, we can all get back to doing actual work. 

Dinesh
-- 
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
                                           - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe