[OT] Microsoft filled patent applications for scoped and immutable types

How would this even work?

Cliff via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 20:13:36 UTC

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:47:25 UTC, Casper FÃŠrgemand

Post by via Digitalmars-d
How would this even work?

It looks like this applies only to the inference of immutability
based on the structure of the type and its methods, as opposed to
a declaration of immutability.

Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 20:27:54 UTC

Post by Cliff via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:47:25 UTC, Casper FÃŠrgemand

Post by via Digitalmars-d
How would this even work?

It looks like this applies only to the inference of immutability
based on the structure of the type and its methods, as opposed to
a declaration of immutability.

It does not look like that to me.

Cliff via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 20:55:25 UTC

Post by Cliff via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:47:25 UTC, Casper FÃŠrgemand

Post by via Digitalmars-d
How would this even work?

It looks like this applies only to the inference of
immutability
based on the structure of the type and its methods, as opposed to
a declaration of immutability.

It does not look like that to me.

Hmm, I went and re-read more closely, and it appears the Summary
differs from the claims in that very important detail... that
sucks.

Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:32:09 UTC

Post by Cliff via Digitalmars-d

Post by Cliff via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:47:25 UTC, Casper FÃŠrgemand

Post by via Digitalmars-d
How would this even work?

It looks like this applies only to the inference of
immutability
based on the structure of the type and its methods, as
opposed to
a declaration of immutability.

It does not look like that to me.

Hmm, I went and re-read more closely, and it appears the Summary
differs from the claims in that very important detail... that
sucks.

In patents only the claims matter. What is written in the summary
is not enforceable.

Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:35:26 UTC

http://joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 20:34:50 UTC

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html -
DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

That's why I absolutely love MS!

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:28:48 UTC

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

That's why I absolutely love MS!

It's FAR more than just MS. For example, Apple's just as bad. Just look
at Steve Job's undying vendetta against Google (by way of Samsung as a
proxy target).

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 09:08:23 UTC

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html -
DECLARATION OF
LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html -
IMMUTABLE OBJECT
TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

That's why I absolutely love MS!

It's FAR more than just MS. For example, Apple's just as bad.
Just look at Steve Job's undying vendetta against Google (by
way of Samsung as a proxy target).

Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're
trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put
someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open
source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws in
the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't just
be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying to get
at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.

via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 09:20:47 UTC

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:29:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html -
DECLARATION OF
LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html -
IMMUTABLE OBJECT
TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

That's why I absolutely love MS!

It's FAR more than just MS. For example, Apple's just as bad.
Just look at Steve Job's undying vendetta against Google (by
way of Samsung as a proxy target).

Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're
trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put
someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open
source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws
in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't
just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying
to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.

Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.

monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 09:28:15 UTC

Post by Chris via Digitalmars-d
Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're
trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put
someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open
source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws
in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably
can't just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're
trying to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter
strike.

Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.

Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the way
it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's not
some conspiracy or corporate war.

That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure we
don't become the losers here. It would help to have input from
Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he also
happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.

via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 09:36:29 UTC

Post by monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d

Post by Chris via Digitalmars-d
Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're
trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to
put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the
open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the
laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It
probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big
company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're
preparing a counter strike.

Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.

Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the way
it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's not
some conspiracy or corporate war.
That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure we
don't become the losers here. It would help to have input from
Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he also
happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.

Their brand new type qualifier is the same as D's one. They even
copied the name "immutable". Maybe it's part of a strategy, maybe
not. In any case it's a "thief", I don't like this word because
you can't steal an idea, but they took ownership of it.

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 10:00:47 UTC

Post by monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:28:17 UTC, monarch_dodra

Post by Chris via Digitalmars-d
Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're
trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to
put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the
open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know
the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It
probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big
company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're
preparing a counter strike.

Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.

Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the
way it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's
not some conspiracy or corporate war.
That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure
we don't become the losers here. It would help to have input
from Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he
also happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.

Their brand new type qualifier is the same as D's one. They
even copied the name "immutable". Maybe it's part of a
strategy, maybe not. In any case it's a "thief", I don't like
this word because you can't steal an idea, but they took
ownership of it.

From a linguistic point of view it is only logical one should
come up with the word "immutable" in this context. If something
(data, objects) are not "mutable" they are "immutable" (this may
sound trivial but it is not). I suppose they filed the patent,
because concurrency, thread safety and multi core programming
have become so important over the last couple of years, and
because it has become clear that some sort of "immutable" type is
needed. Thus, they seek to get ownership of the word/idea/concept
(which is ridiculous of course) to (pre-emptively) knock out
others (or get money for it by licensing it to others, including
those they stole it from). A shame, really.

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 09:37:16 UTC

Post by monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d

Post by Chris via Digitalmars-d
Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're
trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to
put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the
open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the
laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It
probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big
company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're
preparing a counter strike.

Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.

Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the way
it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's not
some conspiracy or corporate war.

I don't share your optimism.

Post by monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d
That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure we
don't become the losers here. It would help to have input from
Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he also
happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.

Lee via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 08:04:57 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
It's FAR more than just MS. For example, Apple's just as bad.
Just look at Steve Job's undying vendetta against Google (by
way of Samsung as a proxy target).

The inter-company vendetta isn't THAT big a deal, if they can
still come together to fix wages against their own employees :/

MacAsm via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:02:43 UTC

Is this about C#'s usingw?

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

How bad will this be to D?

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:24:50 UTC

Post by MacAsm via Digitalmars-d

Is this about C#'s usingw?

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

How bad will this be to D?

D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?

T

--
ÐÑÐŸ Ð²ÐµÐ·ÐŽÐµ - ÑÐŸÑ ÐœÐžÐ³ÐŽÐµ.

Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:30:39 UTC

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior
art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.

http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:35:39 UTC

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.
http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

There has been some changes in the US since that article was written:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

Ali

Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 23:42:58 UTC

Post by Ali Ãehreli via Digitalmars-d
There has been some changes in the US since that article was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent
Ali

True but First-to-file didn't take away Prior Art. In fact, the
America Invents Act actually broadened what qualifies as Prior
Art so it's even easier* to submit prior art now.

* And by "easier" I mean "still extremely hard but not as hard as
it used to be".

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:38:37 UTC

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.
http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

Should the D community file for prior art in the immutable case? It
might become very important for D's future.

T

--
If the comments and the code disagree, it's likely that *both* are wrong. -- Christopher

via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 07:11:31 UTC

Post by Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior
art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.
http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

I don't like that. Even if we want to break this patent with
prior art, we need to publish one for ourselves. This system
sucks, we can't choose not to be part of it if we want to be
protected. And do we have the money to publish patents anyway?

I feel pretty bad about this. What are the thoughts of Andrei and
Walter on this stuff?

Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 07:25:10 UTC

Post by Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.
http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

I don't like that. Even if we want to break this patent with prior art,
we need to publish one for ourselves. This system sucks, we can't choose
not to be part of it if we want to be protected. And do we have the
money to publish patents anyway?
I feel pretty bad about this. What are the thoughts of Andrei and Walter
on this stuff?

In the US, filing a patent app requires about $10k and a good lawyer.
It's not in the realm of most small entities to do. It's a seriously
bad use of $10k. The best defense is prior art, and there's a ton of
it. I say this having my name on a handful of applications and one
granted patent.

Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 11:10:07 UTC

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:40 UTC, Brad Roberts via

Post by Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d
In the US, filing a patent app requires about $10k and a good
lawyer. It's not in the realm of most small entities to do.
It's a seriously bad use of $10k. The best defense is prior
art, and there's a ton of it. I say this having my name on a
handful of applications and one granted patent.

Once the patent is granted, it would take a LOT of money to prove
that it's invalid: usually you do that when you are forced by the
fact that the patent holder has brought you in front of a judge.

A much better strategy is to file the patent office the prior art
_during_ the examination: or the patent is not granted, or it's
stated _on paper_ that the patent does not comprehend what you
have indicated as prior art, that usually it's related to your
business (and it's a no-costs action).

Well, if ignored, you can bring that action in front of the judge
at least!

So, Walter, go ahead with filing documentation to the USPO.

---
Paolo

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 19:35:35 UTC

Post by Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.
http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

Well, I attempted to make a filing of prior art. The application form requires
an "application number" and a "patent number". I can't find the patent number,
and the form rejects my filing.

https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?ActionString=go.Begin

Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 19:50:12 UTC

Post by Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior
art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.
http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

Well, I attempted to make a filing of prior art. The
application form requires an "application number" and a "patent
number". I can't find the patent number, and the form rejects
my filing.
https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?ActionString=go.Begin

There is a number in the patents' page at
http://www.freepatentsonline.com labeld under "Document Type and
Number":

Title: DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
Document Type and Number: United States Patent Application
20140196015

Title: IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
Document Type and Number: United States Patent Application
20140196008

Aren't these the patent numbers?

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 20:36:06 UTC

Post by Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d
Aren't these the patent numbers?

Nope. Too many digits. Tried them, the form rejected them.

jollie via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 02:47:49 UTC

Post by Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d
Aren't these the patent numbers?

Nope. Too many digits. Tried them, the form rejected them.

Application number : 13/734750
Patent number: 0196008

--

jollie via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 03:25:44 UTC

Post by Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d
Aren't these the patent numbers?

Nope. Too many digits. Tried them, the form rejected them.

Spoke too soon. A patent number has not been issued as far as I
can tell.
This is listed in the application database. From the USPTO FAQ:

Does your database include data on pending patent applications?

The database only includes data on Published Applications in
accordance with
the 18 month pre-grant publication rules. Pending patent
applications where the
applicant has elected to not publish prior to grant remain
confidential.

--

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 04:27:19 UTC

Post by jollie via Digitalmars-d

Post by Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d
Aren't these the patent numbers?

Nope. Too many digits. Tried them, the form rejected them.

Spoke too soon. A patent number has not been issued as far as I
can tell.
Does your database include data on pending patent applications?
The database only includes data on Published Applications in
accordance with
the 18 month pre-grant publication rules. Pending patent
applications where the
applicant has elected to not publish prior to grant remain
confidential.

Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without a patent
number.

Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 05:04:55 UTC

Post by Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d
Aren't these the patent numbers?

Nope. Too many digits. Tried them, the form rejected them.

Spoke too soon. A patent number has not been issued as far as I can
tell.
Does your database include data on pending patent applications?
The database only includes data on Published Applications in
accordance with the 18 month pre-grant publication rules. Pending
patent applications where the applicant has elected to not publish
prior to grant remain confidential.

Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without
a patent number.
Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

;-)

(P.S. Yes, I know the quote has probably been misattributed to Napoleon,
but I forgot who the real author is/was since I failed to update my sigs
file last time.)

T

--
One reason that few people are aware there are programs running the internet is that they never crash in any significant way: the free software underlying the internet is reliable to the point of invisibility. -- Glyn Moody, from the article "Giving it all away"

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 10:00:48 UTC

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

Post by Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without
a patent number.
Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
;-)
(P.S. Yes, I know the quote has probably been misattributed to Napoleon,
but I forgot who the real author is/was since I failed to update my sigs
file last time.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

One of my personal favorite quotes.

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 10:06:58 UTC

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via

Post by Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without
a patent number.
Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
;-)
(P.S. Yes, I know the quote has probably been misattributed to Napoleon,
but I forgot who the real author is/was since I failed to
update my sigs
file last time.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
One of my personal favorite quotes.

If something is incredibly stupid, it's often by design. (It's
usually 50+ year later that people find out)

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 10:31:14 UTC

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 10:01:17 UTC, Nick Sabalausky

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via

Post by Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior
art without
a patent number.
Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
;-)
(P.S. Yes, I know the quote has probably been misattributed
to Napoleon,
but I forgot who the real author is/was since I failed to
update my sigs
file last time.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
One of my personal favorite quotes.

If something is incredibly stupid, it's often by design. (It's
usually 50+ year later that people find out)

"This reliability, combined with zero cost, poses a serious
challenge to commercial outfits trying to sell their often
bug-ridden programs. No one is more affected by this dichotomy
than Microsoft, the most successful company ever built on the
traditional software model." -- Glyn Moody

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/jan/25/hacking.security

Coincidence me a*se!

Kagamin via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-30 14:04:37 UTC

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:53 UTC, H. S. Teoh via

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

True in casual setting, but false in professional field.
Incompetence is equivalent to malice there.

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 05:08:42 UTC

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:53 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

True in casual setting, but false in professional field. Incompetence is
equivalent to malice there.

I admit: I would never claim that malice isn't common. It certainly is,
*especially* where suit-type professions occur (mba's, sales, etc).

It's just that I'm also convinced that stupidity, OTOH, is freaking
*pandemic*.

Plus, if you ask me, a certain amount of stupidity is a necessary
component of malice. If someone's being malicious about something, it's
difficult to imagine there isn't *some* form of stupidity swimming
around in their line of reasoning (if there even is a line of reasoning
at all. And if not...well, lack of reasoning *is* a classic form of
stupidity).

"Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 20:02:42 UTC

Post by Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?
T

They do.
http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

Well, I attempted to make a filing of prior art. The application form requires
an "application number" and a "patent number". I can't find the patent number,
and the form rejects my filing.
https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?ActionString=go.Begin

The patent number is the one in the "Document type and number"
field, where it says "United States Patent Application XXXXXXXXXXXX"
(even though it says "application" in the text) and the application
number is the one in the "Application number" field.

So for patent number 20140196015, the application number is
13/734762 and for patent number 20140196008, the application number
is 13/734750.

Jerome

"Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 20:08:44 UTC

Note however that as I understand it D does not have "immutable
types" as claimed by patent 20140196008. The difference is that
according to the patent the immutable attribute is given to the type
and applies to all instances of this type, whereas in D the
immutable attribute applies to an instance (I may be wrong about
that one, since I haven't done anything in D for years even if I try
to keep up with the forums).

However, scala case classes should constitute prior art for this
patent.

Jerome

Dicebot via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 20:17:23 UTC

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:08:45 UTC, JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
Note however that as I understand it D does not have "immutable
types" as claimed by patent 20140196008. The difference is that
according to the patent the immutable attribute is given to the type
and applies to all instances of this type, whereas in D the
immutable attribute applies to an instance (I may be wrong about
that one, since I haven't done anything in D for years even if
I try
to keep up with the forums).
However, scala case classes should constitute prior art for
this
patent.
Jerome

In D it applies to type. When you "apply immutable to the
instance" you in fact create new type on the fly by adding
immutable qualifier to the existing one. But it can also be
aliased to always be immutable.

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 20:37:36 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
Note however that as I understand it D does not have "immutable
types" as claimed by patent 20140196008. The difference is that
according to the patent the immutable attribute is given to the type
and applies to all instances of this type, whereas in D the
immutable attribute applies to an instance (I may be wrong about
that one, since I haven't done anything in D for years even if I try
to keep up with the forums).
However, scala case classes should constitute prior art for this
patent.
Jerome

In D it applies to type. When you "apply immutable to the instance" you in fact
create new type on the fly by adding immutable qualifier to the existing one.
But it can also be aliased to always be immutable.

Right. immutable(T) declares a transitive immutable type.

"Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 09:53:35 UTC

Post by Dicebot via Digitalmars-d
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:08:45 UTC, JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
Note however that as I understand it D does not have "immutable
types" as claimed by patent 20140196008. The difference is that
according to the patent the immutable attribute is given to the type
and applies to all instances of this type, whereas in D the
immutable attribute applies to an instance (I may be wrong about
that one, since I haven't done anything in D for years even if I try
to keep up with the forums).
However, scala case classes should constitute prior art for
this
patent.
Jerome

I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
will be enough to say that the patent is new.

Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
mutable type.

Of course in addition to being new a patent must also be inventive
(i.e. "not obvious"), which is a lot more difficult to prove or
disprove (especially since it will be judged by lawyers who don't
know anything about the technical side of things). Usually something
is considered "obvious" if it results from the combination of not
more than two prior art documents and if there is some incentive to
combine the two.

Jerome

PS: The above does not mean that I think the patent is valid (as a
matter of fact I don't). It only means that the "immutable" keyword
in D is not enough to invalidate it IMO.

PPS: IANAL but I have had lots of contacts with patent lawyers and I
have taken part in several patent disputes as an expert witness.
However, this was in France so most of my knowledge applies to
French law and things may be different in the US.

Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 10:08:29 UTC

JÃ©rÃŽme,

On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:53 +0200, "JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[âŠ]

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
PPS: IANAL but I have had lots of contacts with patent lawyers and I
have taken part in several patent disputes as an expert witness.
However, this was in France so most of my knowledge applies to
French law and things may be different in the US.

Are you tracking the new EU unitary patent and TTIP activity? We need to
make sure the US does impose on the EU the same insane patent framework
the US has.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140828/1b9f276e/attachment.sig>

Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 10:12:14 UTC

V Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:53:35 +0200
"JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an
instance (i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in
the patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer,
this will be enough to say that the patent is new.

I don't agree completly

// immutable is used when declaring the type IS
immutable struct IS {
string s;
}

IS s = IS("fff");
s.s = "d";
writeln(s);

Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 13:42:01 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
...
I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
will be enough to say that the patent is new.
...

This works as expected:

immutable class C{
// ...
}

"Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-30 09:00:24 UTC

immutable class C{
// ...
}

Then we should be ok, assuming we can prove it already worked a
year and a half ago.

Jerome

monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-30 10:17:54 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d

On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 09:00:24 UTC, JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
...
I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an
instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent
lawyer, this
will be enough to say that the patent is new.
...

immutable class C{
// ...
}

Then we should be ok, assuming we can prove it already worked a
year and a half ago.
Jerome

Who said anything about it having to work?

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 17:34:16 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
will be enough to say that the patent is new.

Um,

alias immutable(char)[] string;

is declaring a type. It is not used in this case as a storage class, and there
is no instance being declared. String is indeed a type.

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
mutable type.

This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. And how does the patent say an
immutable T is to be created without saying T anywhere?

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
PS: The above does not mean that I think the patent is valid (as a
matter of fact I don't). It only means that the "immutable" keyword
in D is not enough to invalidate it IMO.

It's more than immutable, you're right. D also has transitive immunity, which is
a feature of the patent, and also relaxed immutability during construction,
which is also a point in the patent.

In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how immutability works in D.

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 17:40:22 UTC

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:34:16AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]

Post by Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
It's more than immutable, you're right. D also has transitive
immunity, which is a feature of the patent, and also relaxed
immutability during construction, which is also a point in the patent.
In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how immutability works in D.

Which is why it's extremely important that we fight against this patent,
since it may jeopardize the future of D.

T

--
If blunt statements had a point, they wouldn't be blunt...

Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 18:12:45 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
mutable type.

This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. And how does the patent say
an immutable T is to be created without saying T anywhere?

I haven't actually read the claims, but there is an obvious way how to
not create the mutable type as well:

immutable class C{
D field; // error: D is not an immutable class
// ...
}

class D{
// ...
}

immutable class E{
F field; // ok.
}

immutable class F{
// ...
}

I.e. you can make immutability a property of the type instead of a type
constructor. This does not share the head-immutability issue D has with
its classes.

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 09:32:36 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an
instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent
lawyer, this
will be enough to say that the patent is new.

Um,
alias immutable(char)[] string;
is declaring a type. It is not used in this case as a storage
class, and there is no instance being declared. String is
indeed a type.

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not
allow
creating an immutable type without also creating the
corresponding
mutable type.

This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. And how does the
patent say an immutable T is to be created without saying T
anywhere?

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
PS: The above does not mean that I think the patent is valid
(as a
matter of fact I don't). It only means that the "immutable"
keyword
in D is not enough to invalidate it IMO.

It's more than immutable, you're right. D also has transitive
immunity, which is a feature of the patent, and also relaxed
immutability during construction, which is also a point in the
patent.
In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how
immutability works in D.

This is why I don't believe in "coincidence". This could be
either an attempt to crush D or some people might have realized
that D's way of handling immutability is the way to go and they
want to own it (or both). Where I'm from this is called
"rip-off", "theft" or just "being a c**t".

H.S. Teoh:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence."

I never liked this quote. What appears to be outright
incompetence can more often than not be attributed to malice.

But I agree, we should take this issue seriously. Even if the
patent seems ridiculous, chances are that it will get through
(exactly because it is so ridiculous). We should start to raise
funds :-)

Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 12:27:49 UTC

On 29 August 2014 10:32, Chris via Digitalmars-d

Post by Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how immutability works in D.

This is just FUD.

Software patents in practice are now not only of generally poor
quality, they are totally opposed to their original reason for
existence.

From my observation (newspapers, mostly), having a software patent is

utterly useless, and not being tied to any particular network or
device just doesn't hold water nowadays in court (in varying degrees
across countries).

Iain

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 12:49:16 UTC

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 12:27:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw via

Post by Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d
On 29 August 2014 10:32, Chris via Digitalmars-d

Post by Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how
immutability works in
D.

This is just FUD.

Nevertheless, it should be taken seriously. Dismissing it as
irrelevant could be a terrible mistake. Better safe than sorry.

Big companies go to the rain forests in Latin America to get a
patent on herbs and plants used as medicine, only to sue the
medicine men who've been using the same herbs and plants for
thousands of years. Speaking of not wanting to live on this
planet anymore ...

Post by Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d
Software patents in practice are now not only of generally poor
quality, they are totally opposed to their original reason for
existence.

Post by Chris via Digitalmars-d
From my observation (newspapers, mostly), having a software
patent is

utterly useless, and not being tied to any particular network or
device just doesn't hold water nowadays in court (in varying
degrees
across countries).
Iain

I hope you're right.

"Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-30 08:58:05 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
will be enough to say that the patent is new.

Um,
alias immutable(char)[] string;
is declaring a type. It is not used in this case as a storage class, and there
is no instance being declared. String is indeed a type.

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
mutable type.

This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum.

Yes it is, but that's lawyers for you. I've had a lawyer arguing
that an article does not constitute prior art for a patent because
the article is about a submodule in a video *encoder* whereas the
patent is about a submodule in a video *decoder*, and that even
though most of the patent is a verbatim copy of the article text...

Post by Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
And how does the patent say an
immutable T is to be created without saying T anywhere?

That is the point, you don't create an "immutable T", you create an
"immutable class ..." without ever naming the class.

Jerome

Dicebot via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 02:15:32 UTC

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:57 UTC, Russel Winder via

Post by Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
JÃ©rÃŽme,
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:53 +0200, "JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger" via
Digitalmars-d
[âŠ]

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
PPS: IANAL but I have had lots of contacts with patent lawyers and I
have taken part in several patent disputes as an expert
witness.
However, this was in France so most of my knowledge applies to
French law and things may be different in the US.

Are you tracking the new EU unitary patent and TTIP activity?
We need to
make sure the US does impose on the EU the same insane patent
framework
the US has.

Any links to quickly get into the topic? This is first time I
hear about it.

Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 10:30:52 UTC

Post by Dicebot via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:57 UTC, Russel Winder via

Post by Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
JÃ©rÃŽme,
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:53 +0200, "JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
[âŠ]

Are you tracking the new EU unitary patent and TTIP activity? We need to
make sure the US does impose on the EU the same insane patent framework
the US has.

Any links to quickly get into the topic? This is first time I hear about
it.

What's really bad is that there is also CETA, which is an agreement
between the EU and Canada, and which is nothing than an inconspicuous
back door to achieve much of the same thing as TTIP. Unfortunately it
has gotten basically no media attention at all (at least in Germany,
TTIP has been mentioned several times at least), despite being ratified
soon, and despite its potentially far reaching consequences for the
western society in general.

You can get an overview on Wikipedia. Apart from the patent system and
several environmental "unifications", an especially concerning part is ISDS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#National_sovereignty_and_Investor_State_Dispute_Settlements_.28ISDS.29

Dicebot via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 11:44:23 UTC

Post by SÃ¶nke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d
What's really bad is that there is also CETA, which is an
agreement between the EU and Canada, and which is nothing than
an inconspicuous back door to achieve much of the same thing as
TTIP. Unfortunately it has gotten basically no media attention
at all (at least in Germany, TTIP has been mentioned several
times at least), despite being ratified soon, and despite its
potentially far reaching consequences for the western society
in general.
You can get an overview on Wikipedia. Apart from the patent
system and several environmental "unifications", an especially
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#National_sovereignty_and_Investor_State_Dispute_Settlements_.28ISDS.29

I don't want to live on this planet anymore >_<
..yet again.

Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-30 17:05:30 UTC

Post by Dicebot via Digitalmars-d

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 11:44 +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[âŠ]

Post by SÃ¶nke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#National_sovereignty_and_Investor_State_Dispute_Settlements_.28ISDS.29

I don't want to live on this planet anymore >_<
..yet again.

But we have to!

In a sense this is just the multinational corporations doing what they
should do create a market to maximize shareholder value. Sadly it is an
indirect return to a feudal system on a massive scale.

Today in the UK was a big day of 38 Degrees and The Green Party trying
to create public consciousness of the issues. The Conservative and
LibDems here are just up for signing TTIP because of the good bits (of
which there are some), The Greens are against because of all the bits
that are bad for UK voters and UK society (of which there are many,
many). Labour are saying they both support and don't support it.

The core problem here is that most politicians are directly or
indirectly reporting to these corporations as much as to the voters.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140830/2d2a76cf/attachment.sig>

Dragos Carp via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-29 12:33:10 UTC

Post by SÃ¶nke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d

Post by Dicebot via Digitalmars-d
Any links to quickly get into the topic? This is first time I
hear about
it.

What's really bad is that there is also CETA, which is an
agreement between the EU and Canada, and which is nothing than
an inconspicuous back door to achieve much of the same thing as
TTIP. Unfortunately it has gotten basically no media attention
at all (at least in Germany, TTIP has been mentioned several
times at least), despite being ratified soon, and despite its
potentially far reaching consequences for the western society
in general.
You can get an overview on Wikipedia. Apart from the patent
system and several environmental "unifications", an especially
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#National_sovereignty_and_Investor_State_Dispute_Settlements_.28ISDS.29

The SÃŒddeutsche Zeitung has an interesting series on the topic
(unfortunately German only):
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/thema/TTIP-Recherche

There is also http://stop-ttip.org .

Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 07:35:20 UTC

Am Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:08:29 +0100
schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d

Post by Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
JÃ©rÃŽme,
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:53 +0200, "JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
[âŠ]

Are you tracking the new EU unitary patent and TTIP activity? We need to
make sure the US does impose on the EU the same insane patent framework
the US has.

Haha :*). Don't worry, we EU citizens are more concerned about
the issues of privacy, food regulations and corporate entities
suing states for changing laws that cause them profit losses.
A rubber stamping patent system without professionals
investigating the claims has already been established years
ago.
All in all I am not too worried about TTIP anymore, seeing
that the US reps didn't move in all the years of negotiations.
With NGOs running against TTIP and an overall negative public
stance I don't see it being bent over the knee.

--
Marco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140831/03830825/attachment.sig>

Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 09:22:02 UTC

On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 09:35 +0200, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[âŠ]

Post by Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d
Haha :*). Don't worry, we EU citizens are more concerned about
the issues of privacy, food regulations and corporate entities
suing states for changing laws that cause them profit losses.

This is certainly the major issue against TTIP as far as the UK Greens
are concerned. Government passes law for voters good. Company doesn't
like it because it ruins their income stream, sues government for loss
of income. Due to TTIP, government loses. Tobacco companies are going to
love this.

Post by Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d
A rubber stamping patent system without professionals
investigating the claims has already been established years
ago.

The EU patent office yes, but not the UK one. The issue here is to stop
the EU patent office becoming the only one. There is a very serious
strategy issue here and it isn't a done deal thankfully.

Post by Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d
All in all I am not too worried about TTIP anymore, seeing
that the US reps didn't move in all the years of negotiations.
With NGOs running against TTIP and an overall negative public
stance I don't see it being bent over the knee.

TTIP and CETA are still very serious issues so people should continue to
worry. Even if there is negative public opinion, the politicians will
ram it through on the grounds they are the elected representatives, even
though in reality they are doing it because their corporate paymasters
of the future tell them to.

In the UK the government are using the Scottish independence referendum
as a smoke screen to avoid TTIP becoming news. This is a clear indicator
it is bad for voters.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140831/523f7309/attachment-0001.sig>

Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 08:47:01 UTC

Am Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:12:14 +0200
schrieb Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d

Post by Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d
V Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:53:35 +0200
"JÃ©rÃŽme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>

I don't agree completly
// immutable is used when declaring the type IS
immutable struct IS {
string s;
}
IS s = IS("fff");
s.s = "d";
writeln(s);

^ That I agree with! Prior art.

--
Marco

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 21:19:43 UTC

Post by "JÃ©rÃ´me M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
So for patent number 20140196015, the application number is
13/734762 and for patent number 20140196008, the application number
is 13/734750.
Jerome

"Required fields (Patent Number) cannot be empty or the data entered is
incorrectly formatted."

"The field contains over 9 characters which cannot be processed in the USPTO
system."

Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 14:04:14 UTC

"Required fields (Patent Number) cannot be empty or the data
entered is incorrectly formatted."
"The field contains over 9 characters which cannot be processed
in the USPTO system."

Sounds like someone should file a patent for a website with
broken input fields and then force them to change theirs.

Kajal Sinha via Digitalmars-d

2014-09-01 03:26:59 UTC

"Required fields (Patent Number) cannot be empty or the data
entered is incorrectly formatted."
"The field contains over 9 characters which cannot be processed
in the USPTO system."

Walter, will it really become a threat for D? I have lot of hopes
from D language.

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-09-01 05:01:38 UTC

Post by Kajal Sinha via Digitalmars-d
Walter, will it really become a threat for D?

I have no idea.

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 21:37:46 UTC

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

Post by MacAsm via Digitalmars-d

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

How bad will this be to D?

D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?

I doubt very much the USPTO gives a rat's ass about prior art. Their
strategy has been to sell patents to as many applicants as they can and
let the courts sort them all out. (The gov like to pretend that that
their court system, and therefore justice itself, doesn't cost $$$$$.)

As for the specific patents, meh, I've long been convinced that it's
physically impossible to write any useful software without inadvertently
"infringing" on several US patents. I doubt very much that even a "Hello
World" wouldn't involve anything that some patent could make a claim over.

This is what happens when corporations are permitted free reign.

Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-26 22:52:17 UTC

Post by MacAsm via Digitalmars-d

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:02:43PM +0000, MacAsm via

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html -
IMMUTABLE
OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

How bad will this be to D?

D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior
art?? Does
the patent office accept prior art submissions?

I doubt very much the USPTO gives a rat's ass about prior art.
Their strategy has been to sell patents to as many applicants
as they can and let the courts sort them all out. (The gov like
to pretend that that their court system, and therefore justice
itself, doesn't cost $$$$$.)
As for the specific patents, meh, I've long been convinced that
it's physically impossible to write any useful software without
inadvertently "infringing" on several US patents. I doubt very
much that even a "Hello World" wouldn't involve anything that
some patent could make a claim over.
This is what happens when corporations are permitted free reign.

You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you would
fit right in.
Best part? No software patents.

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 02:21:30 UTC

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:52:17PM +0000, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[,..]

You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you would fit
right in.
Best part? No software patents.

New D-land FTW! ;-)

T

--
Once the bikeshed is up for painting, the rainbow won't suffice. -- Andrei Alexandrescu

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 03:00:01 UTC

You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you would fit
right in.
Best part? No software patents.

Nice. I've heard that a lot of the scenery is stunning over there, too.
Slow and expensive electronics importing AIUI, but maybe that'd be in my
best interest anyway...biggest thing to raise my blood pressure lately
was my last trip to MicroCenter[1].

As soon as I finally snap and go all luddite hermit or something, maybe
that's where I'll retire ;) New Zealand that is, not MicroCenter.

[1] http://www.microcenter.com/site/stores/default.aspx

Chris via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 09:20:34 UTC

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 03:00:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky

Post by Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you
would fit
right in.
Best part? No software patents.

Take it easy. The most important things are the ideas and the
software. The latests gadgets are for users :-)

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
As soon as I finally snap and go all luddite hermit or
something, maybe that's where I'll retire ;) New Zealand that
is, not MicroCenter.

Swapping your chip for sheep.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
[1] http://www.microcenter.com/site/stores/default.aspx

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 20:16:12 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Nice. I've heard that a lot of the scenery is stunning over there,
too. Slow and expensive electronics importing AIUI, but maybe that'd
be in my best interest anyway...biggest thing to raise my blood
pressure lately was my last trip to MicroCenter[1].

Take it easy. The most important things are the ideas and the software.
The latests gadgets are for users :-)

Unfortunately I need to use those gadgets in order to write software
on/for them. :/

Heh, man, all I wanted was to find a reasonable inexpensive laptop, that
won't choke on Linux, and be certain VT-x was supported in the big
three: CPU, mainboard and BIOS. (And the CPU I was looking at supports
VT-d too, so I was curious to see if it was actually *usable*, ie not
blocked by lack of support in mainboard/BIOS, 'cause that could
influence my choice of exact model.)

Back in the 90's that all would have been trivial: Slap CPUID (or some
90's equivalent thereof) onto the machine and run it. Heck, published
specs used to be detailed and, well, somewhat less unreliable.

But these days everyone's so afraid of their own shadow, they've got
everything locked down so tightly that the demo units may as well be
cardboard props. And expecting published spec to be both complete and
accurate? Pfft. No buzzwords == hide the info.

And then there's having to hear all of the dumb things coming out of the
sales monkeys mouths. Like the password-protected windows admin account
being referred to as a "firewall". Or the word "cloud" used for freaking
*everything* (with no utterance of the *real* word: "Internet"). And
*all* the verbal nonsense always coming with a heavy dose of
suited-smugness and self-assuredness. 'Course, I blame "portlandian"
silicon valley for that whole "cloud" bs. But whatever.

And then there's all the glare-magnet fingerprinted glossy half-height
screens, DRM and lockouts to deal with even *after* you buy it,
basic-yet-still-missing features that some suit decided I don't need
because it saves twenty cents, etc, etc...Ugh. Computing used to be fun.
Now it's just corporate paranoia, warring and idiocy.

And that's just *real* computers, I haven't even mentioned "phones"...

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
As soon as I finally snap and go all luddite hermit or something,
maybe that's where I'll retire ;) New Zealand that is, not MicroCenter.

Swapping your chip for sheep.

Sheep are fuzzy!! And tasty! I like! :)

Messenger via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-28 06:50:34 UTC

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via

Post by H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art??

If the patent passes for whatever reason, this becomes a valid
point if and only if you have the resources to contest its
validity. The patent holder can effectively strongarm you into
paying for licensing unless you have the (upwards of) hundreds of
thousands of dollars needed for lawyer fees. They need only to
drag out the court proceedings to starve you monetarily and win
by walkover.

It's not a far stretch to make an analogy to protection rackets,
and it seems to me that the very point of patents has been
subverted.

Weaseldog via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 00:51:31 UTC

I think they're about 40 years late on these patents...

ketmar via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 05:41:06 UTC

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:37:29 +0300

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

support Windows, give m$ more money.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140827/6da2a20e/attachment.sig>

Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 15:58:35 UTC

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

Now on reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2eohiv/microsoft_filed_patent_applications_for_scoped

Two links of interest you may want to contribute to:

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10128/prior-art-for-us-patent-application-20140196008-immutable-object-types

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10122/looking-for-prior-art-for-patent-application-us20140196015-declaration-of-lifet

Andrei

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 18:59:12 UTC

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF
RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

The first release of D 2.000 in 2007 had transitive immutable types in it.

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-27 19:29:09 UTC

Post by Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

The first release of D 2.000 in 2007 had transitive immutable types in it.

Since you're the inventor of D, perhaps it would be best if you could
submit a prior art submission to the patent office? (Somebody has
already posted links earlier in this thread where you can submit it to
them directly.)

T

--
May you live all the days of your life. -- Jonathan Swift

Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 01:49:25 UTC

This doesn't bode well...

Capcom is currently trying to sue another company on a patented
function which basically allows a game to be
updated/modified/expanded, yet there are examples of those
techniques being used for 20 years before they patented their
function.

Although M$ doing this seems more like a move in order to muscle
their way in for other things. Take the actions of their actions
regarding Novell.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

[quote]
Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like
the Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands
of patents to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of
running GNU/Linux, and made this pact to try to achieve that. The
deal offers rather limited protection from Microsoft patents to
Novell's customers.
[/quote]

It feels like they are trying to make a monopoly where they are
the only ones able to make compilers, and anything with 'more
useful features' have to pay them royalties or get a very
expensive & limited license in order to be left alone.

Of course there's other cases similar where idiots try to
copyright the symbol pi, so they can then exploit it in order to
sue companies and individuals for easy cash...

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 04:24:39 UTC

Although M$ doing this seems more like a move in order to muscle their
way in for other things. Take the actions of their actions regarding
Novell.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
[quote]
Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the
Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of patents
to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of running GNU/Linux, and
made this pact to try to achieve that. The deal offers rather limited
protection from Microsoft patents to Novell's customers.
[/quote]
It feels like they are trying to make a monopoly where they are the
only ones able to make compilers, and anything with 'more useful
features' have to pay them royalties or get a very expensive & limited
license in order to be left alone.
Of course there's other cases similar where idiots try to copyright
the symbol pi, so they can then exploit it in order to sue companies and
individuals for easy cash...

Y'know, that link above is a good example of why FSF and GPL bug me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "GPL vs BSD" guy. I genuinely believe both
have their place, and the difference lies in is what your, and your
project's, exact goals are.

And I completely agree with the full extent of Stallman's famously
ultra-strict villainization of closed-box proprietary shackle-ware. That
shit pisses me off far more than it does most people.

And I *do* appreciate that GPL, unlike BSD, can *realistically* be
cross-licensed with a commercial license in a meaningful way and used on
paid commercial software (at least, I *think* so, based on what little
anyone actually *can* comprehend of the incomprehensible GPL).

I *do* agree with Stallman's views, even most of the more extreme ones,
I *want* to like FSF and GPL, but...

...but then there's stuff like that link above.

He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil
MS is attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD
on ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to
just blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate whores
he keeps trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.

The FSF constantly sounds just like one of those worthless pro-issue #XX
/ anti-issue #XX asshats we have to put up with every voting season:

Stallman: MS is being EEEEeeevil!!

Me: Um. Ok. I honestly don't doubt that. How are they doing this?

Stallman: They're being evil!! With the evil MS-Novell pact!

Me: God dammit, Rick, *HOW*?!?

Stallman: ...

Stallman: EEEVIIILL!!!

Me: Fuck. Fine. Forget it. So tell me about your GPL v3.

Stallman: It stops the MS eeeeviiil!!! Tivoization is bad! Upgrade to
GPL v3!

Stallman: (But don't feel pressured to upgrade. But do it anyway. Have I
used the word "tivoization" yet?)

Me: Ok, *how* does your GPL v3 stop the MS evil?

Stallman: [Full, detailed explanation of DVD's anti-competitive backdoor
shenanigans]

Me: Yes, I'm well aware of that. Let's try this again: How does
your GPL v3 stop *the MS-Novell evil* that you were just...sort
of...telling me about?

Stallman: It stops it. Duh. Because it's freedom! FREEDOM! Did I mention
I live under my desk?

Me: ...

Stallman: Also, my awesome GPL(v3) is so fucking awesome IT EVEN
FREAKING **BANS ITSELF(v2)**! How freaking FREEDOM is that!?! Sweet,
right?! FREEEEDOOOOMMM!!!

Me: Goddammit Stallman, GTF out of here.

Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 04:57:13 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents
the evil MS is attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend
ONE FUCKING WORD on ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly
works. We're supposed to just blindly accept all of it just
like the good little corporate whores he keeps trying to
crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.

If it's something like being on the news floor where they are
talking to him, he doesn't have time. The loopholes he is talking
about could take an hour of talk, not only in legal speak but in
references and how things connect from law A to law B to law C,
and how things actually work to the written letter of the law for
an individual state (not to mention the whole country). They
honestly aren't going to give him more than 5 minutes of screen
time which means quite often for the large majority of people you
have to greatly simplify it and keep it understandable for the
general populous.

The impression i got on the Novell pact: M$ would have acquired
certain copyright ownership of all the programs that the OS
contained. This would include programs such as: sort, awk, sed,
grep, sh, tar, cpio, cp, mv, etc. Now since they have partial
ownership, rights of all related programs that duplicate their
effects fall under M$'s curfew (regardless who wrote them); They
could start hampering on anyone trying to distribute OSes that
involve any of these programs required to make the OS run, or sue
them into the ground for infringing on copyright or patents;
Thereby either you paid to keep the software somewhat free
(probably each and every version/subversion) or they would gain
total monopoly and Windows is the only OS you can get your hands
on which you pay your usual $100-$200 for.

I'm not sure how close i hit the bullseye, but i would imagine
i'm not too far off. And if taken to court, they have the money
and the influence to win regardless if they are right or wrong.

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 05:53:07 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil
MS is attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD
on ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to
just blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate
whores he keeps trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.

Well, that page was an article written and posted by Stallman, not a TV
sound bite.

The impression i got on the Novell pact: M$ would have acquired
certain copyright ownership of all the programs that the OS contained.
This would include programs such as: sort, awk, sed, grep, sh, tar,
cpio, cp, mv, etc. Now since they have partial ownership, rights of all
related programs that duplicate their effects fall under M$'s curfew
(regardless who wrote them); They could start hampering on anyone trying
to distribute OSes that involve any of these programs required to make
the OS run, or sue them into the ground for infringing on copyright or
patents; Thereby either you paid to keep the software somewhat free
(probably each and every version/subversion) or they would gain total
monopoly and Windows is the only OS you can get your hands on which you
pay your usual $100-$200 for.
I'm not sure how close i hit the bullseye, but i would imagine i'm not
too far off. And if taken to court, they have the money and the
influence to win regardless if they are right or wrong.

Yea could be. And again, I don't doubt it. I just wish Stallman would
have stepped out of evangelist mode long enough to be straightforward
about things. And not pretend that "GPL incompatible with GPL" somehow
isn't one hell of a gaping whole in that big 'ol "GPL ==
Freeeedooooom!!!!" assertion.

In a more general sense, I think Stallman/FSF have a very unfortunate
habit of letting the strict goals and evangelism get in the way of the
practical realities of actually *attaining* said goals and successfully
getting the messages across.

Another example of that self-defeat:

The OS distros which staunchly exclude non-open software (codecs,
drivers, etc). Heck, I'm totally with Stallman that that stuff is
horrible and we need to work against it.

But if you're saying...

"Here, use our OS, it's more ethical. Oh and BTW it won't let you watch
your beloved dancing pig Flash animations without putting up a fight.
(Or even easily connect to the internet at all if you have the wrong
wireless chipset...You *DO* know the make and model of the chipset your
motherboard uses for 802.11 don't you? Huh? Whadda mean 'Greek'?? It's
Engl...oh.)"

If you're doing that, then all you accomplish is hijacking your own cause.

Nobody cares about your/our/his cause, they care about their dancing
pigs and bowling elves. People will just stick with systems that are
even LESS open, not more. It just won't work. That's why we have Mint
and such. To make the transition easy and painless enough that even
minor, unappreciated reasons like "ethincs" and "freedom" are enough to
draw them over and hurt the shackleware peddler's bottom line.

And that kinda leads to another example:

I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really,
everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and it's *not*
confusing and ambiguous. So the whole "free" obsession is just semantic
pedantry that introduces ambiguity and confusion ("free as in...what,
which 'free' now? Because Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types,
right?") and distracts people from the more important matters.

ketmar via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 06:18:57 UTC

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 01:53:07 -0400

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But
really, everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean

may i ask you: is DMD "open" and "open source"? and why the heck i
can't fork it and redistribute, if it's "open"?

everyone has it's own definition of what is "open" and what is "free".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140831/67eec3e4/attachment.sig>

Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 06:59:34 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Well, that page was an article written and posted by Stallman,
not a TV sound bite.

Would you really be able to sift though possibly a 10-100 page
description that you can't properly decipher unless you were a
lawyer?

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
straightforward about things. And not pretend that "GPL
incompatible with GPL" somehow isn't one hell of a gaping whole
in that big 'ol "GPL == Freeeedooooom!!!!" assertion.

The updated GPL handles cases that weren't come up with before
the previous version was drafted. Like you mentioned with
Tivoization.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
In a more general sense, I think Stallman/FSF have a very
unfortunate habit of letting the strict goals and evangelism
get in the way of the practical realities of actually
*attaining* said goals and successfully getting the messages
across.

He is strict probably because taking any steps back could have
horrible consequences. Sometimes you can't accept the lesser evil.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But
really, everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and
it's *not* confusing and ambiguous. So the whole "free"
obsession is just semantic pedantry that introduces ambiguity
and confusion ("free as in...what, which 'free' now? Because
Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types, right?") and
distracts people from the more important matters.

I always thought he was quite clear on what kind of 'free' he
was talking about. But i guess more importantly is to see things
from his view.

Stallman was around when software was free and sources were
open; There was no copyright in effect, and everyone helped with
everything; You shared source and specs and programs and got your
work done. Then NDA (Non-disclosure agreements) and closed source
from corporations preventing you from being able to help everyone
because they didn't want to share the source or specs on how to
use it. (At the time it was XeroX printers i believe) which was a
big warning of what was to come.

He watched first hand as software and the computer industry went
from thriving and open and growing, to closed and proprietary and
secretive. His goal and wish is never to have it all so closed
again that can't do anything besides sell your ethics or soul to
get by day to day.

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 06:19:24 UTC, ketmar via

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
everyone has it's own definition of what is "open" and what is
"free".

With lack of understanding, it's similar to comparing what is
sweet when you have grapefruit coated with sugar vs an orange.
Stallman has a strict criteria of what is 'free', but he refers
to it as a programmer. You are free to run the program, to look
at the source, to improve the source, to share the source... It
has nothing to do with price/money.

'Open' can merely means you can see the source, nothing else.
Really comes down to the license it's attached to.

ketmar via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 07:08:30 UTC

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:59:34 +0000

Post by Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d
'Open' can merely means you can see the source, nothing else.
Really comes down to the license it's attached to.

that's why i'm using the term "Free and Open Source Software" instead
of "Open Source Software" (which ESR promotes).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140831/7dbd7c66/attachment.sig>

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 09:22:55 UTC

Post by Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Well, that page was an article written and posted by Stallman, not a
TV sound bite.

Would you really be able to sift though possibly a 10-100 page
description that you can't properly decipher unless you were a lawyer?

I have a hard time believing there's no middle ground there.

Shoot, even theoretical physics has simplified explanations ("A Brief
History of Time"). No doubt this could be summarized too without
resorting to "MS try be bad. GPLv3 stop MS be bad. Ug."

Post by Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
straightforward about things. And not pretend that "GPL incompatible
with GPL" somehow isn't one hell of a gaping whole in that big 'ol
"GPL == Freeeedooooom!!!!" assertion.

The updated GPL handles cases that weren't come up with before the
previous version was drafted. Like you mentioned with Tivoization.

Yea, I know there were reasons a new version needed to be created. But
if a license designed with the specific and sole purpose of promoting
openness can't even get along with another version itself, then
something's clearly gone horribly, horribly wrong with it.

I can link BSD 2-clause, 3-clause and even 4-clause all into the same
program just fine. Forget the usual "BSD vs GPL" argument about GPL
viral unwillingness to play nice with other licenses, the thing can't
even play nice with *itself*!

Know what I really want to see? I wanna see some smart-ass make a GPL
program statically linking GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code. Then drift it
past the FSF's nose. I'd be fascinated to see what happens.

Does FSF conveniently drop the "GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible"
bullshit and just let it slide? Or do they lawyer-up in an idiotic brawl
against their own creations? Or do their heads just spin around, let out
a puff of smoke and explode?

Post by Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
In a more general sense, I think Stallman/FSF have a very unfortunate
habit of letting the strict goals and evangelism get in the way of the
practical realities of actually *attaining* said goals and
successfully getting the messages across.

He is strict probably because taking any steps back could have
horrible consequences. Sometimes you can't accept the lesser evil.

So, through his stubbornness to accept the lesser as a stepping stone to
his ultimate goal, he allows the larger evil to thrive instead.
Brilliant strategy. Bravo. A real win for freedom.

It's like a little kid kicking and screaming about not getting a 20lb
crate of candy when he's already being offered a chocolate bar the size
of his head. Or a third place runner who pouts and storms off because he
didn't get the gold.

Take what you *can* get, and *then* continue moving towards the real
goal. All-or-nothing is self-defeat.

Post by Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d
Stallman was around when software was free and sources were open;
There was no copyright in effect, and everyone helped with everything;
You shared source and specs and programs and got your work done. Then
NDA (Non-disclosure agreements) and closed source from corporations
preventing you from being able to help everyone because they didn't want
to share the source or specs on how to use it. (At the time it was XeroX
printers i believe) which was a big warning of what was to come.
He watched first hand as software and the computer industry went from
thriving and open and growing, to closed and proprietary and secretive.
His goal and wish is never to have it all so closed again that can't do
anything besides sell your ethics or soul to get by day to day.

Yea, that's a fascinating story. But honestly, I really am totally with
him on all that. I *really* genuinely am, no BS.

But reality doesn't give a crap how much he wants openness or what his
background is: Things aren't going to go his way just because he wants
it badly enough. He has attempt his goals within the framework of reality.

Displace proprietary junk in favor of open? Hell yea, I'll take some of
that. Absolutely. But without giving people what they want, even if what
they want happens to include a little bit of *eeeeviiilll* closed stuff,
then THEY'RE NOT FUCKING GONNA JUMP ON BOARD. It just NOT going to
happen. It's been how many freaking decades and it *HASN'T* happened.
Has he really not noticed, after all those years, that the puritanical
all-or-nothing approach DOES NOT WORK?

Shoot, "pragmatic" distros like Mint and Ubuntu have done FAR more to
get people onboard with, and embracing, and pushing for more open
software than ANY purity distro. This is plainly evident. He can't *not*
see it.

It's basic marketing: Offer them what they want. Give them a taste. They
might want more. But *don't* offer what they want, and you seriously
think you'll get takers? Fat chance. I'm not sure Stallman really gets
this. Or if he does, then he's too stubborn about it for his own good.
(And believe me, I know a thing or two about being stubborn ;))

Luckily, he has followers who *do* grasp basic marketing and *do* get it
right (again, Mint and Ubuntu as a couple modern examples), and
*they're* the ones dragging his stubborn idealism down the road towards
success.

Seriously, I have about a metric shit-ton of direct experience being
highly non-mainstream on things. Stubbornly so. And I've watched things
in the world go from good, to bad, to worse. Believe me, I know from
experience: You do NOT get people onboard with something by trying to
convince them. And certainly not by wanting them to or telling them to.

*No* amount of well-reasoned well-explained logic works, at least not on
any meaningful scale. People don't get logic, people don't like reason,
people don't give a crap what sounds good on paper or what's in their
best interest. "In my best interest" is boring. Dancing cats aren't.

No, the way to get them onboard with something is to make it *into* what
they want. Or at least make it appear to be what they think they want
(Most people can't tell the difference). Give them the right gimmicky
dumb hook, and they'll bite just about anything (Steve Jobs proved
that...man did he prove that...to an incredibly depressing degree).
Luckily, it'll work even on something people find as unpalatable as
ethics and their own freedom.

tl;dr:
Gotta hide that vitamin in people's doggie biscuit. It's usually the
only way.

Post by Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d
'Open' can merely means you can see the source, nothing else. Really
comes down to the license it's attached to.

We can bang the dictionary all we want, but really, aside from the
ultra-pedantics, nobody actually means that narrow definition when they
say "open source".

Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 10:39:45 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
I have a hard time believing there's no middle ground there.
Shoot, even theoretical physics has simplified explanations ("A
Brief History of Time"). No doubt this could be summarized too
without resorting to "MS try be bad. GPLv3 stop MS be bad. Ug."

It's all based on the legal system and if it is taken to court,
so that's where it's at. I'd love to say there's no middle
ground, but i honestly don't know. Could ask him for exact
details.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
But if a license designed with the specific and sole purpose of
promoting openness can't even get along with another version
itself, then something's clearly gone horribly, horribly wrong
with it.

I've glanced over sources and put in my own for License GPLv2 or
later. Each progressive version adds more protection. It's
probably only incompatible so someone can't take a GPLv3 of a
program and slap a GPLv2 on it 'cause it's compatible' then use
the lesser protection to get around it for which the v3 was
specifically giving. Beyond that both licenses work to grant and
protect the author as much as possible.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
I can link BSD 2-clause, 3-clause and even 4-clause all into
the same program just fine. Forget the usual "BSD vs GPL"
argument about GPL viral unwillingness to play nice with other
licenses, the thing can't even play nice with *itself*!

The viral nature is to ensure programs and software grows
(hopefully) and stays to it's original intent. A sed program
suddenly no longer being free or changing owners would be scooped
up by a greedy company in a heartbeat, especially if it's heavily
used.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Know what I really want to see? I wanna see some smart-ass make
a GPL program statically linking GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code.
Then drift it past the FSF's nose. I'd be fascinated to see
what happens.
Does FSF conveniently drop the "GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
incompatible" bullshit and just let it slide? Or do they
lawyer-up in an idiotic brawl against their own creations? Or
do their heads just spin around, let out a puff of smoke and
explode?

As for GPLv2 and GPLv3 code, depends on the license in the
sourcecode. As mentioned the GPLv2 code could automatically be
upgraded as it would offer no disadvantages, especially if the
source says you can use v2 or later... no problems.

Course if some software does have to link there's always the
LGPL for libraries and whatnot...

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
But reality doesn't give a crap how much he wants openness or
what his background is: Things aren't going to go his way just
because he wants it badly enough. He has attempt his goals
within the framework of reality.
<snip>

The ones to control who or what works is the people who vote
with their wallets. If no one buys proprietary software, then it
won't work. Unfortunately even if no citizens bought it,
businesses still do. It's entirely possible things will go his
way, and i surely hope so since the vision is a very good one.

However i don't feel up to a really long rant or discussion on
this, this isn't why i brought this all up.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
We can bang the dictionary all we want, but really, aside from
the ultra-pedantics, nobody actually means that narrow
definition when they say "open source".

Perhaps not. But quite often you can only take it 'to the
letter'. And the lawyers love to take it 'to the letter'; Along
with companies that own the 'open source' that is spoken about.

Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 22:16:27 UTC

On 31 August 2014 06:53, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really,
everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and it's *not* confusing
and ambiguous. So the whole "free" obsession is just semantic pedantry that
introduces ambiguity and confusion ("free as in...what, which 'free' now?
Because Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types, right?") and distracts
people from the more important matters.

I find that using the term "open source" is like using the term "cloud
computing". It's a buzzword to make free software sound more
attractive to commercial businesses.

By preferring the term "free" over "open", you are merely pointing out
that a "Waste Management and Disposal Technician" is just a "Bin-man",
no matter what angle you take on it.

Iain.

Joakim via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 09:23:24 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
And I *do* appreciate that GPL, unlike BSD, can *realistically*
be cross-licensed with a commercial license in a meaningful way
and used on paid commercial software (at least, I *think* so,
based on what little anyone actually *can* comprehend of the
incomprehensible GPL).

What? Did you mean to write "BSD, unlike GPL?" Explain what you
mean.

As for Stallman, his problem is that his "all software must be
free" crusade happens to have a few real benefits from some
source being open, but will never happen to his idealistic
extreme of all source becoming free because closed source has
real benefits too.

That's why when linux finally got deployed to the majority of
computing devices over the last 5 years- though still not on the
desktop ;) - it wasn't a full GPL stack but a
permissively-licensed Apache stack (bionic, dalvik, ART, etc) on
top of the GPL'd linux kernel combined with significant closed
binary blobs and patches. That mixed model is dominant these
days, whether with iOS/OS X and their mix of open source (mach,
darwin, llvm, webkit, etc) and closed or Android with its greater
mix of open source. As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such
pragmatic mixing of open and closed source, is an antiquity and
fast disappearing.

ketmar via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 09:37:24 UTC

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:23:24 +0000

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d
As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such
pragmatic mixing of open and closed source, is

...a great thing to stop invasion of proprietary software. hey, i'm not
*renting* my smartphone, i'm *buying* it! and i want to be able to
change it's software as i like. yet what i got is a bunch of blobs and
a locked loader. i don't want to pay my money for jailing me: the ones
who want to put me in a jail should pay to me to compensate my
inconvience.

i don't care about what is good for some corporation out here. what i
really care about is what is good for *me*. GPLv3 makes me happy. BSDL
makes corporations happy. so it's obvious choice.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140831/fd13a225/attachment.sig>

Joakim via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 10:23:42 UTC

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:37:35 UTC, ketmar via

Post by ketmar via Digitalmars-d
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:23:24 +0000

As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such pragmatic mixing of
open and closed source, is

...a great thing to stop invasion of proprietary software. hey,
i'm not
*renting* my smartphone, i'm *buying* it! and i want to be able
to
change it's software as i like. yet what i got is a bunch of
blobs and
the ones
who want to put me in a jail should pay to me to compensate my
inconvience.
i don't care about what is good for some corporation out here.
what i
really care about is what is good for *me*. GPLv3 makes me
happy. BSDL
makes corporations happy. so it's obvious choice.

Good luck with that, let me know when you find a GPLv3 smartphone
to buy. I'll predict when that'll happen: never.

That's because _you_ may care about changing the software on your
smartphone and don't want to use the binary blobs that make
switching harder, but almost nobody else does. Those who want to
change the software right now simply work around and reuse the
blobs, ie cyanogen, AOKP, etc. At least you can do that when
there's a mix, as opposed to the previously dominant model of
pure closed source, which didn't allow such updating at all.

ketmar via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 10:32:04 UTC

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:23:42 +0000

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d
Good luck with that, let me know when you find a GPLv3 smartphone
to buy. I'll predict when that'll happen: never.

keep tolerate "permissive licenses", this will greatly help me to find
such smartphone, yes.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140831/57bd89a3/attachment.sig>

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 10:29:52 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
And I *do* appreciate that GPL, unlike BSD, can *realistically* be
cross-licensed with a commercial license in a meaningful way and used
on paid commercial software (at least, I *think* so, based on what
little anyone actually *can* comprehend of the incomprehensible GPL).

What? Did you mean to write "BSD, unlike GPL?" Explain what you mean.

There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be released
like this:

"This is available under either a commercial license or GPL. You can
freely download and use the software and its source code, at no cost,
under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do not wish to be bound by
the GPL can purchase a commercial license instead."

Or there will be a common variant like:

"Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the terms of
GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx require a commercial
license."

Or something roughly along those lines anyway.

I don't know what the FSF would have to say about it, or how well it
works in practice, but the idea is that the source code is both free and
free, AND since the OSS license used is GPL, there is still (at least in
theory) sufficient added value to to justify a paid version (beyond just
premium support. Being a support-based business has its own pros/cons -
if you're just a group of developers trying to make a living, the Red
Hat model may not be a great option). And, the OSS-version, being GPLed,
cannot easily be used by another company *as* a competitor to you.

Theoretically, you *could* do that with BSD/MIT/zlib/etc instead of GPL.
Nothing's explicitly prohibiting it. But then where's the "added value"
in the paid version? They can already do anything they want. Or how do
you restrict the OSS version to small businesses or home users only?
It's BSD, it already permits *anyone* to use it or re-grant the same
permissive license to anyone else. And what's to stop a competitor from
competing against you with your own product?

Don't get me wrong, I like BSD/MIT/zlib/etc., and I use such licenses
whenever my intent is to get my software USED rather than directly make
money off it. But trying to mix them with a commercial model (for
example, if you want to make a living directly off your software) seems
very problematic. Being a support company seems the only theoretical
way, and even then, anyone else, any corporation, etc., can still just
pop up and offer support for your software too, and without the overhead
of being a primary developer.

As for Stallman, his problem is that his "all software must be free"
crusade happens to have a few real benefits from some source being open,
but will never happen to his idealistic extreme of all source becoming
free because closed source has real benefits too.

Yea, I can agree there's some truth to that. And even if you can argue
that closed doesn't TRULY have real genuine benefits, it still doesn't
matter: As long as people perceive a benefit, then that's real enough in
its effects.

That's why when linux finally got deployed to the majority of computing
devices over the last 5 years- though still not on the desktop ;) - it
wasn't a full GPL stack but a permissively-licensed Apache stack
(bionic, dalvik, ART, etc) on top of the GPL'd linux kernel combined
with significant closed binary blobs and patches. That mixed model is
dominant these days, whether with iOS/OS X and their mix of open source
(mach, darwin, llvm, webkit, etc) and closed or Android with its greater
mix of open source. As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such
pragmatic mixing of open and closed source, is an antiquity and fast
disappearing.

Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has all the
money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if you want some of
the money (*or* just a significant chunk of the market), then you have
to please them enough to get them to fork it over. *Then* you can go
from there and swing around as much clout as you've earned.

It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least it beats
the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could* still lead to further
acceptance of and demand for even more openness. Like burgers or crack:
Give 'em a taste, maybe they'll like it and want more. And maybe by then
you'll have earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to given them more.

The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet, but the
mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a step in the right
direction.

Joakim via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 11:57:33 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be
"This is available under either a commercial license or GPL.
You can freely download and use the software and its source
code, at no cost, under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do
not wish to be bound by the GPL can purchase a commercial
license instead."

Ah, I wasn't sure what you meant by "cross-licensed," the
GPL/commercial licensing model you're referring to is commonly
called dual-licensing.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
"Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the
terms of GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx
require a commercial license."
Or something roughly along those lines anyway.

Under the terms of the GPL, it's not feasible to set an arbitrary
revenue limit like that, as those getting the source under the
GPL are free to redistribute it to anyone they like. However,
since the GPLv2 doesn't deal with software patents, it may be
possible to set such a revenue limit with patent licensing, ie
license the software patents employed in the code for free to
those you mentioned but charge for the patents with larger
businesses.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
I don't know what the FSF would have to say about it, or how
well it works in practice, but the idea is that the source code
is both free and free, AND since the OSS license used is GPL,
there is still (at least in theory) sufficient added value to
to justify a paid version (beyond just premium support. Being a
support-based business has its own pros/cons - if you're just a
group of developers trying to make a living, the Red Hat model
may not be a great option). And, the OSS-version, being GPLed,
cannot easily be used by another company *as* a competitor to
you.

This dual-licensing model works fairly well, as a handful of
companies have used it successfully and MySQL AB brought in
almost 9 figures in revenue using this model before getting
bought out by Sun for $1 billion almost seven years ago
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL_AB), although most think that
was a big overpay by the soon-to-be-sold Sun. The MySQL CEO went
on to head another company called Eucalyptus, which uses a
similar GPLv3/commercial dual-licensing model.

The big drawbacks are that dual licensing requires full copyright
assignment from anyone who contributes to the GPL'd code, or the
company won't be able to re-license those patches commercially,
and that usually only one company can make money off the code
through commercial licensing, which as you mentioned keeps
competitors out.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Theoretically, you *could* do that with BSD/MIT/zlib/etc
instead of GPL. Nothing's explicitly prohibiting it. But then
where's the "added value" in the paid version? They can already
do anything they want. Or how do you restrict the OSS version
to small businesses or home users only? It's BSD, it already
permits *anyone* to use it or re-grant the same permissive
license to anyone else. And what's to stop a competitor from
competing against you with your own product?

The dual-licensing model doesn't make sense with permissive
licenses like BSD/MIT/zlib/boost so they use a different model,
where they provide an "open core" of BSD-licensed code for free
and then charge for proprietary features added through
closed-source patches, sometimes called "freemium." This is the
model Apple and Google/Samsung use with iOS and Android, only the
most successful software projects of the last decade, :) though
Android obviously makes available a lot more open source than iOS
does.

This mixed model doesn't stop competitors from taking the
permissively-licensed source, but that's actually a benefit for
users as it means more competition. For example, you can see
this with all the companies that forked Android, whether Amazon,
Nokia, or Xiaomi, which now sells more smartphones in China than
anyone else, including Samsung. As long as the companies provide
enough value in their closed patches, they do fine.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Don't get me wrong, I like BSD/MIT/zlib/etc., and I use such
licenses whenever my intent is to get my software USED rather
than directly make money off it. But trying to mix them with a
commercial model (for example, if you want to make a living
directly off your software) seems very problematic. Being a
support company seems the only theoretical way, and even then,
anyone else, any corporation, etc., can still just pop up and
offer support for your software too, and without the overhead
of being a primary developer.

On the contrary, the mixed model that such permissive licenses
allow is much more commercially successful than any GPL-based
model. If you insist that _all_ source must be open, only then
the GPL dual-licensing model may work better.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Yea, I can agree there's some truth to that. And even if you
can argue that closed doesn't TRULY have real genuine benefits,
it still doesn't matter: As long as people perceive a benefit,
then that's real enough in its effects.

There are genuine _commercial_ benefits to closed-source, ie you
can keep others from simply taking your code. There may not be
any inherent _technical_ benefits, but if you're not making any
money, you can't fund much technical development either. So a
mixed open/closed source model mixes these commercial and
technical benefits, rather than ignoring one for the other.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has
all the money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if
you want some of the money (*or* just a significant chunk of
the market), then you have to please them enough to get them to
fork it over. *Then* you can go from there and swing around as
much clout as you've earned.
It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least
it beats the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could*
still lead to further acceptance of and demand for even more
openness. Like burgers or crack: Give 'em a taste, maybe
they'll like it and want more. And maybe by then you'll have
earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to given them more.
The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet,
but the mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a
step in the right direction.

I have argued, on the contrary, that the mixed model is the best
one, not pure open or closed source:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing

I think the evidence is in that my article from four years ago
called it right. :)

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 19:57:30 UTC

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be
"This is available under either a commercial license or GPL. You can
freely download and use the software and its source code, at no cost,
under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do not wish to be bound by
the GPL can purchase a commercial license instead."

Ah, I wasn't sure what you meant by "cross-licensed," the
GPL/commercial licensing model you're referring to is commonly called
dual-licensing.

Ah, ok. My mind registered "cross-" and "dual-" as being the same.

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
"Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the terms
of GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx require a
commercial license."
Or something roughly along those lines anyway.

Under the terms of the GPL, it's not feasible to set an arbitrary
revenue limit like that, as those getting the source under the GPL are
free to redistribute it to anyone they like. However, since the GPLv2
doesn't deal with software patents, it may be possible to set such a
revenue limit with patent licensing, ie license the software patents
employed in the code for free to those you mentioned but charge for the
patents with larger businesses.

Come to think of it, the size/revenue-limit stuff I've seen may have all
just been plain old closed-source.

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d
The big drawbacks are that dual licensing requires full copyright
assignment from anyone who contributes to the GPL'd code, or the company
won't be able to re-license those patches commercially,

Good point. I wasn't aware of that. (One of the dangers of GPL: It's too
big and convoluted to really grok.)

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d
The dual-licensing model doesn't make sense with permissive licenses
like BSD/MIT/zlib/boost so they use a different model, where they
provide an "open core" of BSD-licensed code for free and then charge for
proprietary features added through closed-source patches,

Ahh, ok. Now that makes sense. That method hadn't occurred to me. (I
don't know *why* it didn't. I mean, using the "temporarily closed
source" you mention below, it's basically the id/Carmack model.)

I don't like that it's still requires a closed element, but still, it's
definitely something worth considering, especially the "time limit" version.

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d
sometimes called "freemium."

I'm accustomed to "freemium" referring to so-called "free to play"
gaming, but yea, I can see how it applies here too.

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d
This is the model Apple and Google/Samsung use with
iOS and Android, only the most successful software projects of the last
decade, :) though Android obviously makes available a lot more open
source than iOS does.

Yea, true.

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has all the
money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if you want some
of the money (*or* just a significant chunk of the market), then you
have to please them enough to get them to fork it over. *Then* you can
go from there and swing around as much clout as you've earned.
It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least it
beats the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could* still lead to
further acceptance of and demand for even more openness. Like burgers
or crack: Give 'em a taste, maybe they'll like it and want more. And
maybe by then you'll have earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to
given them more.
The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet, but the
mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a step in the
right direction.

I have argued, on the contrary, that the mixed model is the best one,
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing
I think the evidence is in that my article from four years ago called it
right. :)

Could be. That is a fairly convincing article, at least for the "time
limit" version of mixed closed/open.

But in any case, even if one takes the Stallman "all must be open,
period" stance, the mixed stuff is STILL a step in the desired
direction. So regardless of whether or not mixed is the final end-goal,
it's still a good direction to taking.

Joakim via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 20:43:23 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Could be. That is a fairly convincing article, at least for the
"time limit" version of mixed closed/open.

Glad to hear that. :) Nobody has really tried my time-limited
version, which I believe is the final step.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
But in any case, even if one takes the Stallman "all must be
open, period" stance, the mixed stuff is STILL a step in the
desired direction. So regardless of whether or not mixed is the
final end-goal, it's still a good direction to taking.

This is what guys like Stallman or ketmar don't seem to get, that
mixed-source still leads to _more_ open source, even if it isn't
_pure_ open source. For example, the success of Android means
that there's more open source code running on computing devices
than ever before, a billion at last count, even if it's not
_pure_ open source. As you said, that pragmatic mixed approach
has done more to advance open source than their purist approach
ever will. And my time-limited model advances it even more, by
making sure you get the source to all the binary blobs eventually.

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 22:42:07 UTC

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Could be. That is a fairly convincing article, at least for the "time
limit" version of mixed closed/open.

Glad to hear that. :) Nobody has really tried my time-limited version,
which I believe is the final step.

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
But in any case, even if one takes the Stallman "all must be open,
period" stance, the mixed stuff is STILL a step in the desired
direction. So regardless of whether or not mixed is the final
end-goal, it's still a good direction to taking.

This is what guys like Stallman or ketmar don't seem to get, that
mixed-source still leads to _more_ open source, even if it isn't _pure_
open source.

I suspect they may actually get *that* much of it...I'm just not sure
they seem to *care*. I get the impression it's basically toddler-style
"it's not EXACTLY what I want so I don't want ANY of it!" pouting.

Anyway, either way, that's probably just splitting hairs. Regardless of
their exact level of awareness, the end result is the same.

For example, the success of Android means that there's
more open source code running on computing devices than ever before, a
billion at last count, even if it's not _pure_ open source. As you
said, that pragmatic mixed approach has done more to advance open source
than their purist approach ever will. And my time-limited model
advances it even more, by making sure you get the source to all the
binary blobs eventually.

Exactly. And if Google had insisted on *pure* OSS for android, you
*Know* the carriers (and to a lesser extent, manufacturers) *NEVER*
would have gone for it. And then there we'd be, stuck with Apple owning
a 1990's-MS-style monopoly, but worse because of the iOS's third-party
restrictions and gatekeeping.

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 10:46:15 UTC

Post by ketmar via Digitalmars-d
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:23:24 +0000

Post by Joakim via Digitalmars-d
As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such
pragmatic mixing of open and closed source, is

I *completely* agree. Very, VERY strongly.

Post by ketmar via Digitalmars-d
i don't care about what is good for some corporation out here. what i
really care about is what is good for *me*. GPLv3 makes me happy.

GPL forces companies to open-source (some of) their software...but
*ONLY* if the company willingly uses the GPL software in the first place.

So what do they do? Not use the GPL software in the first place. So we
end up with second-rate crap (like Bionic) or worse - closed source
proprietary - just because GPL scared them away.

Post by ketmar via Digitalmars-d
BSDL
makes corporations happy. so it's obvious choice.

Hah. BSD/etc is NOT what corporations typically like - they like
proprietary closed source. BSD gives them incentive to at least *use*
OSS software. GPL gives them incentive to stay away from OSS software.

ketmar via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 11:08:09 UTC

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:46:15 -0400

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
So what do they do? Not use the GPL software in the first place. So
we end up with second-rate crap (like Bionic) or worse - closed
source proprietary - just because GPL scared them away.

this will not change. it's not specifically GPL what scares away
corporations, it's about "losing control". corporations will always be
hostile to any license that tries to give end users some rights that
can be enforced by user. releasing software under "permissive" licenses
will not help to turn corporations to FOSS. so i can't see any reason
to think about "how we can drag corporations into FOSS culture".

Post by Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
Hah. BSD/etc is NOT what corporations typically like - they like
proprietary closed source. BSD gives them incentive to at least *use*
OSS software. GPL gives them incentive to stay away from OSS software.

i don't care what source code was used to build binary blob: proprietary
or BSD-licensed. the result is the same for me. so i don't care if they
use [F]OSS software or not.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140831/567bdcea/attachment.sig>

Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d

2014-08-31 22:05:59 UTC

On 31 August 2014 05:24, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d