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

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:23:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 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.


> 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.

> 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.

> 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...

> 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.


> 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.