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

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/31/2014 7:57 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 10:30:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 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."
>
> 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.

>> 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.
>
> 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.

> 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.)

>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.


>> 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. :)

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.