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

Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Aug 31 15:05:59 PDT 2014


On 31 August 2014 05:24, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 8/30/2014 9:49 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>   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).
>

GPL can be summarised in four simple freedoms.  Nothing complicated there.

In any case, you do know that there are paid gpl software too, right?
Ardour is a good example of this.

http://ardour.org/download.html


> 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:

<snip>

Having spoken to RMS in person, I can say that you are far from the
reality of their stance on promoting free software.  This is the sort
of attitude I'd expect from a sorely misunderstood teenager.  Your
heart might be in the right place, but your actually insulting both
sides of the border.

Iain.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list