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

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/31/2014 4:43 PM, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 19:58:03 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 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.
>
>> 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.