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

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/31/2014 6:05 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 31 August 2014 05:24, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>

Maybe so. I hope so. But I wouldn't know.

I can read BSD, MIT or zlib and pretty much understand them. Within 
minutes. GPL, it would take me longer just to *read* it let alone 
comprehend.

I'm not saying that makes GPL inferior to the others. I'm just saying: 
that's one hell of a dense, cryptic, gigantic wall of text. (And yes, I 
don't doubt that there are far bigger and less comprehensible legal 
documents out there. Like the average software patent ;))


> 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
>

Well, actually, that was pretty much the main point of my paragraph that 
you quoted above. So yes, I do know ;) But the link is appreciated.

>
>> 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.

Actually, I *am* genuinely glad to hear that, that my impression about 
him was apparently completely off the mark after all. Obviously some 
things are very good to be wrong about.

I do still wish he would have actually elaborated in that article. Just 
enough to actually give *some* idea of *how* this MS thing allegedly[1] 
causes problems and *how* the GPLv3 allegedly[1] puts an end to it.

He explained the DVD thing well enough (although I was already aware of 
how that worked). I wish he would have done the same to the primary 
issues that article was all about in the first place.

[1] I only say "allegedly", not to be contentious, but simply because 
*I* wouldn't know...because his article didn't explain it. It just 
claimed it and then left it as mere claims. I'd *like* to say "yes, 
that's great, I agree and I'm onboard with you", but the article gives 
me NO foundation for doing so - only claims. And that just isn't enough 
for a point to be made. *THAT's* the main thing I was finding 
irritating: The article is almost a bit of a disservice to the very 
point he's trying to make. I'd like to believe him, but he gives me no 
basis for it.


> 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.
>

Fair enough. I would actually be very interested if you could elaborate 
more about on his actual stance. Especially (if possible) as it relates 
to the other side-discussion on the role and acceptability of a limited 
amount of "necessary evil" closed source (such as codes/drivers, even if 
only until sufficient OSS alternatives can be made) for the sake of 
increasing OSS's foothold, because, well GNU/Linux with a few closed 
parts is at least more free than Windows or iOS.

Or, really, any other first-hand insight you'd be willing to offer would 
be appreciated.