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

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/31/2014 6:16 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 31 August 2014 06:53, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really,
>> everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and it's *not* confusing
>> and ambiguous. So the whole "free" obsession is just semantic pedantry that
>> introduces ambiguity and confusion ("free as in...what, which 'free' now?
>> Because Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types, right?") and distracts
>> people from the more important matters.
>>
>
> I find that using the term "open source" is like using the term "cloud
> computing".  It's a buzzword to make free software sound more
> attractive to commercial businesses.
>

Well, I do hate "could" and other marketing buzzwords...

But "open" and "openness" *do* have connotations of freedom. (Just ask 
any hippie/new ager ;) )

> By preferring the term "free" over "open", you are merely pointing out
> that a "Waste Management and Disposal Technician" is just a "Bin-man",
> no matter what angle you take on it.
>

I can't say I agree with that analogy, but maybe there are either 
regional or subcultural differences in the connotations of "open".

I see "open" not as being a marketer buzzword, but as clear and concise 
way to not let Average Joe easily mistake it for meaning "free as in 
'free beer'". The fact that we even have the whole "free as in..." thing 
at all indicates we've already *acknowledged* there's a communication 
problem with "free". OTOH, when you say "open", everyone knows what you 
mean. "Free" requires configuring while "Open" just works out-of-the-box. ;)