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

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 05:53:39 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Well, that page was an article written and posted by Stallman, 
> not a TV sound bite.

  Would you really be able to sift though possibly a 10-100 page 
description that you can't properly decipher unless you were a 
lawyer?

> straightforward about things. And not pretend that "GPL 
> incompatible with GPL" somehow isn't one hell of a gaping whole 
> in that big 'ol "GPL == Freeeedooooom!!!!" assertion.

  The updated GPL handles cases that weren't come up with before 
the previous version was drafted. Like you mentioned with 
Tivoization.

> In a more general sense, I think Stallman/FSF have a very 
> unfortunate habit of letting the strict goals and evangelism 
> get in the way of the practical realities of actually 
> *attaining* said goals and successfully getting the messages 
> across.

  He is strict probably because taking any steps back could have 
horrible consequences. Sometimes you can't accept the lesser evil.

> 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 always thought he was quite clear on what kind of 'free' he 
was talking about. But i guess more importantly is to see things 
from his view.

  Stallman was around when software was free and sources were 
open; There was no copyright in effect, and everyone helped with 
everything; You shared source and specs and programs and got your 
work done. Then NDA (Non-disclosure agreements) and closed source 
from corporations preventing you from being able to help everyone 
because they didn't want to share the source or specs on how to 
use it. (At the time it was XeroX printers i believe) which was a 
big warning of what was to come.

  He watched first hand as software and the computer industry went 
from thriving and open and growing, to closed and proprietary and 
secretive. His goal and wish is never to have it all so closed 
again that can't do anything besides sell your ethics or soul to 
get by day to day.



On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 06:19:24 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> everyone has it's own definition of what is "open" and what is 
> "free".

  With lack of understanding, it's similar to comparing what is 
sweet when you have grapefruit coated with sugar vs an orange.  
Stallman has a strict criteria of what is 'free', but he refers 
to it as a programmer. You are free to run the program, to look 
at the source, to improve the source, to share the source... It 
has nothing to do with price/money.

  'Open' can merely means you can see the source, nothing else. 
Really comes down to the license it's attached to.