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

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/31/2014 2:59 AM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> 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?
>

I have a hard time believing there's no middle ground there.

Shoot, even theoretical physics has simplified explanations ("A Brief 
History of Time"). No doubt this could be summarized too without 
resorting to "MS try be bad. GPLv3 stop MS be bad. Ug."

>> 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.
>

Yea, I know there were reasons a new version needed to be created. But 
if a license designed with the specific and sole purpose of promoting 
openness can't even get along with another version itself, then 
something's clearly gone horribly, horribly wrong with it.

I can link BSD 2-clause, 3-clause and even 4-clause all into the same 
program just fine. Forget the usual "BSD vs GPL" argument about GPL 
viral unwillingness to play nice with other licenses, the thing can't 
even play nice with *itself*!

Know what I really want to see? I wanna see some smart-ass make a GPL 
program statically linking GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code. Then drift it 
past the FSF's nose. I'd be fascinated to see what happens.

Does FSF conveniently drop the "GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible" 
bullshit and just let it slide? Or do they lawyer-up in an idiotic brawl 
against their own creations? Or do their heads just spin around, let out 
a puff of smoke and explode?


>> 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.
>

So, through his stubbornness to accept the lesser as a stepping stone to 
his ultimate goal, he allows the larger evil to thrive instead. 
Brilliant strategy. Bravo. A real win for freedom.

It's like a little kid kicking and screaming about not getting a 20lb 
crate of candy when he's already being offered a chocolate bar the size 
of his head. Or a third place runner who pouts and storms off because he 
didn't get the gold.

Take what you *can* get, and *then* continue moving towards the real 
goal. All-or-nothing is self-defeat.


>
>   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.
>

Yea, that's a fascinating story. But honestly, I really am totally with 
him on all that. I *really* genuinely am, no BS.

But reality doesn't give a crap how much he wants openness or what his 
background is: Things aren't going to go his way just because he wants 
it badly enough. He has attempt his goals within the framework of reality.

Displace proprietary junk in favor of open? Hell yea, I'll take some of 
that. Absolutely. But without giving people what they want, even if what 
they want happens to include a little bit of *eeeeviiilll* closed stuff, 
then THEY'RE NOT FUCKING GONNA JUMP ON BOARD. It just NOT going to 
happen. It's been how many freaking decades and it *HASN'T* happened. 
Has he really not noticed, after all those years, that the puritanical 
all-or-nothing approach DOES NOT WORK?

Shoot, "pragmatic" distros like Mint and Ubuntu have done FAR more to 
get people onboard with, and embracing, and pushing for more open 
software than ANY purity distro. This is plainly evident. He can't *not* 
see it.

It's basic marketing: Offer them what they want. Give them a taste. They 
might want more. But *don't* offer what they want, and you seriously 
think you'll get takers? Fat chance. I'm not sure Stallman really gets 
this. Or if he does, then he's too stubborn about it for his own good. 
(And believe me, I know a thing or two about being stubborn ;))

Luckily, he has followers who *do* grasp basic marketing and *do* get it 
right (again, Mint and Ubuntu as a couple modern examples), and 
*they're* the ones dragging his stubborn idealism down the road towards 
success.

Seriously, I have about a metric shit-ton of direct experience being 
highly non-mainstream on things. Stubbornly so. And I've watched things 
in the world go from good, to bad, to worse. Believe me, I know from 
experience: You do NOT get people onboard with something by trying to 
convince them. And certainly not by wanting them to or telling them to.

*No* amount of well-reasoned well-explained logic works, at least not on 
any meaningful scale. People don't get logic, people don't like reason, 
people don't give a crap what sounds good on paper or what's in their 
best interest. "In my best interest" is boring. Dancing cats aren't.

No, the way to get them onboard with something is to make it *into* what 
they want. Or at least make it appear to be what they think they want 
(Most people can't tell the difference). Give them the right gimmicky 
dumb hook, and they'll bite just about anything (Steve Jobs proved 
that...man did he prove that...to an incredibly depressing degree). 
Luckily, it'll work even on something people find as unpalatable as 
ethics and their own freedom.

tl;dr:
Gotta hide that vitamin in people's doggie biscuit. It's usually the 
only way.

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

We can bang the dictionary all we want, but really, aside from the 
ultra-pedantics, nobody actually means that narrow definition when they 
say "open source".