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

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/31/2014 5:23 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 04:25:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 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).
>
> What?  Did you mean to write "BSD, unlike GPL?"  Explain what you mean.
>

There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be released 
like this:

"This is available under either a commercial license or GPL. You can 
freely download and use the software and its source code, at no cost, 
under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do not wish to be bound by 
the GPL can purchase a commercial license instead."

Or there will be a common variant like:

"Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the terms of 
GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx require a commercial 
license."

Or something roughly along those lines anyway.

I don't know what the FSF would have to say about it, or how well it 
works in practice, but the idea is that the source code is both free and 
free, AND since the OSS license used is GPL, there is still (at least in 
theory) sufficient added value to to justify a paid version (beyond just 
premium support. Being a support-based business has its own pros/cons - 
if you're just a group of developers trying to make a living, the Red 
Hat model may not be a great option). And, the OSS-version, being GPLed, 
cannot easily be used by another company *as* a competitor to you.

Theoretically, you *could* do that with BSD/MIT/zlib/etc instead of GPL. 
Nothing's explicitly prohibiting it. But then where's the "added value" 
in the paid version? They can already do anything they want. Or how do 
you restrict the OSS version to small businesses or home users only? 
It's BSD, it already permits *anyone* to use it or re-grant the same 
permissive license to anyone else. And what's to stop a competitor from 
competing against you with your own product?

Don't get me wrong, I like BSD/MIT/zlib/etc., and I use such licenses 
whenever my intent is to get my software USED rather than directly make 
money off it. But trying to mix them with a commercial model (for 
example, if you want to make a living directly off your software) seems 
very problematic. Being a support company seems the only theoretical 
way, and even then, anyone else, any corporation, etc., can still just 
pop up and offer support for your software too, and without the overhead 
of being a primary developer.


> As for Stallman, his problem is that his "all software must be free"
> crusade happens to have a few real benefits from some source being open,
> but will never happen to his idealistic extreme of all source becoming
> free because closed source has real benefits too.
>

Yea, I can agree there's some truth to that. And even if you can argue 
that closed doesn't TRULY have real genuine benefits, it still doesn't 
matter: As long as people perceive a benefit, then that's real enough in 
its effects.


> That's why when linux finally got deployed to the majority of computing
> devices over the last 5 years- though still not on the desktop ;) - it
> wasn't a full GPL stack but a permissively-licensed Apache stack
> (bionic, dalvik, ART, etc) on top of the GPL'd linux kernel combined
> with significant closed binary blobs and patches.  That mixed model is
> dominant these days, whether with iOS/OS X and their mix of open source
> (mach, darwin, llvm, webkit, etc) and closed or Android with its greater
> mix of open source.  As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such
> pragmatic mixing of open and closed source, is an antiquity and fast
> disappearing.

Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has all the 
money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if you want some of 
the money (*or* just a significant chunk of the market), then you have 
to please them enough to get them to fork it over. *Then* you can go 
from there and swing around as much clout as you've earned.

It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least it beats 
the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could* still lead to further 
acceptance of and demand for even more openness. Like burgers or crack: 
Give 'em a taste, maybe they'll like it and want more. And maybe by then 
you'll have earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to given them more.

The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet, but the 
mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a step in the right 
direction.