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

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/4/2014 4:56 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:23:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 1. You can statically link GPL2 code with GPL3 code if you have received
> the source code through proper channels. I think you are confusing  GPL2
> with Linux "GPL" which isn't GPL2.

I was just going by what Stallman said in the article linked to earlier:

"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no 
legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single 
program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: 
each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger 
program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no 
way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause 
to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar 
clause."
   - Richard Stallman: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

I think this thread, and every other discussion of GPL on the net, 
demonstrate one of my earlier points: GPL is freaking confusing.