View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
June 24, 2010
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Don,

> KennyTM~ wrote:
> 
>> Why should Microsoft do that instead of promoting Visual C++? ;)
>> 
> Because there's no money in compilers anymore.
> 

Very true. Or in languages for that matter. But there is huge money in tools.

-- 
... <IXOYE><
June 24, 2010
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello Jérôme,

> KennyTM~ wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 24, 10 03:57, bearophile wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you Jerome and all the people that have answered me, I was
>>> ignorant about GNU license.
>>> 
>>>> if you call a DLL and give it a callback and your callback throws
>>>> then the cleanup code in the DLL won't be run (and vice versa of
>>>> course). SEH would allow this to work.
>>>> 
>>> If someone writes a compiler/language that allows programs to be
>>> ported with no problems from Windows to other nonwindows systems,
>>> this may damage Windows a little (but isn't Mono able to do this
>>> with C#2 programs?).
>>> 
>>> But it's economically advantageous for Microsoft to make it easy for
>>> people to create new compilers and languages for Windows that work
>>> well with other Windows programs. So in my opinion having a good
>>> Clang++ on Windows is good for the economic well-being of Windows.
>>> They can grant LLVM a free licence to use Windows-style exceptions.
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> Why should Microsoft do that instead of promoting Visual C++? ;)
>> 
> Because they're giving away Visual C++ for free anyway?
> 

Only to the people they wouldn't get money out of anyway. Anyone who /could/ 
matter a gnat's fart in a hurricane to MS's bottom line will want more than 
the free offering gives.


-- 
... <IXOYE><
June 24, 2010
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
bearophile Wrote:

> Leandro Lucarella:
> > Yes, I don't think "copying with 'cosmetic changes'" works, legally
> > speaking. Otherwise everybody would be doing it.
> 
> If 10% of changes is not legally enough, they LLVM dev can copy it and then change the 15% of it or even 20%. There must exist a minimum amount of differences between two blocks of code that allows them to be legally considered different, otherwise GNU is worse than a software patent.
> 
The GPL is not formulated in terms fraction of difference. It's formulated in terms of basement of work. If you don't base your work on another one, you have no need to copy it.
June 29, 2010
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
Hello dsimcha,


> If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software
> patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start
> trampling freely.

FWIW:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

-- 
... <IXOYE><
July 06, 2010
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
"BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff167c88cce5058a18ca78@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello dsimcha,
>
>
>> If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software
>> patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start
>> trampling freely.
>
> FWIW:
>
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
>
>

Can someone decode that?
July 06, 2010
Re: DMD Backend Long-term
On 7/6/10 11:35 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "BCS"<none@anon.com>  wrote in message
> news:a6268ff167c88cce5058a18ca78@news.digitalmars.com...
>> Hello dsimcha,
>>
>>
>>> If we're really lucky, Bilski Vs. Kappos
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski) will send all the software
>>> patent attorneys to the poorhouse next week and we can just start
>>> trampling freely.
>>
>> FWIW:
>>
>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
>>
>>
>
> Can someone decode that?
>
>

In case that wasn't simply a commentary on unreadable legalese, here's 
what Ars Technica said about it: 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/supreme-court-allows-but-limits-business-method-patents.ars
Next ›   Last »
2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home