September 01, 2014
On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 22:01 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 8/31/2014 8:26 PM, Kajal Sinha wrote:
> > Walter, will it really become a threat for D?
> 
> I have no idea.

There is a patent on multiply linked lists (cf. http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7028023) but I am fairly sure it hasn't been asserted against anyone as yet.

The US patent system is, in this regard, a complete shambles. It is so sad the US government is intent on imposing the same system on the rest of the world :-(

I guess it must be a "keep patent lawyers in work" scheme.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder


September 01, 2014
On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 22:06:09 UTC, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> GPL can be summarised in four simple freedoms.  Nothing complicated there.

The problems come up when you get into the details of how to write those "freedoms" into legalese, for example, the whole dynamic linking issue.  While they now claim that dynamic linking requires full GPL compliance, that's not actually written in the GPLv2 license.

> In any case, you do know that there are paid gpl software too, right?
> Ardour is a good example of this.
>
> http://ardour.org/download.html

I had not heard of Ardour using such a paid model, so I just looked it up.  Turns out the lead dev of Ardour announced last month that he had to shift focus from the project because it isn't bringing in much money (http://lwn.net/Articles/604718/), which is exactly what I predicted in my article four years ago because it has happened countless times already.

I'll note that the one guy who was able to build a sustainable business for a GPL software product before dual-licensing was the original ghostscript developer, who sold a closed GUI frontend along with the open GPL backend, which was apparently legal because the two were separate executables.  He started a successful software company that made millions off this early mixed model decades ago.
September 01, 2014
On 8/31/2014 10:15 PM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I guess it must be a "keep patent lawyers in work" scheme.

There's another aspect at work with this one. I'm a bit irked that something Andrei and I came up with in 2007 is claimed by others to have been invented 5 years later. A number of features pioneered by D have been showing up in other languages, and D has not been acknowledged.

I'm happy to acknowledge ideas from other languages that have made it into D, and it is right for other languages to reciprocate.

What I don't intend to do is patent D's innovations. What D has done is our gift to the programming community. I'm also glad we're using github, as it is a fine way to document and timestamp the provenance of D's features.
September 01, 2014
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 21:19:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/27/2014 1:02 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
>> 	So for patent number 20140196015, the application number is
>> 13/734762 and for patent number 20140196008, the application number
>> is 13/734750.
>>
>> 		Jerome
>>
>
> "Required fields (Patent Number) cannot be empty or the data entered is incorrectly formatted."
>
> "The field contains over 9 characters which cannot be processed in the USPTO system."

Walter,
Have you tried dropping the first two digit? 140196015 and 140196008?

--
/Paolo Invernizzi
September 01, 2014
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:43:23 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> This is what guys like Stallman or ketmar don't seem to get, that mixed-source still leads to _more_ open source
which was used to produce vendor-locked smartphone. bwah, what's good in this "open source" then? "look but don't touch"?

and i won't buy freedroid/cyanogen too: they are in the same jail due to hardware drivers (especially videodrivers), which are blobs again. yes, they can make workarounds, but... working on workarounds for proprietary software neither fun nor good.

so yes, i don't care about *that* *kind* of "open source". "you are free but you must report yourself to police once per day" != "free".

RMS is not a fanatic and his "all or nothing" strategy has solid foundation behind it. there are no "partially pregnant" women and there is no "partially open" software. "partially open" means "closed".


September 01, 2014
On 8/31/2014 6:05 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 31 August 2014 05:24, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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).
>>
>
> GPL can be summarised in four simple freedoms.  Nothing complicated there.
>

Maybe so. I hope so. But I wouldn't know.

I can read BSD, MIT or zlib and pretty much understand them. Within minutes. GPL, it would take me longer just to *read* it let alone comprehend.

I'm not saying that makes GPL inferior to the others. I'm just saying: that's one hell of a dense, cryptic, gigantic wall of text. (And yes, I don't doubt that there are far bigger and less comprehensible legal documents out there. Like the average software patent ;))


> In any case, you do know that there are paid gpl software too, right?
> Ardour is a good example of this.
>
> http://ardour.org/download.html
>

Well, actually, that was pretty much the main point of my paragraph that you quoted above. So yes, I do know ;) But the link is appreciated.

>
>> I *do* agree with Stallman's views, even most of the more extreme ones, I
>> *want* to like FSF and GPL, but...
>>
>> ...but then there's stuff like that link above.
>>
>> He keeps harping on how MS is being evil, and GPL v3 prevents the evil MS is
>> attempting...but jesus crap he *WILL NOT* spend ONE FUCKING WORD on
>> ***HOW*** the shit any of that supposedly works. We're supposed to just
>> blindly accept all of it just like the good little corporate whores he keeps
>> trying to crusade that we *shouldn't* be. Shit.
>>
>> The FSF constantly sounds just like one of those worthless pro-issue #XX /
>> anti-issue #XX asshats we have to put up with every voting season:
>
> <snip>
>
> Having spoken to RMS in person, I can say that you are far from the
> reality of their stance on promoting free software.

Actually, I *am* genuinely glad to hear that, that my impression about him was apparently completely off the mark after all. Obviously some things are very good to be wrong about.

I do still wish he would have actually elaborated in that article. Just enough to actually give *some* idea of *how* this MS thing allegedly[1] causes problems and *how* the GPLv3 allegedly[1] puts an end to it.

He explained the DVD thing well enough (although I was already aware of how that worked). I wish he would have done the same to the primary issues that article was all about in the first place.

[1] I only say "allegedly", not to be contentious, but simply because *I* wouldn't know...because his article didn't explain it. It just claimed it and then left it as mere claims. I'd *like* to say "yes, that's great, I agree and I'm onboard with you", but the article gives me NO foundation for doing so - only claims. And that just isn't enough for a point to be made. *THAT's* the main thing I was finding irritating: The article is almost a bit of a disservice to the very point he's trying to make. I'd like to believe him, but he gives me no basis for it.


> This is the sort
> of attitude I'd expect from a sorely misunderstood teenager.  Your
> heart might be in the right place, but your actually insulting both
> sides of the border.
>

Fair enough. I would actually be very interested if you could elaborate more about on his actual stance. Especially (if possible) as it relates to the other side-discussion on the role and acceptability of a limited amount of "necessary evil" closed source (such as codes/drivers, even if only until sufficient OSS alternatives can be made) for the sake of increasing OSS's foothold, because, well GNU/Linux with a few closed parts is at least more free than Windows or iOS.

Or, really, any other first-hand insight you'd be willing to offer would be appreciated.

September 01, 2014
On 9/1/2014 3:00 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:43:23 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> This is what guys like Stallman or ketmar don't seem to get, that
>> mixed-source still leads to _more_ open source
> which was used to produce vendor-locked smartphone.

Yea, a vendor-locked smartphone that still gives you far more freedoms than iOS or WinRT ever will.

You're not seriously going to try to tell me that someone as pro-OSS as you *genuinely* believes we'd be better off with an Apple monopoly, are you? Because that's exactly what we'd have right now if Google had insisted on 100% openness. *NO* vender would have touched it.

Besides, you *CAN* buy android smartphones that aren't service vendor locked. Quite easily, in fact. You can even get one directly from Google. Just don't expect the *vendor* to be one of the sellers.

> bwah, what's good in this "open source" then?

Seriously?

Go put your software and OS mods on an iPhone or WinRT and *then* try to tell everyone that the open portions of Android don't do any good.

Are you trolling or just genuinely naive?


> "look but don't touch"?
>
> and i won't buy freedroid/cyanogen too: they are in the same jail due
> to hardware drivers (especially videodrivers), which are blobs again.
> yes, they can make workarounds, but... working on workarounds for
> proprietary software neither fun nor good.
>

And what phone do *you* use? Rotary? Telegraph? Even the cordless landline phones have microcontrollers running closed-source firmware.

I don't like the proprietary crap any more than you do. But guess what? You don't have a choice. It's either "partially closed" (android) or "very closed" (everything else). Nothing else exists right now.


September 01, 2014
On 8/31/2014 6:16 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 31 August 2014 06:53, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 find that using the term "open source" is like using the term "cloud
> computing".  It's a buzzword to make free software sound more
> attractive to commercial businesses.
>

Well, I do hate "could" and other marketing buzzwords...

But "open" and "openness" *do* have connotations of freedom. (Just ask any hippie/new ager ;) )

> By preferring the term "free" over "open", you are merely pointing out
> that a "Waste Management and Disposal Technician" is just a "Bin-man",
> no matter what angle you take on it.
>

I can't say I agree with that analogy, but maybe there are either regional or subcultural differences in the connotations of "open".

I see "open" not as being a marketer buzzword, but as clear and concise way to not let Average Joe easily mistake it for meaning "free as in 'free beer'". The fact that we even have the whole "free as in..." thing at all indicates we've already *acknowledged* there's a communication problem with "free". OTOH, when you say "open", everyone knows what you mean. "Free" requires configuring while "Open" just works out-of-the-box. ;)



September 01, 2014
On 9/1/2014 4:27 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> Well, I do hate "could" and other marketing buzzwords...

"could"?  Ok, maybe time I pack up the NG reader for the night ;)


September 01, 2014
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 04:00:46 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Yea, a vendor-locked smartphone that still gives you far more freedoms than iOS or WinRT ever will.
"partially pregnant".

> Go put your software and OS mods on an iPhone or WinRT and *then* try to tell everyone that the open portions of Android don't do any good.
android is far more dangerous to FOSS than iphone, for example. iphone is simply hostile to FOSS, and android makes people think that half-opened crap is "good OSS". no, it's not good. i'd better see android dead.

> Are you trolling or just genuinely naive?
neither.

> And what phone do *you* use?
N900. but i'm not happy with it either, 'cause it has alot of blobs, including videodriver. but otherwise it's a normal GNU/Linux. we are slowly working on replacing closed components (and with Neo900 -- to have open schematics). and if we'll ditch OpenGL (hell, i don't need that *so* much) we can use FB driver instead of powervr blob.

so what we'll have in the end is the device with open schematics and open software, free to build and modify by anyone.

> I don't like the proprietary crap any more than you do. But guess what? You don't have a choice.
yet i have.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16