On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 22:51 -0500, Chante wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Simply keep it a secret ("trade secret"). First-to-file allows Big Softare Corp to claim rights to things which they have no proprietary right to. But I'm not read-up on this stuff, I'm just spouting feelings. My feelings are that I've been sold-out, betrayed, raped (but I won't know for sure if those feelings are correct until I figure this stuff out).

I am not a lawyer, but do work as an expert witness -- normally in the UK, the laws of which are very different regarding patents than the US.

I would suggest that your gut feeling is about spot on.  First-to-file is a beautiful manoeuvre by Big Money to take complete control of the patent system.  The "little guy" for whom the patent system is touted as being for (usually by Big Money!), is effectively sidelined since now Big Money can nigh on remove any competition for patents by threats of high cost legal action.

This is making sure that patents are by Big Money for Big Money.

I have always preferred "commercial secret" and binding NDAs for dealing
with proprietary software.  With the US system evolving as it is, and
the pressure Big Money is putting on the UK and EU systems, my belief is
being massively reinforced.


-- 
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@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

> >>GPL:"Free as in Herpes"
> >>
> >>Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.

> > Incorrect analogies are really, really nasty stuff, please don't
> > propagate this FUD.
> > renoX
> >
> Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic.
> And it's just an analogy (plus joke).

Given that many programmers do really believe this meme and don't understand that "GPL propagation" happens ONLY through VOLONTARY REUSE of code whereas virus propagations don't, it's a really, really bad analogy plus a tasteless joke.

renoX

> > First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD,
> Not that I care about anything GPL (rejected it long ago),

Your choice.

> but how is calling GPL'd code "viral" not appropriate when just
placing uninfected code next to it, infects it?


Because *someone* joined the GPL code and the other code, so it is a
*voluntary act* whereas being infected by a biological virus is
usually something totally involuntary.
I said so already in my post you're replying..
Maybe you should read the whole post before replying.


> On another note: Isn't the goal of GPL to offer "crap code" with
the
> intent-of/attempt-at getting good
(valuable/saleable/researched/developd) code?

Your flamebait/assertions is not supported by facts: the Linux kernel and other software are definitely not "crap code".

On 10/24/2011 05:24 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> So expressing disapproval about something, and the reason for the
> disapproval, is suddenly "deceitful propaganda and mudslinging"?

Cut the bullshit, Nick. I explained already why "GPL: "Free as in
Herpes" was flamebait, deceitful, mudslinging propaganda. You just liked it because it was "hilarious flamebait" and because you hate the GPL.

> Ah, I forgot, ever since the 60's nobody's allowed to have a negative
> option on anything...

Just like when people make bullshit statements about D on Stack
Overflow, Reddit, or here you get pissed off. Bullshit it bullshit,
regardless of whether you are for or against something.

There's nothing wrong with expressing a negative opinion, as long as it reasoned and truthful. The original post was neither.

"renoX" <renzyx@free.fr> wrote in message news:j86eo6$6i8$1@digitalmars.com...
>> > First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD,
>> Not that I care about anything GPL (rejected it long ago),
>
> Your choice.
>
>> but how is calling GPL'd code "viral" not appropriate when just
> placing uninfected code next to it, infects it?
>
>
> Because *someone* joined the GPL code and the other code, so it is a *voluntary act* whereas being infected by a biological virus is usually something totally involuntary.

That's silly. You're trying to defend GPL on the basis of an analogy not being identical to the thing it is being likened to. IOW, you're trying to play "analogy warfare" instead of "getting the message". One can on to say, well the person who went to the doctor's office didn't expect to come back with <some disease> because the doctor didn't wash his hands between patients. Yada, yada...

> I said so already in my post you're replying..
> Maybe you should read the whole post before replying.
>
>
>> On another note: Isn't the goal of GPL to offer "crap code" with
> the
>> intent-of/attempt-at getting good
> (valuable/saleable/researched/developd) code?
>
> Your flamebait/assertions is not supported by facts: the Linux kernel and other software are definitely not "crap code".

That's just your opinion.

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j86k2q$hoj$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/24/2011 05:24 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> So expressing disapproval about something, and the reason for the disapproval, is suddenly "deceitful propaganda and mudslinging"?
>
> Cut the bullshit, Nick. I explained already why "GPL: "Free as in Herpes" was flamebait, deceitful, mudslinging propaganda.

And I refute your explanation. That doesn't leave the discussion in a place where "flamebait, deceitful, mudslinging propaganda" has become accepted fact.

> You just liked it because it was "hilarious flamebait" and because you hate the GPL.
>

Now who's bullshitting? The "flamebait" part was obviously just carried over from the message being replied to as a way to "flip it around", so to speak, and the key was the "hilarious" part. It's a common thing. Maybe it was too subtle. If so, my apologies.

And I *did* state that there were a couple things I did like about the GPL.

>> Ah, I forgot, ever since the 60's nobody's allowed to have a negative option on anything...
>
> Just like when people make bullshit statements about D on Stack Overflow, Reddit, or here you get pissed off. Bullshit it bullshit, regardless of whether you are for or against something.
>
> There's nothing wrong with expressing a negative opinion, as long as it reasoned and truthful. The original post was neither.

I do believe you have that backwards. Calling the OP "flamebait, deceitful, mudslinging propaganda" was neither truthful nor well reasoned. It was indeed truthful. And as far as reasoning: The GPL propogates itself through what it touches. That's what's considered "viral", period. All these rediculous nitpicks about "useful purpose" and "voluntary acts" are absolutely no more sensible than saying "No, it's not viral because it's not made out of nucleic acids!!" Doesn't matter if you like the GPL or not: Face it, the shoe fits.

Hell, I can even make "GPL is viral" arguments based on notion of GPL being voluntary. But I've been avoiding that because it's beside the damn point.

As for the comparison with D, if someone makes a negative statement about D that *is* truthful, even said in a joking tounge-in-cheek mannar, I do *not* get pissed off or up in arms about it. And even when it isn't truthful, I usually just simply correct them.

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.

You can't write software out of thin air. Let's suppose ranges increase usability of a collections library. Can you write a collections library without knowing about ranges concept? That's what patents are for.

> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.

Software is a machine: concrete thing doing concrete job. Patent doesn't protect the machine itself, it protects concrete design work put into it. Design is a high-profile work, a good design has a good chance to be more expensive than the actual implementation. So it's perfectly valid to claim ownership for a design work and charge fees for it.

> It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.

Dead software is seen as unusable. So - no, to produce software you need continuous maintenance and development which is as expensive as any other labor.

> 4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual, working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software that inadvertently violates a "patent" with low cost.

I don't see how this doesn't apply to physical machines.
How to improve patent system is another question. GPL3 can actually play some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology in a GPL3 software.

> 5. The patent office does *NOT UNDERSTAND* software, so they are more apt to grant trivial patents (e.g. one-click).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

"Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j87a5u$1sjv$1@digitalmars.com...

> there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology in a GPL3 software.

Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?

On 10/25/2011 04:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> It was indeed truthful. And as far as reasoning: The GPL propogates
> itself through what it touches. That's what's considered "viral",
> period.

Yes, it has *some* viral aspects. That doesn't mean "Free as in Herpes"
isn't deceitful mudslinging.

> All these rediculous nitpicks about "useful purpose" and "voluntary
> acts" are absolutely no more sensible than saying "No, it's not viral
> because it's not made out of nucleic acids!!" Doesn't matter if you
> like the GPL or not: Face it, the shoe fits.

Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and has
been voluntarily adopted around the world, and it's "nitpicking" to
criticize somebody who says "Free as in Herpes"?

> As for the comparison with D, if someone makes a negative statement
> about D that *is* truthful, even said in a joking tounge-in-cheek
> mannar, I do *not* get pissed off or up in arms about it. And even
> when it isn't truthful, I usually just simply correct them.

*snort* You of the midnight, drunken rants about Google, or rants about
pretty much anything. Sure, you "simply correct" people and don't get
pissed off. Are you going to make me dig up examples?

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> "Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j83tie$abu$1@digitalmars.com...
> >> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
> >
> > Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about your users?
> 
> That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance, the right to license my software however I damn well choose.

Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free code while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.