www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Free?

reply Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
	
GPL: "Free as in Herpes" 

Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.

Steve
Oct 22 2011
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 17:56 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
 =09
 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"=20
=20
 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.



Not in my view.  I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 22 2011
parent reply Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
 	
 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
 
 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 
 
 Not in my view.  I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.


But your leaning toward LGPL says something ;=)
Oct 22 2011
parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 19:02 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:

 =09
 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
=20
 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


=20
=20
 Not in my view.  I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.


=20
 But your leaning toward LGPL says something ;=3D)


Certainly:  That the world of dynamic linking is slightly different from
that of static linking.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 10/23/2011 1:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 Certainly:  That the world of dynamic linking is slightly different from
 that of static linking.


I think that line is arbitrary and doesn't really exist. For example, what does 
that mean when template code gets stuffed in the .h files?
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:36 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 10/23/2011 1:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 Certainly:  That the world of dynamic linking is slightly different fro=




m

 that of static linking.


=20
 I think that line is arbitrary and doesn't really exist. For example, wha=


t does=20

 that mean when template code gets stuffed in the .h files?


The line may be arbitrary but it does exists, witness the fact that you
responded to it and is can still be found on the servers :-)

I was focusing the notion of dynamic binding as in Python, Java, etc.
which is generally where all the perceived problems are regarding LGPL.

Hasn't the issue of source code distribution (of templates) in C++ (and
D?) been hashed out, it's what resulted in the Boost licence in the
first place?

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 23 2011
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 10/23/2011 10:48 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 Hasn't the issue of source code distribution (of templates) in C++ (and
 D?) been hashed out, it's what resulted in the Boost licence in the
 first place?



Boost doesn't solve GPL issues if the code is GPL licensed :-)

But we like Boost and use it for Phobos.
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Mirko Pilger <pilger cymotec.de> writes:
 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"


personally i prefer bsd style licenses but the gpl has its right to 
exist. and while bsd ensures freedom for developers, the gpl is more 
targeted at users. it's a kind of politic statement and i understand the 
gnu project as an "user rights moverment".

please let this thread not turn into another bsd vs gpl flame war.
Oct 22 2011
parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:06 +0200, Mirko Pilger wrote:

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"


=20
 personally i prefer bsd style licenses but the gpl has its right to=20
 exist. and while bsd ensures freedom for developers, the gpl is more=20
 targeted at users. it's a kind of politic statement and i understand the=


=20

 gnu project as an "user rights moverment".
=20
 please let this thread not turn into another bsd vs gpl flame war.


Agreed.

However, I think your characterization of the licences is not right.
All the BSD, MIT, etc. licences are about ensuring that anyone can do
anything with the code.  This ensures that no-one can stop people using
it.  GPL is about stopping organizations taking code proprietary.

There is definitely a political element to this, but itn't this about
not allowing volunteer effort to be exploited by organization for
financial gain without returning back to the community that generated
the original material.  I guess the question is whether it is morally
and ethically defensible for organizations to use material generated in
the FOSS context for profit without some form of "pay back" as a "quid
pro quo".

I disagree that this is to do with developers and users, it is to do
with proprietary vs. non-proprietary and the relationship between them.

The Java community seem to focus on the ASL 2.0 as their preferred
licence with LGPL actually being the only main option:  GPL is not
usable in this context.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name i=
s an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.=20

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> wrote:


 On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 17:56 +0000, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
   =20
 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"=20
=20
 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


=20
=20
 Not in my view.  I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.
=20
 --=20
 Russel.
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=


 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
Oct 22 2011
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name is
an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.


That's perfect. Corporations MUST pay.
Oct 24 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote:

 I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name
 is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.


What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?
Oct 22 2011
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-10-22 21:44, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly<sean invisibleduck.org>  wrote:

 I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name
 is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.


 What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?


Qt is available under GPL, LGPL and commercial license.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> wrote in message 
news:j7v048$1ut1$1 digitalmars.com...

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


Hah! Classic :)

Even ignoring the viral nature, the "hundred page wall of legalese" alone is 
enough to make me very, very nervous about going anywhere near it (same goes 
for creative commons). Not to mention the thousand different versions of 
[L]GPL.

But I find those issues extremely frustrating, because there's two things I 
do like about GPL:

- From what I've heard, it bans usage in the creation of closed/proprietary 
platforms and devices. (I've come to have a enormous seething hatred for 
such things. Absolutely fed up with them.) I'm sure I could make a 
derivative of zlib/libpng/etc. that adds such a prohibition clause, but that 
would kick it out of the "OSI-approved" category, and would probably create 
a bit of a PR problem. (Plus I imagine I'd probably need to hire a lawyer to 
make sure it would actually work as intended.)

- Dual-licensing software under both GPL and paid-proprietary is feasable. 
I've never been able to think of a way to do the same with something more 
free like zlib/libpng/BSD/MIT/etc, and I think about that a lot. The only 
ways to get paid with those seems to be donations (would that ever even earn 
enough for a pizza? and are there any realistic options besides FraudPal 
*cough* I mean PayPal?) and paid support (which isn't always particularly 
applicable to every program; not everythng really needs much support).
Oct 22 2011
next sibling parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
It's the dual licensing thing I like about the GPL - you can
be about the freedom, while still keeping a money making opportunity.

I also like how it makes a stand on the freedom issue, a strong one.


The BSD license is the one I loathe and despise. It puts an annoying
restriction on you, without gaining anything for the author.

A proprietary license gets the author money. I respect that.

The GPL gives the author his philosophy. I respect that.

The Boost or zlib licenses say "whatever". I respect that.

The BSD license says "whatever... but drop my name all over the place!"

That annoys me.
Oct 22 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j7vb86$2ljc$1 digitalmars.com...

 It's the dual licensing thing I like about the GPL - you can
 be about the freedom, while still keeping a money making opportunity.

 I also like how it makes a stand on the freedom issue, a strong one.


 The BSD license is the one I loathe and despise. It puts an annoying
 restriction on you, without gaining anything for the author.

 A proprietary license gets the author money. I respect that.

 The GPL gives the author his philosophy. I respect that.

 The Boost or zlib licenses say "whatever". I respect that.

 The BSD license says "whatever... but drop my name all over the place!"

 That annoys me.


That's the *OLD* "4-clause" BSD. That clause was recinded over a decade ago, 
resulting in the "3-clause" which says "don't use my name" (which is kinda 
weird...and it's even weirder that the 4-clause apperently said *both* "drop 
my name all over the place" *and* "don't use my name". Seriously, WTF?). But 
now there's also a "2-clause" one that removes that restriction too, 
rendering it equivalent to MIT:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
Oct 22 2011
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
Even the two clause BSD annoys me because of this:

"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

It strikes me as empty vanity.
Oct 22 2011
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for distribu=
ted software, but whatever.  At least it's usable. Personally, my favorite i=
s the Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where I don't even care=
 about source code attribution for my own work.=20

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:51 PM, "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wro=
te:


 Even the two clause BSD annoys me because of this:
=20
 "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
=20
 It strikes me as empty vanity.
Oct 22 2011
next sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:

 It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for
distributed software, but whatever.  At least it's usable. Personally, my
favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where I don't
even care about source code attribution for my own work.


Yes. I don't see why it's necessary at all. To take somebody's code and 
pretend that you wrote it, is plagiarism. You don't need a license to 
tell you that.


 On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:51 PM, "Adam D. Ruppe"<destructionator gmail.com>  wrote:


 Even the two clause BSD annoys me because of this:

 "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

 It strikes me as empty vanity.
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:26:34 Don wrote:

 On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:

 It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for
 distributed software, but whatever.  At least it's usable. Personally,
 my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where
 I don't even care about source code attribution for my own work.


 Yes. I don't see why it's necessary at all. To take somebody's code and
 pretend that you wrote it, is plagiarism. You don't need a license to
 tell you that.


But you probably do need a license in order to protect it in court. If people 
were going to just pay attention to right and wrong with this sort of thing, a 
lot of licenses would never have been needed in the first place (some like the 
GPL might still need to exist to insist that you give back rather than simply 
not claiming that you wrote it, but many of the OSS licensing center around 
making sure that you don't claim that you wrote something that you didn't). 
Still, it's pretty sad when you think about it.

One nice use for the names attributions though - completely beyond the legal 
ramifications - is that it makes it easier to know who wrote something so that 
you can contact them if you need to (though since it doesn't include contact 
information beyond the name, that only gets you so far).

- Jonathan M Davis
Oct 23 2011
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On 23.10.2011 20:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:26:34 Don wrote:

 On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:

 It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for
 distributed software, but whatever.  At least it's usable. Personally,
 my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where
 I don't even care about source code attribution for my own work.


 Yes. I don't see why it's necessary at all. To take somebody's code and
 pretend that you wrote it, is plagiarism. You don't need a license to
 tell you that.


 But you probably do need a license in order to protect it in court.


Maybe, but if it goes to court, you also need money!
OTOH, though, with so much code in publically accessible repositories, I 
think it should be pretty easy to identify blatant stealing.

My feeling is, that often licenses are put on code just because the 
author wants acknowledgement. Nothing more. It's pretty common to read:
"Do whatever you like with this, just keep my name on it".
Which *should* be covered by plagiarism anyway. Thus, the only reason 
for most licenses should be for the benefit of the user, not the author.

But most of the licenses include all kinds of silly extra restrictions, 
possibly relevant for corporations but not for people who've just 
written some stuff in their spare time.


 If people
 were going to just pay attention to right and wrong with this sort of thing, a
 lot of licenses would never have been needed in the first place (some like the
 GPL might still need to exist to insist that you give back rather than simply
 not claiming that you wrote it, but many of the OSS licensing center around
 making sure that you don't claim that you wrote something that you didn't).
 Still, it's pretty sad when you think about it.


The GPL makes a lot of sense to me. It has a particular agenda, and it's 
trying to force users in a particular direction.
But the hundreds of variations of BSD licenses seem completely 
unnecessary to me.


 One nice use for the names attributions though - completely beyond the legal
 ramifications - is that it makes it easier to know who wrote something so that
 you can contact them if you need to (though since it doesn't include contact
 information beyond the name, that only gets you so far).
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling parent Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
Personally, > my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to 
the point where > I don't even care about source code attribution for 
my  own work.
 


Sean,

Agree with you 100%. Just put your name on the original. If they need it 
spelled out then maybe they'll be inclined to contribute. If not then 
you've just done a better job than average. But then, I'm retired, and 
have enough income to get by.

Steve
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j7vdt1$2r48$1 digitalmars.com...

 Even the two clause BSD annoys me because of this:

 "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

 It strikes me as empty vanity.


Note that (as I read it) MIT is the same way, but just implicitly so: "The 
above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all 
copies or substantial portions of the Software."

But I agree it's annoying, and I'm fearful of accidentally forgetting to 
comply. In fact that's one of the main reasons I favor zlib/libpng over BSD 
and MIT (the other reasons being that zlib/libpng is easier to read, and 
zlib/libpng has "no misrepresentation" clauses).
Oct 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 16:55 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]

I wonder if there is a problem of old uninformed opinion from ages back
becoming accepted fact due to it being promulgated as fact over and over
again?


 Even ignoring the viral nature, the "hundred page wall of legalese" alone=


 is=20

 enough to make me very, very nervous about going anywhere near it (same g=


oes=20

 for creative commons). Not to mention the thousand different versions of=


=20

 [L]GPL.


I agree that the GPL is an irritatingly long document, but it is
uniquely trying to do something that the other licences are not, so it
is worth giving some leaway on that.

There is only one GPL v3 and only one LGPL v3, there are no different
versions of the (L)GPL just the official ones.  People who start
fiddling with "classpath variations" etc. are not using the LGPL.

It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a derogatory
term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that everyone
wants to achieve.


 But I find those issues extremely frustrating, because there's two things=


 I=20

 do like about GPL:
=20
 - From what I've heard, it bans usage in the creation of closed/proprieta=


ry=20

 platforms and devices. (I've come to have a enormous seething hatred for=


=20

 such things. Absolutely fed up with them.) I'm sure I could make a=20
 derivative of zlib/libpng/etc. that adds such a prohibition clause, but t=


hat=20

 would kick it out of the "OSI-approved" category, and would probably crea=


te=20

 a bit of a PR problem. (Plus I imagine I'd probably need to hire a lawyer=


 to=20

 make sure it would actually work as intended.)


This is indeed one of the goals of GPL and LGPL, and since the Tivo
incident prompted the creation of GPLv3, it is well handled by the
language Eben Moglen et al. introduced.  Of course Linux remains GPLv2
so is still open to "tivoization".

This is why I like GPL and LGPL, it stop organizations stealing FOSS
generated work and using it for their own gain, without any
responsibility to "give back" in some way that the FOSS community finds
constructive and supportive.


 - Dual-licensing software under both GPL and paid-proprietary is feasable=


.=20

 I've never been able to think of a way to do the same with something more=


=20

 free like zlib/libpng/BSD/MIT/etc, and I think about that a lot. The only=


=20

 ways to get paid with those seems to be donations (would that ever even e=


arn=20

 enough for a pizza? and are there any realistic options besides FraudPal=


=20

 *cough* I mean PayPal?) and paid support (which isn't always particularly=


=20

 applicable to every program; not everythng really needs much support).


Qt has made positive gains from GPL/proprietary dual licencing by
switching from GPL to LGPL.  This allows use by proprietary systems of
an LGPL library.  Sadly PyQt fell into the pit of not switching from GPL
to LGPL for their adapter from Python to the Qt libraries.  Hence PySide
which is LGPL.

It never ceases to amaze me that "being business friendly" has become a
phrase for "allows business to steal FOSS work for profit" and conned
the FOSS community into thinking this is a good thing!

I feel it is important to have a way for proprietary systems to use FOSS
software by linking to it hence I like LGPL where GPL can be a problem.


--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 10/23/2011 4:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 It never ceases to amaze me that "being business friendly" has become a
 phrase for "allows business to steal FOSS work for profit" and conned
 the FOSS community into thinking this is a good thing!



The Boost license for Phobos allows such use, and in no way are we Phobos 
contributors being conned. We're well aware of it and in fact that's one big 
reason why we chose Boost over GPL.

People are free to take the Phobos source and do whatever they please with it, 
with our blessing. Hey, if Vanilla Ice "samples" it for his next rap album, we 
won't sue. We promise!

Of course, we'd like it if they submitted back fixes and improvements, but 
that's up to them. (Vanilla Ice, you can keep your rap version. Thanks but no 
thanks!)
Oct 23 2011
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:33:52 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 10/23/2011 4:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 It never ceases to amaze me that "being business friendly" has become a
 phrase for "allows business to steal FOSS work for profit" and conned
 the FOSS community into thinking this is a good thing!




And what does GPL do, allow you to "steal FOSS work for non-profit"?  I  
mean come on!  It's not stealing if I give it away, regardless of your  
opinion of the recipient!  Unlike users of GPL or proprietary licenses, we  
do not discriminate against people we want to help :)


 The Boost license for Phobos allows such use, and in no way are we  
 Phobos contributors being conned. We're well aware of it and in fact  
 that's one big reason why we chose Boost over GPL.

 People are free to take the Phobos source and do whatever they please  
 with it, with our blessing. Hey, if Vanilla Ice "samples" it for his  
 next rap album, we won't sue. We promise!

 Of course, we'd like it if they submitted back fixes and improvements,  
 but that's up to them. (Vanilla Ice, you can keep your rap version.  
 Thanks but no thanks!)


Wow, how 1990s of you to bring that up :)

-Steve
Oct 24 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jose Armando Garcia <jsancio gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> wrote:

 It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a derogatory
 term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that everyone
 wants to achieve.


That is because you live in a capitalist economy. I don't find it
funny at all. I am always shock to hear what people are willing to do
and say for the pursuit of a profit. It is even more shocking when
technologist and scientist start judging technologies and innovation
based on profitability. One can one do? That is the world we live in.

-Jose
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:


 Even ignoring the viral nature, the "hundred page wall of legalese" alone is 
 enough to make me very, very nervous about going anywhere near it (same goes 
 for creative commons). Not to mention the thousand different versions of 
 [L]GPL.


GPL is very simple: stay open source, release your code under GPL and you don't
even have to read that wall.
Oct 24 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Dunno. I've never needed anything like it.=20

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> w=
rote:


 On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote:

 I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license na=




me

 is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.


=20
 What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?
Oct 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, October 22, 2011 21:44:54 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote:

 I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license
 name is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever
 worked.


 What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?


If a company is going to use Qt, then they pay for the commercial license and 
it's not an issue.

- Jonathan M Davis
Oct 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steve Teale" <steve.teale britseyeview.com> wrote in message 
news:j7v048$1ut1$1 digitalmars.com...

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


Indeed, I have always thought of GPL'd code similarly (think leprosy). I 
don't want to touch it, see it, or get near it and I don't want to be 
around other people who have either, for I don't want my pristine, virgin 
code to become infected. Maybe someday there will be a cure for GPL and 
those who have been exposed/infected can then be free of the taint put 
upon them.
Oct 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 12:29 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:

 I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license na=


me is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.=
=20

I think this may be right pragmatically, but is it simply that lawyers
for these companies have a knee-jerk reaction of panic whenever the GPL
is mentioned.  There are clearly situations and uses for which GPL code
simply cannot be used in an organization creating proprietary code, but
to have a blanket statement of "no GPL code" is actually to cut the
organization off from a huge resource that can be used to generate
profit and still play fair with the FOSS community.

Having written the previous email and the above, it occurs to me that we
should stop seeing this as a FOSS vs proprietary war where one must win
at the expense of the other, and ask the question how can both be nice
to each other so that proprietary makes money and they and FOSS
interwork together appropriately.  Clearly Microsoft will not be
involved in this collaborative atmosphere, given their historical
statements, but they should not be seen as thought leaders here.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:06:26 Jose Armando Garcia wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> wrote:

 It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a derogatory
 term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that everyone
 wants to achieve.


 
 That is because you live in a capitalist economy. I don't find it
 funny at all. I am always shock to hear what people are willing to do
 and say for the pursuit of a profit. It is even more shocking when
 technologist and scientist start judging technologies and innovation
 based on profitability. One can one do? That is the world we live in.


LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist anything. It's 
going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL, because it's 
viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih. It "infects" any 
code that you use it with. Many view the fact that the GPL does this as 
negative. In the case of the market campaign, the message is passed onto 
everyone that it comes into contact with, so the message becomes very 
widespread. This is obviously something that advertisers view as positive. In 
both cases, the term viral refers to how it spreads, not whether it's negative 
or positive. It's just that in the one case, having it spread like that is 
viewed as negative by some, and in the other it's viewed as positive. The word 
is used in essentially the same way in both cases meaning the same thing, and 
it in itself does not make that particular case either good or bad.

- Jonthan M Davis
Oct 23 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:06:26 Jose Armando Garcia wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> 
 wrote:

 It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a 
 derogatory
 term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that 
 everyone
 wants to achieve.


 That is because you live in a capitalist economy. I don't find it
 funny at all. I am always shock to hear what people are willing to do
 and say for the pursuit of a profit. It is even more shocking when
 technologist and scientist start judging technologies and innovation
 based on profitability. One can one do? That is the world we live in.


 LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist 
 anything. It's
 going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL, 
 because it's
 viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih.


Not just everyTHING, but also "infects" everyONE who "comes in contact 
with it". Of course one can say the same for programmers who have worked 
for a software company. The risk of having foreign code that is patented 
or viral creeping into a pristine codebase isn't worth the risk (IMO) of 
hiring "tainted" programmers. Young programmers/programmer-wannabes need 
to consider this before signing-on to get that paycheck. Once "tainted", 
they most likely will never be able to become "untainted" (there are 
cures, but they are very unlikely to be enacted).


 It "infects" any
 code that you use it with. Many view the fact that the GPL does this as
 negative. In the case of the market campaign, the message is passed 
 onto
 everyone that it comes into contact with, so the message becomes very
 widespread. This is obviously something that advertisers view as 
 positive. In
 both cases, the term viral refers to how it spreads, not whether it's 
 negative
 or positive. It's just that in the one case, having it spread like that 
 is
 viewed as negative by some, and in the other it's viewed as positive. 
 The word
 is used in essentially the same way in both cases meaning the same 
 thing, and
 it in itself does not make that particular case either good or bad.
Oct 23 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> wrote in message 
news:j81ur0$1oij$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist anything. 
 It's
 going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL, because 
 it's
 viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih.


 Not just everyTHING, but also "infects" everyONE who "comes in contact 
 with it". Of course one can say the same for programmers who have worked 
 for a software company. The risk of having foreign code that is patented 
 or viral creeping into a pristine codebase isn't worth the risk (IMO) of 
 hiring "tainted" programmers.


Meh, thanks to the corrupt USPTO, all code is covered by one patent or 
another...programmer taint or not.


 Young programmers/programmer-wannabes need to consider this before 
 signing-on to get that paycheck. Once "tainted", they most likely will 
 never be able to become "untainted" (there are cures, but they are very 
 unlikely to be enacted).
Oct 23 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:j81vad$1pl0$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> wrote in message 
 news:j81ur0$1oij$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist 
 anything. It's
 going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL, 
 because it's
 viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih.


 Not just everyTHING, but also "infects" everyONE who "comes in contact 
 with it". Of course one can say the same for programmers who have 
 worked for a software company. The risk of having foreign code that is 
 patented or viral creeping into a pristine codebase isn't worth the 
 risk (IMO) of hiring "tainted" programmers.


 Meh, thanks to the corrupt USPTO, all code is covered by one patent or 
 another...programmer taint or not.


While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to 
do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a 
potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral 
source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the 
thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government are 
on one side, humanity on the other.


 Young programmers/programmer-wannabes need to consider this before 
 signing-on to get that paycheck. Once "tainted", they most likely will 
 never be able to become "untainted" (there are cures, but they are 
 very unlikely to be enacted).
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to 
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a 
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral 
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the 
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government are 
 on one side, humanity on the other.


Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is equivalent to
elimination of intellectual property. You're not going to succeed on that. But
GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims from the author, so you'd better
use it. You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
Oct 24 2011
next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
 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?
Oct 24 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"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. The right to feel safe about 
using a piece of software *without* hiring an expensive lawyer to wade 
through the ten pounds of legalese bullshit. There's a lot of things I 
*strongly* agree with Stallman on, but his reasoning on the GPL is just a 
complete load of crap.
Oct 24 2011
next sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:j84kee$1vk5$1 digitalmars.com...

 "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. The right to 
 feel safe about using a piece of software *without* hiring an expensive 
 lawyer to wade through the ten pounds of legalese bullshit. There's a 
 lot of things I *strongly* agree with Stallman on, but his reasoning on 
 the GPL is just a complete load of crap.


He may be one of these "things": 
http://www.aspeneducation.com/article-entitlement.html

The number of people wanting something for nothing is astounding. I don't 
like those people.
Oct 24 2011
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
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.
Oct 25 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> wrote in message 
news:j8819j$667$1 digitalmars.com...

 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.


It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.
Oct 25 2011
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:


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


 
 It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.


Anyone can use GPL, it has no problem with it.
Oct 25 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> wrote in message 
news:j884ui$cra$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:


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


 It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.


 Anyone can use GPL, it has no problem with it.


I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If 
someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd 
they even make it free in the first place?
Oct 25 2011
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 01:32 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]

 I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If=20
 someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why=


'd=20

 they even make it free in the first place?


I have no problem with companies making money from FOSS by providing
value added service or proprietary components, as long as they are
clearly seen to be "giving back" to the FOSS community as a "quid pro
quo".  What I object to is companies taking FOSS software, making a
proprietary product from it, getting updates from the FOSS community for
free, restricting product purchasers regarding the FOSS software and
generally treating the FOSS community as a pool of slave labour to be
milked.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:09:48 -0400, Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk>  
wrote:


 On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 01:32 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 [ . . . ]

 I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If
 someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code,  
 why'd
 they even make it free in the first place?


 I have no problem with companies making money from FOSS by providing
 value added service or proprietary components, as long as they are
 clearly seen to be "giving back" to the FOSS community as a "quid pro
 quo".  What I object to is companies taking FOSS software, making a
 proprietary product from it, getting updates from the FOSS community for
 free, restricting product purchasers regarding the FOSS software and
 generally treating the FOSS community as a pool of slave labour to be
 milked.


So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e.  
you want something in return)?  Interesting...

-Steve
Oct 26 2011
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e.  
 you want something in return)?  Interesting...


It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects the
freedom. You can also provide your efforts to corporations - why not? -
proprietary licenses and patents are *adequate* means to do it.
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:38:31 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e.
 you want something in return)?  Interesting...


 It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects  
 the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to corporations - why  
 not? - proprietary licenses and patents are *adequate* means to do it.


I choose to provide my efforts to *anyone* without discrimination.  I.e.  
freedom without strings attached.

-Steve
Oct 26 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> wrote in message 
news:j892gn$2b5k$1 digitalmars.com...

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something 
 (i.e.
 you want something in return)?  Interesting...


 It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and 
 protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to 
 corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are 
 *adequate* means to do it.


Surely you meant "communism" rather than "freedom", otherwise the above 
is non-sensical.
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Chante Wrote:


 So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something 
 (i.e.
 you want something in return)?  Interesting...


 It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and 
 protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to 
 corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are 
 *adequate* means to do it.


 
 Surely you meant "communism" rather than "freedom", otherwise the above 
 is non-sensical. 


See? Corporations and people like you don't buy freedom. Software for money is
what you understand best.
Oct 26 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> wrote in message 
news:j8an18$2gqr$1 digitalmars.com...

 Chante Wrote:


 So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something
 (i.e.
 you want something in return)?  Interesting...


 It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and
 protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to
 corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are
 *adequate* means to do it.


 Surely you meant "communism" rather than "freedom", otherwise the 
 above
 is non-sensical.


 See? Corporations and people like you don't buy freedom. Software for 
 money is what you understand best.


Having to give up one's wares "for the good of the group" is 
oppression/crime against the individual.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:30 -0500, Chante wrote:

 "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> wrote in message=20
 news:j892gn$2b5k$1 digitalmars.com...

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something=20
 (i.e.
 you want something in return)?  Interesting...


 It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and=20
 protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to=20
 corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are=20
 *adequate* means to do it.


=20
 Surely you meant "communism" rather than "freedom", otherwise the above=


=20

 is non-sensical.=20


Surely "communism" is sharing without constraint.  That means GPL is not
"communist" whereas Boost is?

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 26 2011
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Russel Winder Wrote:


 Surely "communism" is sharing without constraint.  That means GPL is not
 "communist" whereas Boost is?


Restrictions is the very reason of boost existence. Boost wants "you are not
allowed to edit wrong file" totalitarism to exist. It has no relation to
communism or freedom.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:


 I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If 
 someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd 
 they even make it free in the first place?


Maybe they're commies. Ask Stallman.
Oct 26 2011
prev sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 10/26/2011 07:32 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Kagamin"<spam here.lot>  wrote in message
 news:j884ui$cra$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:


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


 It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.


 Anyone can use GPL, it has no problem with it.


 I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If
 someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd
 they even make it free in the first place?


Free software is not software that is gratis. It is software that 
respects the freedom of its end users. The problem is not that others 
profit from the software. That is okay. The problem is that proprietary 
developers may make the end users dependent on their own 
proprietary/non-free version, at which point the end users lose control 
about their computing. The GPL prohibits that.
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote in message 
news:j88jq8$1brb$1 digitalmars.com...


[Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end users.


Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The 
mire of propaganda that spews from "entitled" GPL fanboys is astounding.
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 10/26/2011 10:36 PM, Chante wrote:

 "Timon Gehr"<timon.gehr gmx.ch>  wrote in message
 news:j88jq8$1brb$1 digitalmars.com...


 [Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end users.


 Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The
 mire of propaganda that spews from "entitled" GPL fanboys is astounding.


Right, the developers respect the freedom of the end users of their 
program. Let that be the definition of software who respects the freedom 
of its end users and we are fine.

But that is just nitpicking in lack of a better argument. (and the 
implied personal attack cannot make up for it.)
Oct 26 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote in message 
news:j89unt$14up$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/26/2011 10:36 PM, Chante wrote:

 "Timon Gehr"<timon.gehr gmx.ch>  wrote in message
 news:j88jq8$1brb$1 digitalmars.com...


 [Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end 
 users.


 Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The
 mire of propaganda that spews from "entitled" GPL fanboys is 
 astounding.


 Right, the developers respect the freedom of the end users of their 
 program.


At the expense of the developer. The "end user" thing is just a ruse 
anyway. "Entitled" GPLers just want something for nothing.


 Let that be the definition of software who respects the freedom of its 
 end users and we are fine.

 But that is just nitpicking in lack of a better argument. (and the 
 implied personal attack cannot make up for it.)


The obvious argument, obvious to even the casual observer (given the 
length of this thread already), given above. Now, you were saying?
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:36 -0500, Chante wrote:

 "Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote in message=20
 news:j88jq8$1brb$1 digitalmars.com...
=20

[Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end users.


=20
 Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The=


=20

 mire of propaganda that spews from "entitled" GPL fanboys is astounding.


If you want to make a case against using the GPL for software let it be
done with civil argument, not off-hand disparaging hate mail.=20

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Russel Winder" <russel russel.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:mailman.528.1319696286.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 Chante wrote:
 "Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote in message=20
 news:j88jq8$1brb$1 digitalmars.com...
=20

[Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end 
users.


=20
 Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The=


=20

 mire of propaganda that spews from "entitled" GPL fanboys is 
 astounding.



If you want to make a case against using the GPL for software let it be
done with civil argument, not off-hand disparaging hate mail.


It's hardly an inappropriate categorization of the typical "zealot", 
"fanboy", GPLer. C'mon, call a spade a spade. No hate needed. It's a 
common observation.
Oct 27 2011
parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 10/27/2011 09:53 PM, Chante wrote:

 "Russel Winder"<russel russel.org.uk>  wrote in message
 news:mailman.528.1319696286.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 Chante wrote:
 "Timon Gehr"<timon.gehr gmx.ch>  wrote in message=20
 news:j88jq8$1brb$1 digitalmars.com...
 =20

 [Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end
 users.


 =20
 Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The=


 =20

 mire of propaganda that spews from "entitled" GPL fanboys is
 astounding.



 If you want to make a case against using the GPL for software let it be
 done with civil argument, not off-hand disparaging hate mail.


 It's hardly an inappropriate categorization of the typical "zealot",
 "fanboy", GPLer. C'mon, call a spade a spade. No hate needed. It's a
 common observation.


Don't feed the troll.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge  
 to
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government are
 on one side, humanity on the other.


 Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is  
 equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going to  
 succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims from  
 the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but GPL can  
 also protect *your* code.


Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no patent  
system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they were  
able to get a patent for it.

I feel software patents are a completely different entity than material  
patents.  For several reasons:

1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of software is  
well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely  
*abstract* thing, it's not a machine.  It can be produced en mass with  
near-zero cost.  It can be expressed via source code, which is *not* a  
piece of software.  There is a very good reason things like music, art,  
and written works are not patentable.  Free speech is at odds with  
software patents.
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.  To restrain free-thought  
like this goes against the spirit of the patent system.  The patent system  
when it was designed, protected the little guys who have good ideas from  
the giants who were the only ones capable of stealing them.  Software  
patents are the other way around, and serve as a barrier to entry more  
than a system to foster new ideas.  By the time you are able to "build on"  
an expired patent's ideas, the technology is long obsolete.
5. The patent office does *NOT UNDERSTAND* software, so they are more apt  
to grant trivial patents (e.g. one-click).

My take:  Either software patents should be *elminiated* entirely, or  
reduced to a reasonable software lifetime (e.g. 2 years).

-Steve
Oct 24 2011
next sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the 
 knowledge  to
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind 
 as a
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government 
 are
 on one side, humanity on the other.


 Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is 
 equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going 
 to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims 
 from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but 
 GPL can  also protect *your* code.


 Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no patent 
 system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they 
 were  able to get a patent for it.

 I feel software patents are a completely different entity than material 
 patents.  For several reasons:

 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.


Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is 
inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.


 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of software 
 is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely 
 *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.


Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers, 
boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by the 
source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.


 It can be produced en mass with  near-zero cost.  It can be expressed 
 via source code, which is *not* a  piece of software.  There is a very 
 good reason things like music, art,  and written works are not 
 patentable.


Music and art don't "do" anything except titilate the senses. Software, 
OTOH, does do things of practical utility.
Oct 24 2011
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>  
wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
 knowledge  to
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind
 as a
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government
 are
 on one side, humanity on the other.


 Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is
 equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going
 to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims
 from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but
 GPL can  also protect *your* code.


 Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no patent
 system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they
 were  able to get a patent for it.

 I feel software patents are a completely different entity than material
 patents.  For several reasons:

 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.


 Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is
 inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.


Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of  
sorts.  What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an  
entity puts into writing software.


 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of software
 is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
 *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.


 Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers,
 boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by the
 source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.


Software is not unlike math.  It achieves something based on an abstract  
concept of the world.  It has practical uses.  But math is not patentable.


 It can be produced en mass with  near-zero cost.  It can be expressed
 via source code, which is *not* a  piece of software.  There is a very
 good reason things like music, art,  and written works are not
 patentable.


 Music and art don't "do" anything except titilate the senses. Software,
 OTOH, does do things of practical utility.


Music and art are both different from software and the same.  They are  
different because there are no rules for creating valid music or art.  I  
could bang on the wall randomly with a pipe, and try to sell that as music  
(and ironically, I might succeed).  But they are the same because writing  
music and creating art that *is good* is a difficult thing that requires  
careful thought, planning, and execution.

-Steve
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3ylgbgaeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u> 
 wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
 knowledge  to
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind
 as a
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for 
 viral
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now 
 the
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government
 are
 on one side, humanity on the other.


 Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is
 equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going
 to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent 
 claims
 from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, 
 but
 GPL can  also protect *your* code.


 Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no 
 patent
 system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they
 were  able to get a patent for it.

 I feel software patents are a completely different entity than 
 material
 patents.  For several reasons:

 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.


 Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is
 inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.


 Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of 
 sorts.  What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an 
 entity puts into writing software.


With a book, the text is the end product. With software, the source code 
is an intermediate representation, or production machine rather than the 
end product. Source code is like a printing press for a specific book. It 
is not like the book. (These analogies are presented more for analysis, 
rather than in direct or opposing response).


 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of 
 software
 is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
 *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.


 Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers,
 boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by 
 the
 source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.


 Software is not unlike math.


I disagree. While one can use software to perform math, that does not 
make software "like math".


 It achieves something based on an abstract  concept of the world.  It 
 has practical uses.


That is too vague/general. Lacks the required amount of substance to be 
useful.


 But math is not patentable.


Given that I don't accept your stance that "software is like math", that 
is then irrelevant.


 It can be produced en mass with  near-zero cost.  It can be expressed
 via source code, which is *not* a  piece of software.  There is a 
 very
 good reason things like music, art,  and written works are not
 patentable.


 Music and art don't "do" anything except titilate the senses. 
 Software,
 OTOH, does do things of practical utility.


 Music and art are both different from software and the same.  They are 
 different because there are no rules for creating valid music or art. 
 I  could bang on the wall randomly with a pipe, and try to sell that as 
 music  (and ironically, I might succeed).  But they are the same 
 because writing  music and creating art that *is good* is a difficult 
 thing that requires  careful thought, planning, and execution.


Too vague and non-substantive to be used in support of any position on 
the issue of software patents.
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:55:34 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>  
wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3ylgbgaeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>
 wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
 knowledge  to
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind
 as a
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for
 viral
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now
 the
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government
 are
 on one side, humanity on the other.


 Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is
 equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going
 to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent
 claims
 from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others,
 but
 GPL can  also protect *your* code.


 Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no
 patent
 system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they
 were  able to get a patent for it.

 I feel software patents are a completely different entity than
 material
 patents.  For several reasons:

 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.


 Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is
 inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.


 Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of
 sorts.  What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an
 entity puts into writing software.


 With a book, the text is the end product. With software, the source code
 is an intermediate representation, or production machine rather than the
 end product. Source code is like a printing press for a specific book. It
 is not like the book. (These analogies are presented more for analysis,
 rather than in direct or opposing response).


compiled software is copyrighted, it's a derivative translation of the  
original source code.  When speaking of copyrighted software, the binary  
code and the source used to build it are one and the same.


 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of
 software
 is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
 *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.


 Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers,
 boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by
 the
 source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.


 Software is not unlike math.


 I disagree. While one can use software to perform math, that does not
 make software "like math".


Then the rest of this argument is moot, and I respectfully will end debate  
so as to not waste any more of our time.

-Steve
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3zaqsfzeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:55:34 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u> 
 wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3ylgbgaeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>
 wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
 knowledge  to
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in 
 mind
 as a
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for
 viral
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now
 the
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big 
 Government
 are
 on one side, humanity on the other.


 Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is
 equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not 
 going
 to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent
 claims
 from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others,
 but
 GPL can  also protect *your* code.


 Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no
 patent
 system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because 
 they
 were  able to get a patent for it.

 I feel software patents are a completely different entity than
 material
 patents.  For several reasons:

 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.


 Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is
 inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source 
 code.


 Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of
 sorts.  What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an
 entity puts into writing software.


 With a book, the text is the end product. With software, the source 
 code
 is an intermediate representation, or production machine rather than 
 the
 end product. Source code is like a printing press for a specific book. 
 It
 is not like the book. (These analogies are presented more for 
 analysis,
 rather than in direct or opposing response).


 compiled software


(you meant, "source code")


 is copyrighted, it's a derivative translation of the  original source 
 code. When speaking of copyrighted software, the binary  code and the 
 source used to build it are one and the same.


OK, but what if the "source code" is only graphical on the computer 
display, and the internal binary representation (not text) is then 
compiled? Obviously, the design of the software are the graphical 
diagrams on the computer screen for they are what the programmer 
understands.


 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of
 software
 is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
 *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.


 Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers,
 boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by
 the
 source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.


 Software is not unlike math.


 I disagree. While one can use software to perform math, that does not
 make software "like math".


 Then the rest of this argument is moot, and I respectfully will end 
 debate  so as to not waste any more of our time.


Yes, a debate cannot be had that starts out "God created all things, 
therefore God exists". That is a classic/cliche tactic.
Oct 27 2011
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:02:03 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>  
wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote

 compiled software


 (you meant, "source code")


OK, let's try this again.

Source code is copyrightable.  Compiled code *IS ALSO* copyrighted due to  
it being a direct translation of the source code that is copyrighted.  Any  
way you take source code and make some other form of media-based data out  
of it is copyrighted.  We can keep going around in this circle if you wish.

This might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright


 is copyrighted, it's a derivative translation of the  original source
 code. When speaking of copyrighted software, the binary  code and the
 source used to build it are one and the same.


 OK, but what if the "source code" is only graphical on the computer
 display, and the internal binary representation (not text) is then
 compiled? Obviously, the design of the software are the graphical
 diagrams on the computer screen for they are what the programmer
 understands.


Images are copyrightable as is all media-based data.

-Steve
Oct 27 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:02:03 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>
 wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote

 compiled software


 (you meant, "source code")


 OK, let's try this again.

 Source code is copyrightable.  Compiled code *IS ALSO* copyrighted
 due to it being a direct translation of the source code that is
 copyrighted.  Any way you take source code and make some other form
 of media-based data out of it is copyrighted.  We can keep going
 around in this circle if you wish.
 This might help:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright


Yes, it did. See, I did not know this:

"copyright for computer programs prohibits not only literal copying, but 
also copying of "nonliteral elements", such as program structure and 
design."

When people (and you, not that you're not a people, hehe) would say 
"copyright", my mind would think "literal text" (like a book's text). 
While that has given me a much greater understanding that copyright does 
afford more protection than I thought, it's still not enough for the most 
important things, I think: the proprietary technologies upon which the 
software is built. It would seem that the technologies are free game to 
be used by anyone cognizant of them, under copyright, as long as they use 
them in a different way, say in a program with completely different 
functionality but still using the technology. For instance, pretend that 
Unicode had not yet been created and that instead, a software company 
released a word processing program based upon UnicodeTM, a proprietary 
technology. Copyright would allow all to use UnicodeTM in programs that 
were not word processors. Patent would disallow this and the company 
could then capitalize on UnicodeTM in other products.
Oct 28 2011
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 23:04 -0500, Chante wrote:
[ . . . ]

 Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is=20
 inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.


[ . .. ]

I assume that you are joking here in order to stir debate.  Anyone who
thinks that a book, be it fiction and hence likely just a sequence of
words, or non-fiction and this likely with figures and tables as well as
text, does not have design, structure, architecture, etc. clearly has no
conception of good authorship.=20

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 26 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Russel Winder" <russel russel.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:mailman.530.1319696613.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 23:04 -0500, Chante wrote:
[ . . . ]

 Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is
 inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.


[ . .. ]


 I assume that you are joking here in order to stir debate.  Anyone who
 thinks that a book, be it fiction and hence likely just a sequence of
 words, or non-fiction and this likely with figures and tables as well 
 as
 text, does not have design, structure, architecture, etc. clearly has 
 no
 conception of good authorship.


In a follow-up post, I wrote:

"With a book, the text is the end product. With software, the source code
is an intermediate representation, or production machine rather than the
end product. Source code is like a printing press for a specific book. It
is not like the book. (These analogies are presented more for analysis,
rather than in direct or opposing response)."

Source code is not the end product, and is not even necessary (in text 
form) to create the end product. A book, OTOH, IS the end product.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
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
Oct 25 2011
next sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"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?
Oct 25 2011
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Chante Wrote:


 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?


GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be charged
a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.
Oct 25 2011
next sibling parent reply Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 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?


 GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be
 charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.


Where'd you get that silly notion?  It's libre, not gratis.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Oct 25 2011
next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Brad Anderson Wrote:


 GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be
 charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.


 
 Where'd you get that silly notion?  It's libre, not gratis.
 
 [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney


I didn't say "not allowed" I said "can't". You can't make money from a link to
GPL FAQ either. I was talking about facts not hypotheses.
Oct 25 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> wrote in message 
news:mailman.475.1319604042.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Chante Wrote:


 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?


 GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be
 charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.




Non-GPL free software can't realisticlly be sold at a profit either. Yea, 
it's *technically* allowed, but all you have to do is say "Hey all! No-cost 
version of the same damn thing over here...!!!" Hell, you can even position 
your no-cost version as pirated, except no one can stop you because it's 
totally legal. Seriously, anyone who *tried* to sell zlib/MIT/etc software 
would essentially be getting into the business of selling "guaranteed 
pre-pirated" products, and we all know how much companies like getting 
pirated. And even if they did do it and make money, well, you were already 
just giving it away, so you wouldn't have been getting any of that money in 
the first place. And if *that* happened, you can just change your mind and 
start selling it yourself, even close up the newer versions, etc...

Yea, you can come up with a bunch of contrived "got ripped-off" scenarios, 
but ultimately the risk is very, very low, and there's many avenues of 
recourse that don't involve the courts (which most open-source authors would 
never be able to aggressively pursue anyway). There's already lots of 
zlib/MIT/etc software authors out there, how many of them have gotten ripped 
off from money that would have otherwise ended up in their pocket? Worrying 
about it is akin to picking up "getting mobbed as a result of winning the 
lottery" insurance.


 Where'd you get that silly notion?  It's libre, not gratis.

 [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney


FSF keeps banging that drum, but it's only true in theory. Realistically, 
libre tends to force gratis unless there's some significant non-libre 
component that's required, such as game assets.

What you *can* do with GPL is dual-license with a paid commercial 
alternative. But then it's *not* the GPL version that's being sold, it's the 
non-GPL, non-libre version, *and* the public at large doesn't benefit from 
improvements to it. So even then, you're still not selling GPL software for 
a profit, you're just selling the ability to [in the eyes of those who view 
GPL as more free than zlib/MIT/etc] reduce the user's freedoms.
Oct 25 2011
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:


 There's already lots of 
 zlib/MIT/etc software authors out there, how many of them have gotten ripped 
 off from money that would have otherwise ended up in their pocket?


Oracle sells zlib database compression for $11500 per processor.
Oct 26 2011
prev sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
I'm not getting the point on this, so I have to ask again what you mean 
and this time I will do it by analysis (breaking it into pieces) and you 
can then see what I'm not getting and hence tell me. (I read the 
follow-up posts but I still don't get it). It could very well be that my 
mind right now is locked-in to my own train of thought and I'm not able 
to escape it for all the other things currently on my mind (read, no 
brain-power to use for non-top-priority things).

"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> wrote in message 
news:j881u4$79e$1 digitalmars.com...

 Chante Wrote:


 there's no mercantile reason






Paraphrased: There is no reason for a company in the business of selling 
software


 to restrict use of a patented technology






Why would they have gotten the patent if not to restrict the use of the 
patented thing? After R&D and associated costs, a company gets a patent 
to allow them to recover the R&D costs, and then some, from the exclusive 
right to sell (/produce?) the patented thing for a given period of time.


 in a GPL3 software.






Why would a company "void" their patent (i.e., effectively give up the 
exclusive right to sell/produce the patented thing) by stamping it "GPL"?


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


 GPL software cannot be sold for profit,


Well-known fact, OK.


 so even if the author


The software company that obtained the patent? Someone rendering the 
patent other than the patent holder? The latter is illegal, yes?


 would be charged a fee


"fee" what? "fee" upon whom? Who's "authoring" anything other than the 
patent holder with the exclusive right to sell/produce the patented 
thing?


 1% per sold copy


???


 the patent holder will get 0 anyway.


Written as "conclusive in support of <whatever>" but the path to this 
"conclusion", and therefor this "conclusion", is, "non-sensical"?

****

Help me out here please. What am I missing?
Oct 25 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:37:02 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 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.


patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that would  
otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent something,  
you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of  
your invention.  In return, you bestow upon the world the secret behind  
your idea.  This allows people to build on your idea in the future,  
instead of nobody ever being able to discover what your invention was.

Not to mention that no other IP protection exists for machine design --  
you cannot copyright a car.

Given that any item of software can be reverse engineered and studied,  
this can never happen with software.  Add that to the fact that software  
patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.  They are mostly used as  
weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software patents  
have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like  
building cars.  In other words, there's no need for patents to allow  
software ideas to be seen by others, it's possible to extract the ideas  
 from the code.


 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.


And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?  Again, copyright  
already covers software.  Plenty of software companies have large amounts  
of IP and are successful without having any software patents.


 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.


What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to recreating  
the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front investment that can  
possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the design.  Patents protect  
the entity putting their product out there from having a larger company  
who can throw money around beat you using your idea.  In software, since  
the software is protected by copyright, the competition must build their  
own version of your software ideas first, and the distribution is  
relatively insignificant.  In other words, once you release your idea to  
the world, it can be sold and installed for millions in a matter of days,  
giving you the lion share of the market.

Maintenance costs are not part of distribution, they are part of  
development.  Of course maintenance is required, but maintenance does not  
hinder you from making a profit like manufacturing ramp-up does.

And again, the software you write is already protected IP -- copyright.


 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.


When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity, there  
is a large investment and cost in just designing the item, or the means to  
manufacture it.  It's less likely that a simple individual has the capital  
necessary to create it, and if he does, or can raise it, a patent search  
is usually done to avoid complications.  He might also look at expired  
patents to get ideas on how to do things.

However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in a  
couple weeks.  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just  
2 weeks time to create the software.  Here, the patent system is just  
getting in the way of innovation.  It's having the opposite effect by  
instilling fear in anyone writing software that some patent-holding  
company is going to squash him out of business.

When was the last time you did anything with a patented software  
technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


 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.


IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore.  It's work is  
done.


 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


I don't get your argument there, that Australia has a lousy patent  
system?  That Australian "innovation patents" are indefensible? How is  
this relevant?

-Steve
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that would  
 otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent something,  
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of  
 your invention.


I think, this can work for software the same way.


 Add that to the fact that software  
 patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.


Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?


 They are mostly used as
 weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software patents  
 have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like  
 building cars.


Let's look at the H264 technology. Would it exist in the first place if its
creators had no chance to patent it? Everyone benefit from H264. They charge
corporations for patent application, corporations sell quality tools - everyone
benefit. MPEG LA (patent holder) said end users won't be charged for viewing
H264 video and they allow patent application without fees by free GPL-licensed
x264 encoder and free LGPL-licensed libavcodec decoder - opensource benefits,
end users benefit. I have a vague impression GPL was a requirement: MPEG LA
would not allow patent application by boost-licensed code: that would mean
total loss of income. No one would benefit from boost license in this case. GPL
*wins* everything here with regards to benefit for open source, benefit for
users and benefit for professional commercial users.


 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.


 
 And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?  Again, copyright  
 already covers software.  Plenty of software companies have large amounts  
 of IP and are successful without having any software patents.


I'm afraid, it's useless to copyright a design: implementation is not a copy so
you can't charge 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.


 
 What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to recreating  
 the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front investment that can  
 possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the design.  Patents protect  
 the entity putting their product out there from having a larger company  
 who can throw money around beat you using your idea.


The same is for software world. A program may require quite a large investment
before it could be made usable. Let's consider D: who would get quality
implementation first - Digital Mars or Microsoft? If DM doesn't patent D, it
will sell *nothing*. Even if DM manages to get some market share, it won't
survive competition and eventually lose. IE lost its market share because there
was more effort put into Firefox than IE.


 Maintenance costs are not part of distribution, they are part of  
 development.  Of course maintenance is required, but maintenance does not  
 hinder you from making a profit like manufacturing ramp-up does.


Needs for investments may be slightly different, but effectively there's no
difference: software project needs continuous investment of resources or it
dies.


 However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in a  
 couple weeks.  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just  
 2 weeks time to create the software.  Here, the patent system is just  
 getting in the way of innovation.  It's having the opposite effect by  
 instilling fear in anyone writing software that some patent-holding  
 company is going to squash him out of business.


I suppose trivial patents are also a problem for physical industry as the wheel
patent shows.


 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software  
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


I would like to avoid H264 but unfortunately I can't.


 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


 
 I don't get your argument there, that Australia has a lousy patent  
 system?  That Australian "innovation patents" are indefensible? How is  
 this relevant?


They understand software as good as physical technologies.
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that  
 would
 otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.  You  
can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that copyright  
protects your IP.

But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine than  
it is to reverse engineer how software is built.  The secrets can truly  
die with the inventor, as opposed to software -- regardless of the final  
binary format, it's always possible to get back to source code.  And  
thanks to copyright law, that source code is a derivative work, you can't  
use it unless you license it from the originator.


 Add that to the fact that software
 patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.


 Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?


The *point* of patents is to benefit the community.  The price society  
pays to the inventor is granting a monopoly.  I'd argue that a 17-year  
monopoly on software technology and algorithms is too high a price to pay  
for knowing a "secret" you can't use until it's very obsolete.  17 years  
ago was 1994, Windows 3.1 was all the rage.  Do you really think society  
is now going to benefit from using the patented technologies from then?   
When the LZW patent expired, it was a mere amusing footnote, as we had all  
moved on to better compression technologies long before then.


 They are mostly used as
 weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software patents
 have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like
 building cars.


 Let's look at the H264 technology. Would it exist in the first place if  
 its creators had no chance to patent it?


What if is not a fair game.  It's impossible for me to say because I did  
not invent it.  But I believe most people who come up with ideas for  
software are not in it for the patents.  Even in the company I worked for  
which got several software patents, they were an afterthought -- Software  
is invented to *solve a problem* which needs to be solved whether it can  
be patented or not.  Did the inventors of H.264 do it for the patents?   
Maybe.  But I firmly believe if software wasn't patentable, we would have  
equivalent video streams today (maybe even better than what we have),  
because it *solves a problem*.


 Everyone benefit from H264. They charge corporations for patent  
 application, corporations sell quality tools - everyone benefit. MPEG LA  
 (patent holder) said end users won't be charged for viewing H264 video  
 and they allow patent application without fees by free GPL-licensed x264  
 encoder and free LGPL-licensed libavcodec decoder - opensource benefits,  
 end users benefit. I have a vague impression GPL was a requirement: MPEG  
 LA would not allow patent application by boost-licensed code: that would  
 mean total loss of income. No one would benefit from boost license in  
 this case. GPL *wins* everything here with regards to benefit for open  
 source, benefit for users and benefit for professional commercial users.


This is a strawman -- GPL is not required by patent law to be licensed at  
no cost for software patents.  The inventors of H.264 have chosen this  
route, so good for them.  But it is not a benefit of GPL or a strike  
against boost, it's just what they chose.


 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.


 And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?  Again,  
 copyright
 already covers software.  Plenty of software companies have large  
 amounts
 of IP and are successful without having any software patents.


 I'm afraid, it's useless to copyright a design: implementation is not a  
 copy so you can't charge for it.


You cannot copyright a design.  You can copyright implementation.  And if  
you don't make the design public, people have to spend vast amounts of  
time and effort to just *figure out* your design, then they have to write  
their own implementation (which is not cheap).  Meanwhile, you have  
improved your design to something better and already sold thousands or  
millions of copies, sucking up all the market share.

Even if you share your design, people still have to create their  
implementation, which can take years.


 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.


 What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to  
 recreating
 the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front investment that can
 possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the design.  Patents protect
 the entity putting their product out there from having a larger company
 who can throw money around beat you using your idea.


 The same is for software world. A program may require quite a large  
 investment before it could be made usable. Let's consider D: who would  
 get quality implementation first - Digital Mars or Microsoft? If DM  
 doesn't patent D, it will sell *nothing*.


I think if Microsoft decided to implement D, Walter would be the first one  
jumping for joy :)


 Even if DM manages to get some market share, it won't survive  
 competition and eventually lose. IE lost its market share because there  
 was more effort put into Firefox than IE.


DMC is still being sold AFAIK.  There is always a market for cheaper  
software, or a more agile software company.

One might pay for DMD if one gets specific support.  For example, if I  
wanted to buy a D compiler for ARM, would Microsoft be willing to  
implement it for a fee?  Would they even respond to my request?


 Maintenance costs are not part of distribution, they are part of
 development.  Of course maintenance is required, but maintenance does  
 not
 hinder you from making a profit like manufacturing ramp-up does.


 Needs for investments may be slightly different, but effectively there's  
 no difference: software project needs continuous investment of resources  
 or it dies.


But why is that?  Shouldn't patents fix that "problem?" Because with a  
patent, you have essentially a monopoly.  How can anyone compete with your  
poorly maintained software?

The real answer is, patents *don't help* with maintenance costs.  You  
can't lallygag around not innovating on your software because someone else  
will find a way to do the same thing without your patents.  All software  
patents do is create a barrier to innovation, and act as weapons against  
other patent-holding firms.

Note, Google agrees with me:  
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-26/internet/29815846_1_nortel-patents-software-patents-patent-suits


 However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in  
 a
 couple weeks.  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him  
 just
 2 weeks time to create the software.  Here, the patent system is just
 getting in the way of innovation.  It's having the opposite effect by
 instilling fear in anyone writing software that some patent-holding
 company is going to squash him out of business.


 I suppose trivial patents are also a problem for physical industry as  
 the wheel patent shows.


The wheel patent is a test of a poorly designed patent system (as the  
article indicates).  It is not representative of most patent systems.

See this quote from your linked article:

===========
Keogh, who is a freelance patent lawyer himself, says that he applied for  
the patent in order to test this new class of new patents. He says that  
innovation patents are not examined in detail by the Australian patent  
office.

"The patent office would be required to issue a patent for everything," he  
told The Age newspaper. "All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on  
it."
===========

Note that this is not a trivial granted patent because of a flawed review  
process -- THERE IS NO REVIEW PROCESS, ALL PATENTS ARE GRANTED!  This is  
not a fair comparison of well-established patent systems.


 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


 I would like to avoid H264 but unfortunately I can't.


Right, and if software patents did not exist, the web would have  
standardized on some other video codec, which would be freely available by  
now.


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

 I don't get your argument there, that Australia has a lousy patent
 system?  That Australian "innovation patents" are indefensible? How is
 this relevant?


 They understand software as good as physical technologies.


Again, not a valid comparison.

-STeve
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 10/26/2011 11:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
 would
 otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. You
 can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
 copyright protects your IP.

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


If it is, for example, a remote web service, reverse engineering is 
difficult.
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:45:45 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote:


 On 10/26/2011 11:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
 would
 otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits  
 of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. You
 can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
 copyright protects your IP.

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 If it is, for example, a remote web service, reverse engineering is  
 difficult.


If you don't sell it, then there should be no point of patenting it.  You  
have much better protection by keeping it secret...

But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle  
innovation.  It creates artificial barriers that only exist because people  
have gamed the system.

-Steve
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 10/26/2011 11:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:45:45 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> wrote:


 On 10/26/2011 11:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
 would
 otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the
 fruits of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. You
 can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
 copyright protects your IP.

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 If it is, for example, a remote web service, reverse engineering is
 difficult.


 If you don't sell it, then there should be no point of patenting it. You
 have much better protection by keeping it secret...

 But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle
 innovation. It creates artificial barriers that only exist because
 people have gamed the system.

 -Steve


You are right.
Oct 26 2011
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 17:50 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[ . . . ]

 But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle =20
 innovation.  It creates artificial barriers that only exist because peopl=


e =20

 have gamed the system.


I assume you are based in the USA, since "we" here in the UK do not
allow patents on software.  It is currently explicitly stated as not
being patentable in its own right.  Software within machines can be
covered by a patent for the machines, but software cannot be patented on
its own.

Sadly some big US corporate, the US government via the USTR, and a
number of big international corporates are trying to foist US style
software and business patents on the rest of the world via the tool of
the ACTA
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement).
ACTA was originally a mechanism to protect brands from counterfeiters,
but has over the years had other things inserted into it.  In particular
USTR have inserted clauses such that any country that signs up to ACTA
must enact US style patents on software and business processes.

For details on all this you could do worse that study Simon Phipps
writings on this.  His website (http://webmink.com/) gives an index to
other materials documenting this for the world to know and yet somehow
have absolutely no way of doing anything about.

There is no conspiracy here, it is just the big corporates making sure
the tools of creating monopolies and ensuring only they are in control
of innovation are used to best legal effect.  Of course it means anyone
who writes software has to know about every software patent worldwide so
as to ensure they do not violate.

In case people didn't know: lack of knowledge of a patent is not a
defence.  Patents apply to you even if you didn't know about the
patent. =20

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:39:29 -0400, Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk>  
wrote:


 On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 17:50 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 [ . . . ]

 But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle
 innovation.  It creates artificial barriers that only exist because  
 people
 have gamed the system.


 I assume you are based in the USA, since "we" here in the UK do not
 allow patents on software.  It is currently explicitly stated as not
 being patentable in its own right.  Software within machines can be
 covered by a patent for the machines, but software cannot be patented on
 its own.


Yes, I'm talking about US patent system.  I wish we had the UK system.

And even if you are in the UK, you are affected by the US patent system  
because software you write that may be infringing on US patents cannot be  
sold in the US without being subject to lawsuit.

-Steve
Oct 27 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:39:29 -0400, Russel Winder
 <russel russel.org.uk> wrote:


 On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 17:50 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 [ . . . ]

 But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle
 innovation.  It creates artificial barriers that only exist because
 people
 have gamed the system.


 I assume you are based in the USA, since "we" here in the UK do not
 allow patents on software.  It is currently explicitly stated as not
 being patentable in its own right.  Software within machines can be
 covered by a patent for the machines, but software cannot be
 patented on its own.


 Yes, I'm talking about US patent system.  I wish we had the UK system.

 And even if you are in the UK, you are affected by the US patent
 system because software you write that may be infringing on US
 patents cannot be sold in the US without being subject to lawsuit.


Thank you. I asked just that very question in my prior post. Now I know.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Russel Winder wrote:

""we" here in the UK do not allow patents on software."

Good info. I would seem, then, that establishing a software company's 
home base in the UK is a better proposition that establishing one in the 
USA. Maybe. There's still the issue that a large amount of innovation is 
readily apparent upon release of a new software that copycats, especially 
ones with more funds and/or manpower, can cannibalize the inventor's 
work. And if one is locked-out of the USA market with the software, the 
UK might be worse than the USA for a software company.

Can software developed in the UK be sold in the USA if it renders 
something patented in the USA?

"It is currently explicitly stated as not
being patentable in its own right.  Software within machines can be
covered by a patent for the machines, but software cannot be patented on
its own."

So are companies taking advantage of that "loophole"? Does the machine 
have to be novel in a way other than by the novelty that its software 
affords it?

"Tere is no conspiracy here, it is just the big corporates making sure
the tools of creating monopolies and ensuring only they are in control
of innovation are used to best legal effect.  Of course it means anyone
who writes software has to know about every software patent worldwide so
as to ensure they do not violate.

In case people didn't know: lack of knowledge of a patent is not a
defence.  Patents apply to you even if you didn't know about the
patent."

The "unrecognition" or "blinding of one's eyes to" the fact that many, 
many inventions can and are independently developed, is troublesome, for 
sure. I wasn't going to bring up "crime against humanity" for this post, 
but then I read that last thing you wrote.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


Really?
I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to 
dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no experience 
with that,  it's just a guess)
Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it 
deliberately hard, like Skype.

Cheers,
- Daniel
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com>  
wrote:


 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to  
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no experience  
 with that,  it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it  
 deliberately hard, like Skype.


If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of glass,  
you have to guess.  There are often few clues left behind of how to build  
a physical machine.  This is not the same for software, which can always  
be disassembled.

-Steve
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 26.10.2011 23:52, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
 <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:


 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that, it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it
 deliberately hard, like Skype.


 If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
 glass, you have to guess.


Ok, for materials it's probably hard, but there is a possibility of 
chemical analysis and stuff like that.
But I guess for things like e.g. car engines it may be easier (besides 
maybe special/new materials used).


 There are often few clues left behind of how
 to build a physical machine. This is not the same for software, which
 can always be disassembled.


Getting the relevant information out of the assembly may still not be 
trivial.
But to be honest, I don't have much experience with reverse engineering 
software either, I just read that it's quite often hard to reverse 
engineer some software like drivers.


Anyway, I'm strongly opposed to software patents.
My main concerns are that
1. Often trivial ideas are patented
2. Even for non-trivial stuff it isn't unlikely that some expert 
reinvents the same algorithm/whatever for the same problem.
One Example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail
3. Because of this you can never be sure you're not violating patents 
when developing software without knowingly copying ideas of other people.
Checking this is impossible even for big companies with specialized 
lawyers, let alone smaller companies or hobby developers.


Cheers,
- Daniel
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 26.10.2011 23:52, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
 <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:


 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a
 machine than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that, it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made
 it deliberately hard, like Skype.


 If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
 glass, you have to guess.


 Ok, for materials it's probably hard, but there is a possibility of
 chemical analysis and stuff like that.
 But I guess for things like e.g. car engines it may be easier (besides
 maybe special/new materials used).


It's not worth it. If a company is relying on a competitor's engines to 
develop it's own, it's effectively out of the business of engineering 
(it's just then a manufacturer of other company's products perhaps). 
Competitive analyis is fine, but a company cannot be in the engine 
business without the required engineering prowess required for that.


 Anyway, I'm strongly opposed to software patents.
 My main concerns are that
 1. Often trivial ideas are patented
 2. Even for non-trivial stuff it isn't unlikely that some expert
 reinvents the same algorithm/whatever for the same problem.


YES, YES, YES!!!


 One Example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail



 3. Because of this you can never be sure you're not violating patents
 when developing software without knowingly copying ideas of other
 people. Checking this is impossible even for big companies with
 specialized lawyers, let alone smaller companies or hobby developers.


Sounds like a concept for a new book: "Modern Crimes Against Humanity", 
or "Crimes Against Humanity in the Age of Technology".
Oct 27 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 28.10.2011 05:31, schrieb Chante:

 Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 26.10.2011 23:52, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
 <metalcaedes gmail.com>  wrote:


 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a
 machine than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that, it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made
 it deliberately hard, like Skype.


 If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
 glass, you have to guess.


 Ok, for materials it's probably hard, but there is a possibility of
 chemical analysis and stuff like that.
 But I guess for things like e.g. car engines it may be easier (besides
 maybe special/new materials used).


 It's not worth it. If a company is relying on a competitor's engines to
 develop it's own, it's effectively out of the business of engineering
 (it's just then a manufacturer of other company's products perhaps).
 Competitive analyis is fine, but a company cannot be in the engine
 business without the required engineering prowess required for that.


I don't know.
I guess you could claim the same thing about companies who have to steal 
code from other companies instead of writing it themselves.

So what's the difference between "competitive analysis" and "looking at 
foreign code" anyway?
How can you be sure that your engineers don't copy ideas from 
competitors engines?

Cheers,
- Daniel
Oct 29 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j8hp8a$2nei$1 digitalmars.com...

 Am 28.10.2011 05:31, schrieb Chante:

 Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 26.10.2011 23:52, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
 <metalcaedes gmail.com>  wrote:


 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a
 machine than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that, it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made
 it deliberately hard, like Skype.


 If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
 glass, you have to guess.


 Ok, for materials it's probably hard, but there is a possibility of
 chemical analysis and stuff like that.
 But I guess for things like e.g. car engines it may be easier 
 (besides
 maybe special/new materials used).


 It's not worth it. If a company is relying on a competitor's engines 
 to
 develop it's own, it's effectively out of the business of engineering
 (it's just then a manufacturer of other company's products perhaps).
 Competitive analyis is fine, but a company cannot be in the engine
 business without the required engineering prowess required for that.


 I don't know.
 I guess you could claim the same thing about companies who have to 
 steal code from other companies instead of writing it themselves.


Well isn't that within the realm of what I said?


 So what's the difference between "competitive analysis" and "looking at 
 foreign code" anyway?


Looking at source code is just discovering how to do it. Meaning the one 
doing the looking has no capability: the proverbial "freerider" 
("freeloader"?). Evaluating a competitor's software application program 
for features and usage, etc. is what I'd put in the realm of "competitive 
analysis".

In the engine company I used to work for, once in five years I remember 
having to dyno-test a competitor's engine (the company I worked for had 
it purchased for us) to evaluate what the thing actually did in regards 
to torque and horsepower. We didn't do much with it at all except for 
those kinds of things, for dyno cell time was limited and was better put 
to use on our own engines than a competitors. They did the same things 
with ours for sure. "Finding the coca-cola formula" of the engine though? 
What's the point? (Surely the concept of "what's the point?" is lost on 
the "freerider").


 How can you be sure that your engineers don't copy ideas from 
 competitors engines?


What's to copy? The engine block color? The chrome valve covers? We had 
engineers going to the same advanced training, and supporting the same 
curriculums at universities and such as the competitors, and there aren't 
that many secrets. And even "the secrets", aren't important. What about 
"the silver bullet" though, you ask? Anyone wanting source code, should 
simply go work for the company producing the products, because those have 
already admitted they are incapable of producing anything out of the 
ordinary on their own. I think that because source code gets transformed 
into a binary executable, people want it because of it's ellusiveness. 
Give it to them, and they will be dissastisfied and need more "fix". It's 
never enough, because there is nothing really there. Ignore a girl, and 
she'll be attracted to you (Tha is, IF, you "have" another girl... 
loners/losers need not apply). Fall for her though, then the baddest boy 
on the block will be bangin' her while you can just go find "God" or 
something and "leave me alone already! (when she finds out that the 70k 
'vette came from engineering rather than sales jobs)". Grass is 
greener... where?

Let's "get to the crux" of what you asked though, and enough with my 
banter. You used the words: "engineers" and "copy". Tell me, do find any 
oxymoronishness, to using those two words in the same sentence?
Oct 29 2011
prev sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
 <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:


 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that,  it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it
 deliberately hard, like Skype.


 If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
 glass, you have to guess.  There are often few clues left behind of
 how to build a physical machine.  This is not the same for software,
 which can always be disassembled.


That just gets you the assembly code. There are many high-level concepts 
that are missing from that. But that's not even that important. The 
software didn't just get specified on it's own. Someone had to think of 
it. Reverse-engineering, then, really isn't. It's just taking stabs at 
it. Dissassembly does not achieve figuring out how the software was 
engineered, how it came to be, and other things.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.




Note that reverse-engineering is like copying someone else's homework. It 
doesn't build any engineering capability. It actually hinders such from 
occurring.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that,  it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it
 deliberately hard, like Skype.


Interesting. How did Skype's engineer make it hard to reverse-engineer? 
Have a link?
Oct 27 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 28.10.2011 05:18, schrieb Chante:

 Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.




 Note that reverse-engineering is like copying someone else's homework. It
 doesn't build any engineering capability. It actually hinders such from
 occurring.


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that,  it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it
 deliberately hard, like Skype.


 Interesting. How did Skype's engineer make it hard to reverse-engineer?
 Have a link?


http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~salman/skype/ here are some links.
For example "Silver Neede in the Skype" seems to have some information, 
I didn't look at the other stuff.

One way to make reverse engineering harder is trying to detect debuggers 
(by measuring time and stuff takes longer if a debugger is involved etc) 
and then cease working.

Interestingly Skype for Linux didn't work on my sisters notebook 
(crashed shortly after starting), but when started in gdb (gnu debugger) 
it works fine.. dunno if this is related to anti-reverse 
engineering/debugging stuff not working properly, but I can imagine that 
all this voodoo breaks under certain circumstances.

Cheers,
- Daniel
Oct 29 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j8hppc$2nei$2 digitalmars.com...

 Am 28.10.2011 05:18, schrieb Chante:

 Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
 than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.




 Note that reverse-engineering is like copying someone else's homework. 
 It
 doesn't build any engineering capability. It actually hinders such 
 from
 occurring.




Ha! I answered your question of the other post here before you asked it! 
Kudos to moi!


 Really?
 I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
 dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
 experience with that,  it's just a guess)
 Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it
 deliberately hard, like Skype.


 Interesting. How did Skype's engineer make it hard to 
 reverse-engineer?
 Have a link?


 http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~salman/skype/ here are some links.
 For example "Silver Neede in the Skype" seems to have some information, 
 I didn't look at the other stuff.


I will check that out next week. Thanks.


 One way to make reverse engineering harder is trying to detect 
 debuggers (by measuring time and stuff takes longer if a debugger is 
 involved etc) and then cease working.


I was just thinking "deterent" rather than "bullet proof". As such, maybe 
I'd use:

1. Built-in mechanisms to prevent end-user copying (many possibilities).
2. An obfuscator on the source before compilation.
3. Compression/expansion, use of TPM, etc.
4. Encryption, where it can be applied (operational behavior, not on 
source code).

2 and 3 seem real easy to automate: as easy as pushing the "compile" 
button.
1 seems like a small, internally-used library. Oh, so does 4.


 Interestingly Skype for Linux didn't work on my sisters notebook
Oct 29 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.


If a bigger corporation doesn't steal your invention.


 Add that to the fact that software
 patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.


 Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?


 
 The *point* of patents is to benefit the community.  The price society  
 pays to the inventor is granting a monopoly.  I'd argue that a 17-year  
 monopoly on software technology and algorithms is too high a price to pay  
 for knowing a "secret" you can't use until it's very obsolete.


Patented technology can be used under terms of GPL right now as example of x264
shows. With GPL patent holder can be sure he still can make money on commercial
patent users.


 They are mostly used as
 weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software patents
 have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like
 building cars.


 Let's look at the H264 technology. Would it exist in the first place if  
 its creators had no chance to patent it?


 
 What if is not a fair game.  It's impossible for me to say because I did  
 not invent it.  But I believe most people who come up with ideas for  
 software are not in it for the patents.  Even in the company I worked for  
 which got several software patents, they were an afterthought -- Software  
 is invented to *solve a problem* which needs to be solved whether it can  
 be patented or not.  Did the inventors of H.264 do it for the patents?   
 Maybe.


If it's impossible to say, then your opinion has the risk to be unfounded. If
we eliminate patents, it will be impossible to say, whether things became
better or not - who knows what inventions were not invented because their
authors had no resources for it.

I'm not sure h264 solved a problem. Video encoding worked just fine before it.
It's just a better algorithm. The experts may be not for patents, but they are
paid by big companies which are for profit.


 But I firmly believe if software wasn't patentable, we would have  
 equivalent video streams today (maybe even better than what we have),  
 because it *solves a problem*.


Equivalent - yes, but not today. The story of h264 became at 1998, it took
years to complete it. It also took quite a while to get Theora right.
Innovation in XviD were incremental and backward compatible with stock MPEG4
ASP decoder.


 This is a strawman -- GPL is not required by patent law to be licensed at  
 no cost for software patents.  The inventors of H.264 have chosen this  
 route, so good for them.  But it is not a benefit of GPL or a strike  
 against boost, it's just what they chose.


Can you make money with boost license?


 You cannot copyright a design.  You can copyright implementation.  And if  
 you don't make the design public, people have to spend vast amounts of  
 time and effort to just *figure out* your design, then they have to write  
 their own implementation (which is not cheap).  Meanwhile, you have  
 improved your design to something better and already sold thousands or  
 millions of copies, sucking up all the market share.


So open source is out of game?


 The same is for software world. A program may require quite a large  
 investment before it could be made usable. Let's consider D: who would  
 get quality implementation first - Digital Mars or Microsoft? If DM  
 doesn't patent D, it will sell *nothing*.


 
 I think if Microsoft decided to implement D, Walter would be the first one  
 jumping for joy :)


That's only because he doesn't sell D.


 Even if DM manages to get some market share, it won't survive  
 competition and eventually lose. IE lost its market share because there  
 was more effort put into Firefox than IE.


 
 DMC is still being sold AFAIK.  There is always a market for cheaper  
 software, or a more agile software company.
 
 One might pay for DMD if one gets specific support.  For example, if I  
 wanted to buy a D compiler for ARM, would Microsoft be willing to  
 implement it for a fee?  Would they even respond to my request?


Windows 8 supports ARM for some reason.


 I suppose trivial patents are also a problem for physical industry as  
 the wheel patent shows.


 
 The wheel patent is a test of a poorly designed patent system (as the  
 article indicates).  It is not representative of most patent systems.
 
 See this quote from your linked article:
 
 ===========
 Keogh, who is a freelance patent lawyer himself, says that he applied for  
 the patent in order to test this new class of new patents. He says that  
 innovation patents are not examined in detail by the Australian patent  
 office.
 
 "The patent office would be required to issue a patent for everything," he  
 told The Age newspaper. "All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on  
 it."
 ===========
 
 Note that this is not a trivial granted patent because of a flawed review  
 process -- THERE IS NO REVIEW PROCESS, ALL PATENTS ARE GRANTED!  This is  
 not a fair comparison of well-established patent systems.


Do you call patent systems granting trivial (software) patents well-established?


 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


 I would like to avoid H264 but unfortunately I can't.


 
 Right, and if software patents did not exist, the web would have  
 standardized on some other video codec, which would be freely available by  
 now.


I actually avoid h264 in the web :)
Well, in fact I use firefox and avoid flash, which results in avoiding h264.
Webm is enough for me in the web.
I can't avoid H264 for "real" video.
Oct 27 2011
next sibling parent zouhair hawari <zmhawari hotmail.com> writes:
Kagamin Wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
 

 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.


 
 If a bigger corporation doesn't steal your invention.
 

 Add that to the fact that software
 patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.


 Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?


 
 The *point* of patents is to benefit the community.  The price society  
 pays to the inventor is granting a monopoly.  I'd argue that a 17-year  
 monopoly on software technology and algorithms is too high a price to pay  
 for knowing a "secret" you can't use until it's very obsolete.


 
 Patented technology can be used under terms of GPL right now as example of
x264 shows. With GPL patent holder can be sure he still can make money on
commercial patent users.
 

 They are mostly used as
 weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software patents
 have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like
 building cars.


 Let's look at the H264 technology. Would it exist in the first place if  
 its creators had no chance to patent it?


 
 What if is not a fair game.  It's impossible for me to say because I did  
 not invent it.  But I believe most people who come up with ideas for  
 software are not in it for the patents.  Even in the company I worked for  
 which got several software patents, they were an afterthought -- Software  
 is invented to *solve a problem* which needs to be solved whether it can  
 be patented or not.  Did the inventors of H.264 do it for the patents?   
 Maybe.


 
 If it's impossible to say, then your opinion has the risk to be unfounded. If
we eliminate patents, it will be impossible to say, whether things became
better or not - who knows what inventions were not invented because their
authors had no resources for it.
 
 I'm not sure h264 solved a problem. Video encoding worked just fine before it.
It's just a better algorithm. The experts may be not for patents, but they are
paid by big companies which are for profit.
 

 But I firmly believe if software wasn't patentable, we would have  
 equivalent video streams today (maybe even better than what we have),  
 because it *solves a problem*.


 
 Equivalent - yes, but not today. The story of h264 became at 1998, it took
years to complete it. It also took quite a while to get Theora right.
Innovation in XviD were incremental and backward compatible with stock MPEG4
ASP decoder.
 

 This is a strawman -- GPL is not required by patent law to be licensed at  
 no cost for software patents.  The inventors of H.264 have chosen this  
 route, so good for them.  But it is not a benefit of GPL or a strike  
 against boost, it's just what they chose.


 
 Can you make money with boost license?
 

 You cannot copyright a design.  You can copyright implementation.  And if  
 you don't make the design public, people have to spend vast amounts of  
 time and effort to just *figure out* your design, then they have to write  
 their own implementation (which is not cheap).  Meanwhile, you have  
 improved your design to something better and already sold thousands or  
 millions of copies, sucking up all the market share.


 
 So open source is out of game?
 

 The same is for software world. A program may require quite a large  
 investment before it could be made usable. Let's consider D: who would  
 get quality implementation first - Digital Mars or Microsoft? If DM  
 doesn't patent D, it will sell *nothing*.


 
 I think if Microsoft decided to implement D, Walter would be the first one  
 jumping for joy :)


 
 That's only because he doesn't sell D.
 

 Even if DM manages to get some market share, it won't survive  
 competition and eventually lose. IE lost its market share because there  
 was more effort put into Firefox than IE.


 
 DMC is still being sold AFAIK.  There is always a market for cheaper  
 software, or a more agile software company.
 
 One might pay for DMD if one gets specific support.  For example, if I  
 wanted to buy a D compiler for ARM, would Microsoft be willing to  
 implement it for a fee?  Would they even respond to my request?


 
 Windows 8 supports ARM for some reason.
 

 I suppose trivial patents are also a problem for physical industry as  
 the wheel patent shows.


 
 The wheel patent is a test of a poorly designed patent system (as the  
 article indicates).  It is not representative of most patent systems.
 
 See this quote from your linked article:
 
 ===========
 Keogh, who is a freelance patent lawyer himself, says that he applied for  
 the patent in order to test this new class of new patents. He says that  
 innovation patents are not examined in detail by the Australian patent  
 office.
 
 "The patent office would be required to issue a patent for everything," he  
 told The Age newspaper. "All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on  
 it."
 ===========
 
 Note that this is not a trivial granted patent because of a flawed review  
 process -- THERE IS NO REVIEW PROCESS, ALL PATENTS ARE GRANTED!  This is  
 not a fair comparison of well-established patent systems.


 
 Do you call patent systems granting trivial (software) patents
well-established?
 

 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


 I would like to avoid H264 but unfortunately I can't.


 
 Right, and if software patents did not exist, the web would have  
 standardized on some other video codec, which would be freely available by  
 now.


 
 I actually avoid h264 in the web :)
 Well, in fact I use firefox and avoid flash, which results in avoiding h264.
 Webm is enough for me in the web.
 I can't avoid H264 for "real" video.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:52:18 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.


 If a bigger corporation doesn't steal your invention.


Truth be told, patents don't even protect you against this.

What happens when you sue the larger corporation:

1. They have better lawyers
2. They probably have a patent library they can throw at your other code.

Software patents favor the big corporation, not the lowly developer.   
Consider that it costs about $10,000 just to *obtain* a patent these days,  
much less defend it.


 Add that to the fact that software
 patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.


 Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?


 The *point* of patents is to benefit the community.  The price society
 pays to the inventor is granting a monopoly.  I'd argue that a 17-year
 monopoly on software technology and algorithms is too high a price to  
 pay
 for knowing a "secret" you can't use until it's very obsolete.


 Patented technology can be used under terms of GPL right now as example  
 of x264 shows. With GPL patent holder can be sure he still can make  
 money on commercial patent users.


Again, this is a choice of the patent holders of x264, this does not  
universally apply to all software patents.

The holders could have said "free to use in any open source software that  
is available at no charge".  This would cover all open source licenses,  
even ones that can be shipped as binary-only.

There is no inherent clause for GPL in the patent system.  Stop using this  
argument, it proves nothing.


 They are mostly used as
 weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software  




 patents

 have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something  




 like

 building cars.


 Let's look at the H264 technology. Would it exist in the first place  


 if

 its creators had no chance to patent it?


 What if is not a fair game.  It's impossible for me to say because I did
 not invent it.  But I believe most people who come up with ideas for
 software are not in it for the patents.  Even in the company I worked  
 for
 which got several software patents, they were an afterthought --  
 Software
 is invented to *solve a problem* which needs to be solved whether it can
 be patented or not.  Did the inventors of H.264 do it for the patents?
 Maybe.


 If it's impossible to say, then your opinion has the risk to be  
 unfounded. If we eliminate patents, it will be impossible to say,  
 whether things became better or not - who knows what inventions were not  
 invented because their authors had no resources for it.


It's impossible for you to say also.  So is your opinion unfounded?

In all likelyhood, a patentless, but trade-secret-enforced video standard  
would have emerged, done well, then an open source equivalent would have  
emerged.  Both the H.264 owners and the community would be in competition  
to see who can make the better video stream, everybody wins.


 I'm not sure h264 solved a problem. Video encoding worked just fine  
 before it. It's just a better algorithm. The experts may be not for  
 patents, but they are paid by big companies which are for profit.


Better algorithms solve the problem of efficiency, implementability, and  
features.  It's like saying DVDs didn't "solve a problem", because there  
was already Laserdisc.

Big companies still have incentive to create a better codec for video,  
because it helps them sell videos.


 But I firmly believe if software wasn't patentable, we would have
 equivalent video streams today (maybe even better than what we have),
 because it *solves a problem*.


 Equivalent - yes, but not today. The story of h264 became at 1998, it  
 took years to complete it. It also took quite a while to get Theora  
 right. Innovation in XviD were incremental and backward compatible with  
 stock MPEG4 ASP decoder.


Are you sure the open source community would not have done a better job at  
fixing the codec?  Or any other myriad of companies who currently do not  
hold that patent?  As you loosen the grip on your IP, the benefit you see  
is that more people can help you improve your software -- open source  
development has shown that it works.


 This is a strawman -- GPL is not required by patent law to be licensed  
 at
 no cost for software patents.  The inventors of H.264 have chosen this
 route, so good for them.  But it is not a benefit of GPL or a strike
 against boost, it's just what they chose.


 Can you make money with boost license?


Yes.  You can make money with any license.


 You cannot copyright a design.  You can copyright implementation.  And  
 if
 you don't make the design public, people have to spend vast amounts of
 time and effort to just *figure out* your design, then they have to  
 write
 their own implementation (which is not cheap).  Meanwhile, you have
 improved your design to something better and already sold thousands or
 millions of copies, sucking up all the market share.


 So open source is out of game?


huh?


 The same is for software world. A program may require quite a large
 investment before it could be made usable. Let's consider D: who would
 get quality implementation first - Digital Mars or Microsoft? If DM
 doesn't patent D, it will sell *nothing*.


 I think if Microsoft decided to implement D, Walter would be the first  
 one
 jumping for joy :)


 That's only because he doesn't sell D.


You sure about that?  I think Digital Mars would sell support contracts  
for D, and businesses would pay for those if they were to use the language  
in any real capacity.


 Even if DM manages to get some market share, it won't survive
 competition and eventually lose. IE lost its market share because  


 there

 was more effort put into Firefox than IE.


 DMC is still being sold AFAIK.  There is always a market for cheaper
 software, or a more agile software company.

 One might pay for DMD if one gets specific support.  For example, if I
 wanted to buy a D compiler for ARM, would Microsoft be willing to
 implement it for a fee?  Would they even respond to my request?


 Windows 8 supports ARM for some reason.


Then some other arch.


 I suppose trivial patents are also a problem for physical industry as
 the wheel patent shows.


 The wheel patent is a test of a poorly designed patent system (as the
 article indicates).  It is not representative of most patent systems.

 See this quote from your linked article:

 ===========
 Keogh, who is a freelance patent lawyer himself, says that he applied  
 for
 the patent in order to test this new class of new patents. He says that
 innovation patents are not examined in detail by the Australian patent
 office.

 "The patent office would be required to issue a patent for everything,"  
 he
 told The Age newspaper. "All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on
 it."
 ===========

 Note that this is not a trivial granted patent because of a flawed  
 review
 process -- THERE IS NO REVIEW PROCESS, ALL PATENTS ARE GRANTED!  This is
 not a fair comparison of well-established patent systems.


 Do you call patent systems granting trivial (software) patents  
 well-established?


Regardless of the quality of the review, at least there *is* a review.   
What I meant was, a review-less patent "rubber-stamping" system is not  
comparable to one which goes through a review process to weed out trivial  
patents.


 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


 I would like to avoid H264 but unfortunately I can't.


 Right, and if software patents did not exist, the web would have
 standardized on some other video codec, which would be freely available  
 by
 now.


 I actually avoid h264 in the web :)
 Well, in fact I use firefox and avoid flash, which results in avoiding  
 h264.
 Webm is enough for me in the web.
 I can't avoid H264 for "real" video.


I meant as a developer, not as a user.

-Steve
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that 
 would
 otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent 
 something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits 
 of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. 
 You  can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that 
 copyright  protects your IP.


It does not? The engineered concepts are not protected by copyright, 
AFAIK, and THAT is what the IP is. THAT is what took all those years of 
R&D. So with copyright, someon can paraphrase the source code and then 
the inventor is SOL?
Oct 27 2011
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:52 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>  
wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
 would
 otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent
 something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits
 of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.
 You  can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
 copyright  protects your IP.


 It does not? The engineered concepts are not protected by copyright,
 AFAIK, and THAT is what the IP is. THAT is what took all those years of
 R&D. So with copyright, someon can paraphrase the source code and then
 the inventor is SOL?


You think the "one click" design took years of R&D, and not the building  
of the amazon site?

Again, "paraphrasing" is not so easy with software. Whether you are good  
or not, it takes a long time to write good software.  You really think  
patents are the reason people don't copy large software projects?

Think about DVD "encryption" that was used to protect DVDs from copying.   
Although it was a poor encryption and once cracked, was ridiculed for its  
simplicity and ease of circumvention, it still was very successful in  
preventing people from copying DVDs.  It was a long time before someone  
actually cracked it.  Is that because of patents?  No, it was because the  
encryption was a trade secret, only handed out to those who could pay a  
hefty sum and promised not to use it to make copies or divulge it to any  
third party.

Software is HARD to reverse engineer (even though it's definitely  
possible), and its HARD to replicate without direct copying.  One has to  
go from binary code all the way back to the design/spec, and then go  
forward to a completely rewritten, tested, and well developed product.  We  
are talking a huge investment of time and effort, all the time while the  
original author has since improved their product.

Your statements appear to employ hand-waving to describe the tedious  
process of making a legal re-implementation of software.  Yes, copyright  
protects your investment and your effort, more so than patents.  Trade  
secrets actually are better than patents to protect you because you aren't  
forced to divulge it to the world.

-Steve
Oct 27 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:52 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>
 wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets
 that would
 otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent
 something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the
 fruits of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.
 You  can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus
 that copyright  protects your IP.


 It does not? The engineered concepts are not protected by copyright,
 AFAIK, and THAT is what the IP is. THAT is what took all those years
 of R&D. So with copyright, someon can paraphrase the source code and
 then the inventor is SOL?


 You think the "one click" design took years of R&D, and not the
 building of the amazon site?


What is your point?


 Again, "paraphrasing" is not so easy with software.


I was once again suggesting that copyright is not strong enough 
protection to protect the IP (the mechanisms within and represented by 
the source code or implied by the shrink-wrapped product).


 Whether you are
 good or not, it takes a long time to write good software.


Don't I know it|


 You really
 think patents are the reason people don't copy large software
 projects?


I don't know why other people don't copy. I just know why I don't (I have 
plenty of my own ideas to work on and that moves things forward rather 
than stagnating progress).


 Think about DVD "encryption" that was used to protect DVDs from
 copying. Although it was a poor encryption and once cracked, was
 ridiculed for its simplicity and ease of circumvention, it still was
 very successful in preventing people from copying DVDs.  It was a
 long time before someone actually cracked it.  Is that because of
 patents?


No one was suggesting that patents will prevent reproduction of the 
patented thing. It acts as a deterent and enables remedy.


 No, it was because the encryption was a trade secret, only
 handed out to those who could pay a hefty sum and promised not to use
 it to make copies or divulge it to any third party.


See, trade secret works.


 Software is HARD to reverse engineer (even though it's definitely
 possible), and its HARD to replicate without direct copying.  One has
 to go from binary code all the way back to the design/spec, and then
 go forward to a completely rewritten, tested, and well developed
 product.  We are talking a huge investment of time and effort, all
 the time while the original author has since improved their product.


I still don't know why anyone bothers doing this. I have no worries about 
that kind of thing (well, not very much and certainly "orders of 
magnitude" less relatively). I worry about releasing novel software with 
the obvious innovations unprotected. Released unprotected, effectively 
puts me out of business the moment Billion Dollar Bitch Software catches 
the drift and sucks up the market. Stops my innovation in its tracks. 
What other than patent can help with this?


 Your statements appear to employ hand-waving to describe the tedious
 process of making a legal re-implementation of software.


I don't know what you mean. As I said above, I'm not worred about that. 
How you got that idea from my dialog is puzzling.


  Yes,
 copyright protects your investment and your effort, more so than
 patents.


I still don't see that.


 Trade secrets actually are better than patents to protect
 you because you aren't forced to divulge it to the world.


I've said that a number of times. Of course it is easy to do such 
divulging (getting a patent) if one is seeking patent for something that 
is clearly able to be, and likely to be, "invented" idependently. And 
this area, I suggested, is where some focus of the work of "fixing the 
patent system" should go. Those kind of patents are the ones that should 
be on the chopping block.
Oct 27 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 28.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Chante:

 I still don't know why anyone bothers doing this. I have no worries about
 that kind of thing (well, not very much and certainly "orders of
 magnitude" less relatively). I worry about releasing novel software with
 the obvious innovations unprotected. Released unprotected, effectively
 puts me out of business the moment Billion Dollar Bitch Software catches
 the drift and sucks up the market. Stops my innovation in its tracks.
 What other than patent can help with this?


A patent won't help you, Billion Dollar Bitch Software has tons of 
patents and you'll certainly violate some of them.
(And if not they'll claim you do and sue you until you're bankrupt)
Oct 29 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j8hpvm$2nei$3 digitalmars.com...

 Am 28.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Chante:

 I still don't know why anyone bothers doing this. I have no worries 
 about
 that kind of thing (well, not very much and certainly "orders of
 magnitude" less relatively). I worry about releasing novel software 
 with
 the obvious innovations unprotected. Released unprotected, effectively
 puts me out of business the moment Billion Dollar Bitch Software 
 catches
 the drift and sucks up the market. Stops my innovation in its tracks.
 What other than patent can help with this?


 A patent won't help you, Billion Dollar Bitch Software has tons of 
 patents and you'll certainly violate some of them.
 (And if not they'll claim you do and sue you until you're bankrupt)


What's that supposed to mean? That I should feel threatened? That I am 
afraid? I never worked for them. I don't have access to their "patents". 
Did you mean, but "oh, they were first-to-file"? If I was a warrior, 
which I am not, I might take that kind of thing as a warring behavior. 
Since I am not a warrior though, maybe it could be comprehended as an 
oppressive behavior. (I shouldn't have used the word "bitch", because 
"ain't no bitch, ever started a war"). (Not that I'd ever work for one 
though).
Oct 29 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that 
 would
 otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent 
 something,
 you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits 
 of
 your invention.


 I think, this can work for software the same way.


 You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. 
 You  can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that 
 copyright  protects your IP.

 But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine 
 than  it is to reverse engineer how software is built.  The secrets can 
 truly  die with the inventor, as opposed to software -- regardless of 
 the final  binary format, it's always possible to get back to source 
 code.  And  thanks to copyright law, that source code is a derivative 
 work, you can't  use it unless you license it from the originator.


 Add that to the fact that software
 patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.


 Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?


 The *point* of patents is to benefit the community.  The price society 
 pays to the inventor is granting a monopoly.  I'd argue that a 17-year 
 monopoly on software technology and algorithms


Oh, I didn't know it was that long. Yes, I wouldn't complain about that. 
2 years would definitely be too short though. Perhaps the amount of 
man-years invested in the R&D for the technology. Oh wait, that would be 
100's of years in lots of cases!


 is too high a price to pay  for knowing a "secret" you can't use until 
 it's very obsolete.  17 years  ago was 1994, Windows 3.1 was all the 
 rage.  Do you really think society  is now going to benefit from using 
 the patented technologies from then?


One can easily argue that if another can only deliver software by copying 
someone else's techniques, then maybe they should be in another line of 
business and that keeping technology out of the hands of the copycats is 
a good thing.

There's something very wrong about this patent situation, as it seems 
"one can't win for losing" with it. I wish everyone would just keep their 
trade secrets a secret! It would be much simpler then. Then all the 
scrambling around could be eliminated and those doing all the scrambling 
could be put to better use being productive.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:



 Add that to the fact that software
 patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.


 Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?


 The *point* of patents is to benefit the community.  The price society
 pays to the inventor is granting a monopoly.  I'd argue that a 17-year
 monopoly on software technology and algorithms is too high a price to
 pay for knowing a "secret" you can't use until it's very obsolete. 17 
 years ago was 1994, Windows 3.1 was all the rage.  Do you really
 think society is now going to benefit from using the patented
 technologies from then? When the LZW patent expired, it was a mere
 amusing footnote, as we had all moved on to better compression
 technologies long before then.


What you are describing is "group feeding frenzy". "The group" will 
devour an inventor's inventions in short order for their short-term 
needs. If an inventor was smart enough to invent something that good, 
wouldn't it be good to let him build upon that and do more good instead 
of just feeding the paranas for a day? This whole "concept" of "benefit 
to society by giving it away to the entitled" is severly flawed 
reasoning.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 I think if Microsoft decided to implement D, Walter would be the
 first one jumping for joy :)


Walter, how about a bit more than a one-liner in response to that? I'm 
positive a lot of other people also would love to hear your thoughts on 
that.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 All
 software patents do is create a barrier to innovation, and act as
 weapons against other patent-holding firms.


Patents as a way to protect inventions that cannot be kept a trade 
secret, and that's all (i.e., that which clearly can be kept trade 
secret, should not be patentable under this system), may be a better 
patent system. Such a system would:

1. Allow ongoing development and innovation by the inventor. An 
idea/concept in the hands of its creator is much more useful, in regards 
to innovation, than in the hands of copycats who only serve to decrease 
the inventor's earning potential.

2. Prevent development of technologies that are inadvertently based upon 
patented work. The much lower number of patents to search through to 
effect this would be much more amenable to such.

3. Allow many more independently-developed inventions to coexist, for 
they would be trade secrets rather than stifled by patents. A true boon 
for the consumer of the inventions.

Of course, the above system is onnly necessary because one cannot rely on 
people to have high standards of values such as honesty and integrity 
(especially "the entitled set"). Bitten once, twice shy. If it becomes 
quite common dialog, then it may be worth some risk to throw something 
out there with an explanation of what the hopes are, and then see what 
happens.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3yn2di8eav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:37:02 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 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.


 patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that 
 would  otherwise die with the inventor.


That last part is, of course, a fallacy. It implies that the trade 
secrets would not be carried forward beyond the inventor's life by 
companies, progeny or some other means.


The idea is, if you patent something,  you enjoy a period of monopoly, 
where you can profit from the fruits of  your invention.


The defined period though may or may not be enough to recover the costs 
of invention. Who's to put a price on someone's work of invention which 
cost him pretty much all of his adult life? The patent office? I think 
not! And while some may not like that another's goals may be to "milk the 
invention for all it's worth for as long as possible", that's just "tough 
titties". Others may desire that scenario to give some "power" to those 
who can do good with it rather than build war machines and make war.


 In return, you bestow upon the world the secret behind  your idea.


That is only one possible scenario, perhaps "the moral high ground" 
perspective, but not even so, as shown above. It looks more (to me) like 
someone wanting to "get something for nothing". Instead of playing people 
like lottery tickets, those types should... buy lottery tickets|


 This allows people to build on your idea in the future, instead of 
 nobody ever being able to discover what your invention was.



The people in the company surrounding the product don't do that? Isn't 
software like children? An inventor may indeed have goals and purposes 
envisioned for his inventions. Why bother bringing babies home from the 
hospital? Just leave them there for whatever, right? Why not make all 
things a giant cesspool of cluster-fucking? Everything, all of the time, 
100% entitlement. (As the corporate middle managers yell in unison, "Yeah 
man, that!").

Now, about those proprietary "rights" you think you have to your 
children... are you sure someone else hasn't filed a patent for them 
before you?
Oct 26 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3yn2di8eav7ka localhost.localdomain...


 the fact that software  patents are *rarely* beneficial to the 
 community.


"the fact"? Citation to scientific studies required.

"THE community". You mean "the entitled" set who couldn't create anything 
on their own if their life depended on it? Those who can't program 
themselves out of a paper bag? Those who want everything, right now and 
don't want to work or invest the time to learn? The cognitively lazy? 
What-is/whom-are this "THE community" group?


 They are mostly used as  weapons to stifle innovation from others.


So to not "give, Give, GIVE!" to these people: 
http://www.aspeneducation.com/article-entitlement.html, is "to stifle"? 
Are you one of them trying to propagandishly conceiving scenario like a 
child trying to "get their way"? Are you are tantrumming because no one 
will give you everything you want and won't wait on you hand and foot?


 In essence, software patents  have had an *opposite* effect on the 
 industry compared to something like  building cars.  In other words, 
 there's no need for patents to allow  software ideas to be seen by 
 others, it's possible to extract the ideas  from the code.


That sounds like a threat. Of course, those with the ability to create 
and who have invested their time in learning, rather than "copying 
someone else's homework" do not see the copycat followers as threats at 
all, but rather as wastes of life.
Oct 26 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3yn2di8eav7ka localhost.localdomain...


 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.


 And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?


One can: trade secrets. But a lot of times, techniques cannot be hidden 
away, for just releasing a product may divulge the "secret", so something 
more is needed: patent.


 Again, copyright  already covers software.


While it's probably not enough or even the correct thing in the first 
place, is "software" copyrightable or source code, or both separately? It 
seems that copyright has appropriateness for software, but is useless as 
protection of the software designs as represented by source code.


  Plenty of software companies have large amounts  of IP and are 
 successful without having any software patents.


Are you suggesting that there MUST be only ONE ("one and only") way? 
Great then, let's make it so there is only ONE software too. Problem 
solved, eh?


 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.


 What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to 
 recreating  the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front 
 investment that can  possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the 
 design.  Patents protect  the entity putting their product out there 
 from having a larger company  who can throw money around beat you using 
 your idea.  In software, since  the software is protected by copyright, 
 the competition must build their  own version of your software ideas 
 first, and the distribution is  relatively insignificant.  In other 
 words, once you release your idea to  the world, it can be sold and 
 installed for millions in a matter of days,  giving you the lion share 
 of the market.


Seems like incentive to get into Engineering, huh. Those who want to "win 
big" and expend no effort should stick to buying lottery tickets (and 
stop preying upon others). Keeping things away from the sleazy, grimey 
fingers of those who want to profit from someone else's labor or get 
something for nothing, is a good thing.


 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.


 When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity, 
 there  is a large investment and cost in just designing the item,


How many man years are in the average commercially offered software 
product?


 or the means to  manufacture it.  It's less likely that a simple 
 individual has the capital  necessary to create it, and if he does, or 
 can raise it, a patent search  is usually done to avoid complications. 
 He might also look at expired  patents to get ideas on how to do 
 things.

 However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in 
 a  couple weeks.


"The quick hack" is hardly "mainstream commercial software product"? Why 
bring up special cases? Why imply that a special case represents the 
whole realm?


  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just  2 weeks 
 time to create the software.


Assumption may be made that because a patent pre-exists, that someone 
else cannot independently create the same thing, which of course is 
possible and likely. Ideally, all patents would be kept a secret so that 
those independently developed creations could have a life also, instead 
of just those of  "the chosen ones". Not allowing software patents would 
seem to "level the playing field" for all and cut out useless 
administration tasks.

Hmm, no it wouldn't: big money would feed off of the inventions of the 
little guy. That's where the consumer fits in though: don't buy from the 
undeserving, and identify them as the predators they are. That may be the 
key: render power/money-as-power, useless as a strategy. Something to 
think about next time you buy from someone who has more than you, huh. 
Occupy Wallstreet? Why not just stop buying from Wallstreet and instead 
buy from someone in your neighborhood or on your Facebook/Linked-In 
friends list?


 Here, the patent system is just  getting in the way of innovation.


The patent system is justified in the name of "incentive", but are 
patents in reality, a crime against humanity?

Patents should, perhaps, be to protect only what cannot be kept a secret. 
"Incentive" shouldn't even be part of the equation. "Incentive" is 
"prodding" at best, "imposition" at worst (where the "crime against 
humanity reference above came from).


 It's having the opposite effect by  instilling fear in anyone writing 
 software that some patent-holding  company is going to squash him out 
 of business.


It does do that, yes.


 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software 
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


Never looked at any, but how many do I know of inadvertently because they 
weren't kept a secret? Where are all the warning signs on information 
describing patented things? They should have warnings just like 
cigarettes (yet another cigarette analogy... Cigarettes and information 
about patented things: things that may be hazardous or dangerous).


 How to improve patent system is another question.




Can't be fixed and the only solution is to eliminate it?


 GPL3 can actually play

 some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a 
 patented technology in a GPL3 software.


 IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore.  It's work 
 is  done.


So now it's supposed to be credited with something and people should bow 
to it? What is that something? That communism doesn't work in practice?
Oct 26 2011
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:18:14 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>  
wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3yn2di8eav7ka localhost.localdomain...


 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.


 And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?


 One can: trade secrets. But a lot of times, techniques cannot be hidden
 away, for just releasing a product may divulge the "secret", so something
 more is needed: patent.


If you don't "divulge" the secret, then you don't sell anything.  Note  
that the secret is already difficult to reproduce, no patents necessary,  
because it's not in source form, and one cannot simply duplicate the code,  
you have to rewrite it in your own code.  Just knowing the secret isn't  
enough.  Patents are needed because you cannot copyright machines.   
Copyright is actually a better protection, because it can be extended over  
100 years past the lifetime of the author (I question the need for this  
time length too).

People sell books, and have no problem doing so without patents, because a  
book is hard to reproduce.  But one can always read a good book and use  
the same "design" (i.e. plot elements, sequence of story, etc.) to write  
their own book.  And it doesn't necessarily hurt the original author.


 Again, copyright  already covers software.


 While it's probably not enough or even the correct thing in the first
 place, is "software" copyrightable or source code, or both separately? It
 seems that copyright has appropriateness for software, but is useless as
 protection of the software designs as represented by source code.


Both are copyrightable.  Source code is written words, binary code is a  
direct translation.

If source code is equivalent to a book, then the binary code is equivalent  
to a translation to a different language of the same book.  Both are  
covered under the original author's copyright.


  Plenty of software companies have large amounts  of IP and are
 successful without having any software patents.


 Are you suggesting that there MUST be only ONE ("one and only") way?
 Great then, let's make it so there is only ONE software too. Problem
 solved, eh?


I'm not really sure what you are saying here...


 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.


 What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to
 recreating  the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front
 investment that can  possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the
 design.  Patents protect  the entity putting their product out there
 from having a larger company  who can throw money around beat you using
 your idea.  In software, since  the software is protected by copyright,
 the competition must build their  own version of your software ideas
 first, and the distribution is  relatively insignificant.  In other
 words, once you release your idea to  the world, it can be sold and
 installed for millions in a matter of days,  giving you the lion share
 of the market.


 Seems like incentive to get into Engineering, huh. Those who want to "win
 big" and expend no effort should stick to buying lottery tickets (and
 stop preying upon others). Keeping things away from the sleazy, grimey
 fingers of those who want to profit from someone else's labor or get
 something for nothing, is a good thing.


If nobody was able to use anyone else's ideas, where would we be today?   
You may misunderstand my point of view.  I'm all *for* IP protection, just  
not *monopoly* protection where it is not needed.  The US patent system as  
it exists today is not a good fit for protecting software.  It does not  
achieve the goals that the patent system was created for.

Have you heard of patent trolls?  These are firms that write no software,  
yet they file for or acquire software patents in the hopes that some day  
someone will write covered software and they can collect royalties.  How  
is that not "profiting from someone else's labor"?

For example:  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/22/angry-birds-maker-rovio-sued-by-lodsys


 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.


 When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity,
 there  is a large investment and cost in just designing the item,


 How many man years are in the average commercially offered software
 product?


And how many man years would it take for someone to reproduce it?  Again,  
the patent system covered IP that was not copyrightable.  Things that are  
copyrightable are hard to reproduce.


 or the means to  manufacture it.  It's less likely that a simple
 individual has the capital  necessary to create it, and if he does, or
 can raise it, a patent search  is usually done to avoid complications.
 He might also look at expired  patents to get ideas on how to do
 things.

 However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in
 a  couple weeks.


 "The quick hack" is hardly "mainstream commercial software product"? Why
 bring up special cases? Why imply that a special case represents the
 whole realm?


Because it's the quick hacks that infringe on patents which are affected.   
Large companies who have libraries of patents don't care about violating  
other company patents, because there is mutually assured destruction.

Essentially, the quick hack does well, it blossoms into a good piece of  
complex and useful software.  The developer creates a company, hires  
developers, marketing, etc.  Gets big enough, and then some competitor  
decides they are too big and sues to put them out of business.  Not having  
any patents for software, the developer cannot counter-sue, and goes out  
of business.


  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just  2 weeks
 time to create the software.


 Assumption may be made that because a patent pre-exists, that someone
 else cannot independently create the same thing, which of course is
 possible and likely. Ideally, all patents would be kept a secret so that
 those independently developed creations could have a life also, instead
 of just those of  "the chosen ones". Not allowing software patents would
 seem to "level the playing field" for all and cut out useless
 administration tasks.

 Hmm, no it wouldn't: big money would feed off of the inventions of the
 little guy.


In fact, it's the exact opposite.  Smaller software companies usually win  
because they are more agile and they charge less.  If you really think Big  
Money would feed off the little guy, why do so many software giants oppose  
eliminating or lessening software patents?  Do you think they are not as  
wise as you?


 That's where the consumer fits in though: don't buy from the
 undeserving, and identify them as the predators they are. That may be the
 key: render power/money-as-power, useless as a strategy.


I'll buy from whomever makes the best product.  If you make a good  
product, you deserve to be paid for it.  Problem is, monopolies usually  
don't make a good product, because lack of competition hinders advancement.


 Something to
 think about next time you buy from someone who has more than you, huh.


I don't fault people for being successful.  There is no need to punish  
someone because you are jealous of their wealth, you have the same  
opportunities (at least in the US).


 Here, the patent system is just  getting in the way of innovation.


 The patent system is justified in the name of "incentive", but are
 patents in reality, a crime against humanity?

 Patents should, perhaps, be to protect only what cannot be kept a secret.
 "Incentive" shouldn't even be part of the equation. "Incentive" is
 "prodding" at best, "imposition" at worst (where the "crime against
 humanity reference above came from).


No, you misunderstand the position.  Patents are necessary to protect  
things that are not *already* protected by copyright.  Copyright is much  
better protection when it is possible because it's very very difficult to  
duplicate a copyrighted work.  Without patents, I feel innovation would  
not have been as rapid for most industries.  Software is not one of them.


 It's having the opposite effect by  instilling fear in anyone writing
 software that some patent-holding  company is going to squash him out
 of business.


 It does do that, yes.


 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


 Never looked at any, but how many do I know of inadvertently because they
 weren't kept a secret? Where are all the warning signs on information
 describing patented things? They should have warnings just like
 cigarettes (yet another cigarette analogy... Cigarettes and information
 about patented things: things that may be hazardous or dangerous).


 How to improve patent system is another question.




 Can't be fixed and the only solution is to eliminate it?


Or limit them.  Change the term to 2 years, and you will see a lot less  
issue.  17 years is about 8 generations in the software industry.  Think  
of what software was like 17 years ago.


 GPL3 can actually play

 some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a
 patented technology in a GPL3 software.


 IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore.  It's work
 is  done.


 So now it's supposed to be credited with something and people should bow
 to it? What is that something? That communism doesn't work in practice?


It's accomplishment was to enforce open-source software in spite of the  
corporate negative view of open source software.  Essentially, it said "if  
you want our services, you have to play nice."  But now, we have much  
better open-source licenses, and a whole ecosystem built around open  
source.  Businesses have been embracing open-source software, and  
understanding why it works, their minds have been changed.  It's proven to  
work, and it's proven to work better in some cases than closed-source.   
But is it still necessary to keep the viral nature of GPL?

An interesting article on this from Eric S. Raymond:  
http://www.osnews.com/story/21192/ESR_GPL_No_Longer_Needed

-Steve
Oct 27 2011
next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 An interesting article on this from Eric S. Raymond:  
 http://www.osnews.com/story/21192/ESR_GPL_No_Longer_Needed


lol open source is a profit - bosses fear open source - bosses fear profit?
Raymond knows how to make profit better than bosses (experts in profit making)?
Oct 27 2011
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:36:17 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 An interesting article on this from Eric S. Raymond:
 http://www.osnews.com/story/21192/ESR_GPL_No_Longer_Needed


 lol open source is a profit - bosses fear open source - bosses fear  
 profit? Raymond knows how to make profit better than bosses (experts in  
 profit making)?


You make less sense every time you post...

-Steve
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:18:14 -0400, Chante <udontspamme never.will.u>
 wrote:


 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v3yn2di8eav7ka localhost.localdomain...


 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.


 And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?


 One can: trade secrets. But a lot of times, techniques cannot be
 hidden away, for just releasing a product may divulge the "secret",
 so something more is needed: patent.


 If you don't "divulge" the secret, then you don't sell anything.


What do you mean? You don't think that behind the covers of compiled 
sofware, patentable things don't exist?


 Note
 that the secret is already difficult to reproduce, no patents
 necessary, because it's not in source form, and one cannot simply
 duplicate the code, you have to rewrite it in your own code.


Just "difficult" to produce? Not "impossible" in many cases?


 Just
 knowing the secret isn't enough.


("keeping" would be much better than "knowing" here, as that is what you 
meant. "knowing" makes the reader think twice or thrice or reread to 
figure out if you are talking about the inventor or the copycat).


 Patents are needed because you
 cannot copyright machines. Copyright is actually a better protection,
 because it can be extended over 100 years past the lifetime of the
 author (I question the need for this time length too).


I really don't see the relevance of copyright for a company in the 
business of creating and selling shrink-wrapped software (i.e., not 
selling source code product). Patents as a means of protection for only 
that which cannot be reasonably kept a trade secret, seems quite in the 
right direction for "patent system reform".


 People sell books, and have no problem doing so without patents,
 because a book is hard to reproduce.  But one can always read a good
 book and use the same "design" (i.e. plot elements, sequence of
 story, etc.) to write their own book.  And it doesn't necessarily
 hurt the original author.


So your point is that that is analogously applicable to software too? I 
could see that only if the patterns were reused in software not in 
competition with the original software. The scenario with the book 
results in a new story. The scenario with software could result in a 
competitive product if it has the same functionality.


 Again, copyright  already covers software.


 While it's probably not enough or even the correct thing in the first
 place, is "software" copyrightable or source code, or both
 separately? It seems that copyright has appropriateness for
 software, but is useless as protection of the software designs as
 represented by source code.


 Both are copyrightable.  Source code is written words, binary code is
 a direct translation.


What I was asking is whether one needs 2 patents or one: one for the 
source and another for the shrink-wrapped product? I can see the value of 
copyright for the shrink-wrapped product, but not for the source code 
because it doesn't give any useful level of protection from reproduction 
of something ever so slightly different being produced.


 If source code is equivalent to a book,


It isn't.


 then the binary code is
 equivalent to a translation to a different language of the same book.


I think the book analogy is detrimental for it isn't even "apples and 
oranges", it's "fruits and meats" or "fruits and cars" or something.


 Both are covered under the original author's copyright.


  Plenty of software companies have large amounts  of IP and are
 successful without having any software patents.


 Are you suggesting that there MUST be only ONE ("one and only") way?
 Great then, let's make it so there is only ONE software too. Problem
 solved, eh?


 I'm not really sure what you are saying here...


You seemed to have stated something like, "See, here is an example where 
it works that way, hence it should be the golden standard that everyone 
should/must use. There is no need for multiple things tailored to 
specific scenarios or desires". Or, "See, they don't need software 
patents to earn a buck, so no one does. Let's close the patent office 
tomorrow then".


 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.


 What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to
 recreating  the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front
 investment that can  possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the
 design.  Patents protect  the entity putting their product out there
 from having a larger company  who can throw money around beat you
 using your idea.  In software, since  the software is protected by
 copyright, the competition must build their  own version of your
 software ideas first, and the distribution is  relatively
 insignificant.  In other words, once you release your idea to  the
 world, it can be sold and installed for millions in a matter of
 days,  giving you the lion share of the market.


 Seems like incentive to get into Engineering, huh. Those who want to
 "win big" and expend no effort should stick to buying lottery
 tickets (and stop preying upon others). Keeping things away from the
 sleazy, grimey fingers of those who want to profit from someone
 else's labor or get something for nothing, is a good thing.


 If nobody was able to use anyone else's ideas, where would we be
 today?


I was not suggesting that people should not share ideas. People like to 
do that and always will do that. Just not to everyone and all the time. 
Well-defined, narrow interfaces, I would prefer. The patent system is the 
opposite of that.


 You may misunderstand my point of view.  I'm all *for* IP
 protection, just not *monopoly* protection where it is not needed.


Because you feel other's are somehow entitled to the fruits of another's 
labor other than whom the inventor decides are worthy (say his own family 
or company)? How many great changes have been thwarted by such?


 The US patent system as it exists today is not a good fit for
 protecting software.


Not for me and you. For Microsoft it probably is.


 It does not achieve the goals that the patent
 system was created for.


I'm not so sure. Let many innovate for some years, then change to 
first-to-file, then "rape and pillage" "the commoner", give the already 
powerful even more power.


 Have you heard of patent trolls?


Yes.


 These are firms that write no
 software, yet they file for or acquire software patents in the hopes
 that some day someone will write covered software and they can
 collect royalties.


Congress or the patent office or whoever controls that stuff seem to in 
on that: first-to-file (it seems to me, but I'm just learning about this 
stuff, so maybe I don't "really" hate the sons-of-bitches). It's perhaps 
class-action suit appropriate? Is that the ONLY way to get people (and 
governments and other institutions) to do the right thing these days?


 How is that not "profiting from someone else's labor"?


It is abhorant. What's more abhorant is that so little thought goes into 
things before hand. Everything is "correction after the fact". I have no 
faith that "loopholes" like that are not "designed-in".


 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.








I left my job/career in the construction equipment manufacturing 
industry, for the very reason: I could never own it. Too much capital 
required: from steel and iron foundry to engines to all kinds of 
earth-moving equipment. All I could ever have in that industry, is a job. 
The software industry, OTOH, allows me to own a company that manufactures 
software.


 When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity,
 there  is a large investment and cost in just designing the item,


 How many man years are in the average commercially offered software
 product?


 And how many man years would it take for someone to reproduce it? 
 Again, the patent system covered IP that was not copyrightable. Things 
 that are copyrightable are hard to reproduce.


I was just interjecting that a lot of blood, sweat and tears goes into 
software engineering also. It's not all "a quick and easy hack", even if 
you have a recipe a priori.


 or the means to  manufacture it.  It's less likely that a simple
 individual has the capital  necessary to create it, and if he does,
 or can raise it, a patent search  is usually done to avoid
 complications. He might also look at expired  patents to get ideas
 on how to do things.

 However, working software can be written by one guy in his
 apartment in a  couple weeks.


 "The quick hack" is hardly "mainstream commercial software product"?
 Why bring up special cases? Why imply that a special case represents
 the whole realm?


 Because it's the quick hacks that infringe on patents which are
 affected.


Independently-developed software should be allowed to coexist. It 
shouldn't be "infringement". Noting that this is indeed irrefutably the 
case (that many patentable software things can be independently 
developed), a lot of time, effort and money should be working on finding 
solution in that area. There is no excuse for not doing so. It is 
complacency, or conspiracy, or non-fitness-for-the-job (maybe I'd prefer 
it to be a crime, maybe it already is, maybe the crime can only be 
identified as such over time (historically)). (As you can tell, I'd fire 
pretty much everyone if I could ;) ).


 Large companies who have libraries of patents don't care
 about violating other company patents, because there is mutually
 assured destruction.


I'm not worried about any company/person having a large number of 
patents, as long as they are truly their inventions and not "trivial". I 
think the second it can be shown that a patented thing has been 
independently invented (for instance, my bankers boxes of designs and 
notes in the basement from 10 years ago (yes, work will have to be done 
in this area if carbon-dating is too course-grained for the task at 
hand)), that patent should be invalidated, replaced with a tombstone 
indicating a non-patentable thing,and respected as a trade secret going 
forward.


 Essentially, the quick hack does well, it blossoms into a good piece
 of complex and useful software.  The developer creates a company,
 hires developers, marketing, etc.  Gets big enough, and then some
 competitor decides they are too big and sues to put them out of
 business.  Not having any patents for software, the developer cannot
 counter-sue, and goes out of business.


If the rule I gave above were in place, then, if the little guy truly 
independently invented an already-patented thing, the patent would become 
a trade secret (not much of a "secret" anymore, but still has value, no 
need to make things worse for the inventors by leaving it in the public 
domain) for all who give a care about it.

The current way, "I got here first.. na! na!", is abhorant, and needless 
to say, unbecoming of those responsible for such an implementation.


  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just  2
 weeks time to create the software.


 Assumption may be made that because a patent pre-exists, that someone
 else cannot independently create the same thing, which of course is
 possible and likely. Ideally, all patents would be kept a secret so
 that those independently developed creations could have a life also,
 instead of just those of  "the chosen ones". Not allowing software
 patents would seem to "level the playing field" for all and cut out
 useless administration tasks.

 Hmm, no it wouldn't: big money would feed off of the inventions of
 the little guy.


 In fact, it's the exact opposite.  Smaller software companies usually
 win because they are more agile and they charge less.  If you really
 think Big Money would feed off the little guy,


Change "little guy" to "the one who did the R&D" and it's more general. 
That R&D could mean "the whole world" to the little guy (doesn't have to 
necessarily be "little"), but is trivial to the billion-dollar software 
oppressor. Little guy releases his life's work, only to be crushed in the 
market the following month by Big SOB Software, Inc. via it's leverage of 
funds and labor. All the little guy can hope for is that the consumer 
will recognize what is happening, and buy from him instead of from Big 
Asshole Software.


 why do so many
 software giants oppose eliminating or lessening software patents?


So far, from this thread, I think I have realized that I would prefer 
either:

1. Allowing patents for things that cannot be kept a secret, while 
allowing independently-developed inventions to be enabled and facilitated 
via elimination of patent if independent development of a patented thing 
can be shown to have occurred.

2. Can't help but reserve some hope for the consumer. (This would be the 
ideal scenario, but I'm not holding my breath). IOW, "U ken have yer 
steenkeen patents Mr. Big Asshole owner, but ain't no one gonna buy from 
you no more".


 That's where the consumer fits in though: don't buy from the
 undeserving, and identify them as the predators they are. That may
 be the key: render power/money-as-power, useless as a strategy.


 I'll buy from whomever makes the best product.


My goal is to buy from those who have less than I do, at some level of 
acceptable product (and not for heart surgery). "Best" is, of course, 
subjective. I find nothing good in making the already rich richer, but I 
do find good in giving other people a chance at freedom.


 If you make a good
 product, you deserve to be paid for it.


That is too simplistic to use as my philosophy, and surely Big SOB 
Software is banking on you seeing their 10-million-LOC, whiz-bang 
software as "the best". I'm just stating my philosophy, I'm in no way 
saying that it is better than yours or that you should change yours.


 Problem is, monopolies
 usually don't make a good product, because lack of competition
 hinders advancement.


That is not true. It can be true in a given instance or instances, but it 
is not in general true. There are possibilities other than just 
"monopoly" and "competition".


 Something to
 think about next time you buy from someone who has more than you,
 huh.


 I don't fault people for being successful.


I like helping people with lesser means to grow, achieve their dreams and 
have to nice lives as they wish them to be. Call it an investment in the 
future. The rich don't need my money, and if I can, I'll keep it from 
them. I see no good that comes from concentration of wealth and power.


 There is no need to punish
 someone because you are jealous of their wealth, you have the same
 opportunities (at least in the US).


You're free to state it, or color it, as you wish.


 Here, the patent system is just  getting in the way of innovation.


 The patent system is justified in the name of "incentive", but are
 patents in reality, a crime against humanity?

 Patents should, perhaps, be to protect only what cannot be kept a
 secret. "Incentive" shouldn't even be part of the equation.
 "Incentive" is "prodding" at best, "imposition" at worst (where the
 "crime against humanity reference above came from).


 No, you misunderstand the position.


Maybe, but probably not entirely. (Did you mean your's or the reason for 
patents as originally marketed?)


 Patents are necessary to protect
 things that are not *already* protected by copyright.


It's hard for me to work copyright into this. I have a mindset that 
copyright does not afford protection from copycats. Protection for 
end-user copiers, yes, but that's something different. When I think of 
"patentable things", I'm thinking about things like that secret mechanism 
within the software that accesses the database data that is unique from 
all other ways (read, only I know how to do, or as far as I know I'm the 
only one) and is key to significantly improving the transaction rate. Is 
that patentable, assuming it hasn't already been patented?


 Copyright is
 much better protection when it is possible because it's very very
 difficult to duplicate a copyrighted work.


But if software is not like a book, then copyright is not appropriate. 
Maybe what I don't understand is the "machines cannot be patented" or 
whatever.


 Without patents, I feel
 innovation would not have been as rapid for most industries. Software 
 is not one of them.


If a software company is prevented from using an independently-developed, 
but already patented by someone else, thing, ... oh wait, we're on the 
same (or similar) page here! I don't see complete elimination of patents 
as a solution in fairness. Little guy has no defense against the 
powerful, for one thing (I don't have faith that the consumer would do 
anything other than "buy the "best"").


 It's having the opposite effect by  instilling fear in anyone
 writing software that some patent-holding  company is going to
 squash him out of business.


 It does do that, yes.


 When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
 technology except *avoid it like the plague*?


 Never looked at any, but how many do I know of inadvertently because
 they weren't kept a secret? Where are all the warning signs on
 information describing patented things? They should have warnings
 just like cigarettes (yet another cigarette analogy... Cigarettes
 and information about patented things: things that may be hazardous
 or dangerous).

 How to improve patent system is another question.




 Can't be fixed and the only solution is to eliminate it?


 Or limit them.  Change the term to 2 years, and you will see a lot
 less issue.  17 years is about 8 generations in the software
 industry.  Think of what software was like 17 years ago.


I don't think the time is an issue. Making things easy for copycats and 
"the entitled" probably won't make for a "healthy" industry. It just 
makes more lazy people.


 GPL3 can actually play

 some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a
 patented technology in a GPL3 software.


 IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore.  It's
 work is  done.


 So now it's supposed to be credited with something and people should
 bow to it? What is that something? That communism doesn't work in
 practice?


 It's accomplishment was to enforce open-source software in spite of
 the corporate negative view of open source software.


Well I won't tangent again on my opinion of the quality of 
open-sourceware.


  Essentially, it
 said "if you want our services, you have to play nice."  But now, we
 have much better open-source licenses, and a whole ecosystem built
 around open source.


And a lot of youngsters smoking cigarettes. Imagine instead if all the 
millions out of work right now were part of small software shops. Which 
is better? Is it hard to believe that the innovation would not have been 
orders of magnitudes greater than it has been? (Call it, a hypothesis). I 
can point at open-sourceware as a stifler of innovation and betterment as 
easily as I can at Monstrous Software Company. (Call it, faith in the 
individual).
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> wrote in message 
news:j83tbq$a12$1 digitalmars.com...

 Chante Wrote:


 While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge 
 to
 do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as 
 a
 potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
 source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
 thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government 
 are
 on one side, humanity on the other.


 Patents are seen to exist for humanity.


With "first-to-file", it seems that "humanity" has either been sold-out, 
or raped (or both).


 Elimination of patents is equivalent to elimination of intellectual 
 property.


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).


 You're not going to succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you 
 from patent claims from the author, so you'd better use it. You're 
 afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
Oct 24 2011
parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 22:51 -0500, Chante wrote:
[ . . . ]

 Simply keep it a secret ("trade secret"). First-to-file allows Big=20
 Softare Corp to claim rights to things which they have no proprietary=20
 right to. But I'm not read-up on this stuff, I'm just spouting feelings.=


=20

 My feelings are that I've been sold-out, betrayed, raped (but I won't=20
 know for sure if those feelings are correct until I figure this stuff=20
 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.
=20

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
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
Oct 25 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
 	
 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it 
serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use GPL 
software and like the fact that the source is available and will remain 
available with further distributions.

If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to 
infect you without your consent.
Oct 23 2011
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:j81rap$1f50$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait.


It's hilarious flamebait :)
Oct 23 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:j81rap$1f50$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it 
 serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use 
 GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will 
 remain available with further distributions.

 If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to 
 infect you without your consent.


It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some 
software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure. 
Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is especially 
"evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just wanting 
to learn programming or build some software will download the viral code 
and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to make 
decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's like 
marketing cigarettes to youngsters!
Oct 23 2011
next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:

 "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message 
 news:j81rap$1f50$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it 
 serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use 
 GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will 
 remain available with further distributions.

 If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to 
 infect you without your consent.


 
 It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some 
 software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure. 
 Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is especially 
 "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just wanting 
 to learn programming or build some software will download the viral code 
 and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to make 
 decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's like 
 marketing cigarettes to youngsters! 
 
 


This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code can
never again work at another company because he is tainted.
Oct 23 2011
parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j81ve0$7jf$1 digitalmars.com...

 Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:

 "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message
 news:j81rap$1f50$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and 
 it
 serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use
 GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will
 remain available with further distributions.

 If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to
 infect you without your consent.


 It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some
 software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure.
 Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is 
 especially
 "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just 
 wanting
 to learn programming or build some software will download the viral 
 code
 and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to 
 make
 decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's 
 like
 marketing cigarettes to youngsters!


 This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code can
 never again work at another company because he is tainted.


It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very 
deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?). 
Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to 
keep the possibilities open.

It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of 
"baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral 
source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source 
code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big a 
risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn 
programming, they should think about where they want to go with that in 
the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the 
possibilities. Caveat emptor.
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 23.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Chante:

 "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:j81ve0$7jf$1 digitalmars.com...

 Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:

 "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message
 news:j81rap$1f50$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and 
 it
 serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use
 GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will
 remain available with further distributions.

 If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to
 infect you without your consent.


 It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some
 software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure.
 Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is 
 especially
 "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just 
 wanting
 to learn programming or build some software will download the viral 
 code
 and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to 
 make
 decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's 
 like
 marketing cigarettes to youngsters!


 This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code can
 never again work at another company because he is tainted.


 
 It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very 
 deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?). 
 Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to 
 keep the possibilities open.
 


I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
In the contrary, prior job experience (which mostly implies having
touched proprietary code) is often required or at least helpful, and
having worked with open source code (GPL or whatever) usually is a bonus.
Often having experience with Linux and other GPL'ed software from the
Linux environment is even required - many companies use Linux and
related software + their own proprietary stuff, so you end up modifying
GPL'ed code so it works with your product and thus have to touch it.


 It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of 
 "baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral 
 source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source 
 code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big a 
 risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn 
 programming, they should think about where they want to go with that in 
 the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the 
 possibilities. Caveat emptor. 
 


I think this (don't look at GPL- or otherwise "viral" code if you want
to become a professional programmer) is groundless fearmongering. Sounds
like FUD directly from Microsofts worst marketers.


But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
a hindrance for a job?
Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
(Or both - "depends on the job"?)

Cheers,
- Daniel
Oct 23 2011
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 10/23/2011 2:56 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
 who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
 Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
 a hindrance for a job?


In once selling a license to some software I wrote for $$$, the licensee's 
lawyers grilled me about if I'd worked on the popular GPL'd version. I told
them 
I hadn't, and that satisfied them that I wasn't trying to pass off GPL'd code
as 
my own.

They were just doing their due diligence.

If I had worked on the GPL'd version, then I'd have had to go through a lot
more 
grilling to ensure none of that code had leaked into the code I was selling.
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 24.10.2011 01:59, schrieb Walter Bright:

 On 10/23/2011 2:56 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
 who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
 Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
 a hindrance for a job?


 
 In once selling a license to some software I wrote for $$$, the
 licensee's lawyers grilled me about if I'd worked on the popular GPL'd
 version. I told them I hadn't, and that satisfied them that I wasn't
 trying to pass off GPL'd code as my own.
 
 They were just doing their due diligence.
 
 If I had worked on the GPL'd version, then I'd have had to go through a
 lot more grilling to ensure none of that code had leaked into the code I
 was selling.


Ok, this kinda makes sense, but I guess that having been exposed to the
GPL'ed version wouldn't have made the deal impossible, just harder?
(Couldn't they just compare the code or something?)
Also this wasn't about being exposed to GPL'ed software in general but
to this specific project, if I understand correctly.
And I can imagine that similar problems could have existed with other
licenses, e.g. proprietary in some constellations like "Company A
developed $software, later company B buys a license to develop it
further, maybe with the help of some of A's engineers. Then company C
also buys a license and wants experts from company A to help them - but
they need to make sure that no code from company B slips into their
codebase". Or something like that.

But I do understand that in some circumstances exposure to GPL'ed code
of a specific project could be a hinderance.

Thanks for sharing :-)

Cheers,
- Daniel
Oct 24 2011
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 10/24/2011 1:02 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Ok, this kinda makes sense, but I guess that having been exposed to the
 GPL'ed version wouldn't have made the deal impossible, just harder?


Right - not impossible, just harder.



 (Couldn't they just compare the code or something?)


At the rates lawyers charge, it would be expensive.


There's always the issue that if you're intimately familiar with X, and you
wish 
(for legal reasons) to write an equivalent Y, it is pretty hard to make it 
different. You will unintentionally make much of it pretty similar to X.

The first IBM PC BIOS had a big problem with this. They solved it by dividing 
the dev team into three groups:

1. One group read the IBM PC BIOS and wrote a spec for it.
2. Another group of lawyers vetted the spec.
3. Spec was passed to a third group who implemented it, and who were not
allowed 
to talk to group 1 nor look at the IBM PC BIOS source in any way.

IBM was notoriously litigious and protective of their IP, but this "clean room" 
technique, as it was dubbed, worked.

And the PC clone industry was thence born.


So, how far you need to go to avoid 'taint' kind of depends on how litigious
and 
aggressive your competitor is.
Oct 24 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j822kv$7jf$2 digitalmars.com...

 Am 23.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Chante:

 "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:j81ve0$7jf$1 digitalmars.com...

 Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:

 "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message
 news:j81rap$1f50$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and
 it
 serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily 
 use
 GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and 
 will
 remain available with further distributions.

 If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going 
 to
 infect you without your consent.


 It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or 
 some
 software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that 
 exposure.
 Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is
 especially
 "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just
 wanting
 to learn programming or build some software will download the viral
 code
 and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to
 make
 decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's
 like
 marketing cigarettes to youngsters!


 This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code 
 can
 never again work at another company because he is tainted.


 It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very
 deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?).
 Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to
 keep the possibilities open.


 I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
 has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
 In the contrary, prior job experience (which mostly implies having
 touched proprietary code) is often required or at least helpful, and
 having worked with open source code (GPL or whatever) usually is a 
 bonus.


While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the 
first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a 
differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to hire 
programmers, the role description would be something like you stated 
above.


 Often having experience with Linux and other GPL'ed software from the
 Linux environment is even required - many companies use Linux and
 related software + their own proprietary stuff, so you end up modifying
 GPL'ed code so it works with your product and thus have to touch it.


That is one, pervasive (but how did it become to be pervasive?) scenario, 
but hardly the only one, as I have noted.


 It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of
 "baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral
 source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source
 code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big 
 a
 risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn
 programming, they should think about where they want to go with that 
 in
 the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the
 possibilities. Caveat emptor.


 I think this (don't look at GPL- or otherwise "viral" code if you want
 to become a professional programmer) is groundless fearmongering. 
 Sounds
 like FUD directly from Microsofts worst marketers.


I was coming from the perspective that no one like that is going to get 
anywhere near my codebase. I don't care what other people do/are doing. 
If there comes a point when I have to use someone else's code, I'll think 
long and hard before making any association. The ideal, for me, is 
allying with others who are also not "tainted". If I have to, and if I 
get the opportunity to, I will "grow" these people. Viral source code is, 
to me, like I described it in my first post. If there was any "message" 
in what I brought forth, it is surely, to not follow blindly and not to 
fall into "traps" placed by someone else's agendas. Use the ol' noggin, 
IOW. What one knows may not be as important as what one does not know.


 But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
 who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
 Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
 a hindrance for a job?
 Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
 bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
 (Or both - "depends on the job"?)


"Job" is but one thing, freedom is another. "Job" may be the only option 
once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room" 
development for a product they offer from their own company once they 
have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or 
another company's source code.

While these may be novel thoughts, they are not hard to grasp. Maybe I'm 
the only one who values "untainted" (for lack of a better word at the 
moment), but maybe just for the time being. While I'm not quite yet ready 
to seek such associations, I don't mind hearing from others who have the 
same/similar value(s). I may have to get on with that. Obviously I can't 
"code the world over" by myself. Right now I'm reeling with what 
first-to-file means for me, where I can "find" the money to talk with 
good patent attorneys or find the time to do in-depth research into those 
matters. I certainly don't expect a "cure" to become available in my 
lifetime, :-(, but haven't lost hope completely for sueh. (And, for the 
record, there is no viral source code that I wish to use. I consider it 
"crap code". The patent issues in the other realm, DO bother me however).
Oct 23 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:

 "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:j822kv$7jf$2 digitalmars.com...

 I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
 has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".


 
 While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the 
 first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a 
 differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to hire 
 programmers, the role description would be something like you stated 
 above.


This would exclude many talented programmers - which are hard enough to
find without restrictions like that.
How is someone going to get experience without working with foreign code?
Reading books on programming and also exhibits you to foreign code (that
often doesn't even have an implicit license but only the license of the
whole book that is basically "don't copy at all").


 The ideal, for me, is 
 allying with others who are also not "tainted". 


i.e. people without any experience.


 But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
 who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
 Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
 a hindrance for a job?
 Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
 bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
 (Or both - "depends on the job"?)


 
 "Job" is but one thing, freedom is another. 


Not getting contact with any "tainted" source code (like the DMD
frontend, btw) doesn't seem like freedom to me.


 "Job" may be the only option 
 once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room" 
 development for a product they offer from their own company once they 
 have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or 
 another company's source code.


So you're gonna start your own company without any prior professional
experience and without looking at most (?) open source code and you'll
only hire people that also have no experience? Good luck with that.

I don't see the value of "untainted" code per your definition.
Of course you don't want to break copyright by mixing in code that you
may not mix in (because of incompatible licenses or whatever), but this
much paranoia is not needed and not feasible.

And if somebody claims you stole their code they don't *have* to believe
you if you say "I've never seen it", so in the end facts - or maybe some
incompetent judge or jury - will decide.
Or are you gonna breed you own programmers that are (from childhood on!)
guaranteed to not have any exposure to "tainted" code by locking them up
without any contact to the rest of the world (including yourself,
because you can't guarantee that you're not tainted)?

Cheers,
- Daniel
Oct 24 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j84ibc$1l0g$3 digitalmars.com...

 Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:

 "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:j822kv$7jf$2 digitalmars.com...

 I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer 
 that
 has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".


 While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the
 first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a
 differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to 
 hire
 programmers, the role description would be something like you stated
 above.


 This would exclude many talented programmers - which are hard enough to
 find without restrictions like that.


Experience in programming is not necessarily an asset. It's easier to 
teach someone anew than it is to "unteach" someone. Those "talented" 
programmers that you mention may indeed be the ones I would want to avoid 
because that "talent" is chock full of viral source code techniques or 
proprietary patterns.

Programming isn't that hard, and it's not even very important. What is 
important is being able to render things in code. Say, a GUI or file 
system or a space shuttle launcher. I won't be looking for "coders" per 
se, but rather those who know how to implement something that I don't 
know how to or have no desire to. A WYSIWIG print engine, for example. I 
probably don't want to hire someone to do that either. I'll buy it from 
the company/individual who does that kind of thing after evaluating the 
choices. I don't have to start or support a "communistic movement". I can 
just go to the store and buy what I want (maybe even barter for it: I'll 
trade you my file system for your GUI system, e.g.)


 How is someone going to get experience without working with foreign 
 code?


Creating it, of course. The best way to learn programming is to jump in 
with both feet. I'd recommend NOT looking first at how others do it. Use 
the knowledge gained from the instructional materials. Looking at other 
renderings should come after trying it one's self. Have you ever heard 
music played by someone who learned it FIRST from the music sheet instead 
of trying to put it together on their own? The result is horrendous.

I do a little bit of consulting from time to time. A lot of times (almost 
always), the client tries to present a potential solution (nevermind that 
they don't have the foundational knowledge to do that) instead of stating 
the problem they want solved. What that does is color my mind immediately 
instead of leaving me to think freely to come up with what I think is the 
best solution (not to mention that it bypasses all my well-evolved 
methods designed to deliver a project efficiently).


 Reading books on programming and also exhibits you to foreign code 
 (that
 often doesn't even have an implicit license but only the license of the
 whole book that is basically "don't copy at all").


Read the other books then that really want to educate rather than to sell 
code.

Ideally, if I may fantasize a bit more, I wouldn't hire programmers. I'd 
hire "normal" ( ;-) ) people and teach them to program as it is done by 
the standards and methods of my company.


 The ideal, for me, is
 allying with others who are also not "tainted".


 i.e. people without any experience.


Exactly: with no PROGRAMMING experience. Of course, for the 
highly-comp-sci-like stuff, it's another story, but I'm thinking that 
those aren't "hires" but rather products that some other company makes 
which I will buy to use. Maybe have them whittle-out a little peace of 
their technology tailored to my needs.


 But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this 
 newsgroup
 who earn money with software development (or have done so in the 
 past):
 Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software 
 as
 a hindrance for a job?
 Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
 bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
 (Or both - "depends on the job"?)


 "Job" is but one thing, freedom is another.


 Not getting contact with any "tainted" source code (like the DMD
 frontend, btw) doesn't seem like freedom to me.


It's a personal choice. It depends on one's goals and capabilities. I'm 
more of the type like Intel is as a company. Excerpt from their TOS for 
their AppUp program:

"Unsolicited Idea Submission Policy
INTEL OR ITS EMPLOYEES DO NOT ACCEPT OR CONSIDER UNSOLICITED IDEAS, 
INCLUDING IDEAS FOR NEW ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS, NEW PROMOTIONS, NEW 
PRODUCTS OR TECHNOLOGIES, PROCESSES, MATERIALS, MARKETING PLANS OR NEW 
PRODUCT NAMES. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY ORIGINAL CREATIVE ARTWORK, SAMPLES, 
DEMOS, OR OTHER WORKS. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY IS TO AVOID 
POTENTIAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR DISPUTES WHEN INTEL'S PRODUCTS OR 
MARKETING STRATEGIES MIGHT SEEM SIMILAR TO IDEAS SUBMITTED TO INTEL. SO, 
PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR UNSOLICITED IDEAS TO INTEL OR ANYONE AT INTEL. 
IF, DESPITE OUR REQUEST THAT YOU NOT SEND US YOUR IDEAS AND MATERIALS, 
YOU STILL SEND THEM, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT INTEL MAKES NO ASSURANCES 
THAT YOUR IDEAS AND MATERIALS WILL BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL OR 
PROPRIETARY."


IOW, they have plenty of their own ideas and don't want or need anyone 
else's. I have a feeling that most programmers aren't that creative and 
tend to "requrgitate" what they have seen elsewhere, such as in viral 
source code, and that is not a good thing, not for my projects, anyway.


 "Job" may be the only option
 once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room"
 development for a product they offer from their own company once they
 have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or
 another company's source code.


 So you're gonna start your own company without any prior professional
 experience and without looking at most (?) open source code and you'll
 only hire people that also have no experience? Good luck with that.


It sounds CRAZY, doesn't it! I'm hardly a noob at programming though. So 
much so, that I don't need to hire guru programmers. (I think everybody 
else is doing it "wrong").


 I don't see the value of "untainted" code per your definition.


Well maybe after reading this post you'll have a better understanding of 
my position on the matter.


 Of course you don't want to break copyright by mixing in code that you
 may not mix in (because of incompatible licenses or whatever), but this
 much paranoia is not needed and not feasible.


Well if it can't be had, then the alternatives would have to be 
evaluated. I do think, though, that the ideal situation is "growing" the 
developers rather than having to "unteach" (if that is even possible, 
given that the only patterns they may know is viral source patterns) 
existing ones.


 And if somebody claims you stole their code


And how would they ever know anyway, since my goals are to deliver 
"shrink-wrapped" software product, not source code product?


 they don't *have* to believe
 you if you say "I've never seen it", so in the end facts - or maybe 
 some
 incompetent judge or jury - will decide.


Doesn't it seem prudent to dodge that bullet from the get go?


 Or are you gonna breed you own programmers that are (from childhood 
 on!)


That probably would have been a great idea 10 or 20 years ago, for me. 
Maybe "I fucked up royally" in that regard.


 guaranteed to not have any exposure to "tainted" code by locking them 
 up
 without any contact to the rest of the world (including yourself,
 because you can't guarantee that you're not tainted)?


Well you're just presenting the extreme end case, which of course is not 
representative of the actual "landscape" of things. There is a range of 
between best case and worst case. I think the latter would be the case 
where someone has ONLY worked with viral source (or only at Microsoft?), 
and the best case would be training a non-programmer (for the 
non-highly-comp-sci things) with good capability in another domain.
Oct 24 2011
prev sibling parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On 23.10.2011 22:59, Chante wrote:

 "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff dilacero.org>  wrote in message
 news:j81rap$1f50$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:

 I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

 GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

 Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it
 serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use
 GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will
 remain available with further distributions.

 If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to
 infect you without your consent.




I don't think that's completely true. You can look at code (and download 
it) before you discover that it's GPLed. It's happened to me a few 
times. Mostly when there was code included in an article; but sometimes 
when the license was changed from BSD to GPL when the code was updated.
Oct 26 2011
prev sibling parent reply renoX <renzyx free.fr> writes:
I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


No, not at all.
First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD, then
it's still incorrect: when you're ill from a viral infection, you
didn't choose it but a developer can choose whether he wants to use
GPL code or not.

Incorrect analogies are really, really nasty stuff, please don't
propagate this FUD.
renoX
Oct 24 2011
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"renoX" <renzyx free.fr> wrote in message 
news:j8383e$1ul8$1 digitalmars.com...

I'dneverseenitbefore-maybeIleadashelteredlife.

GPL:"FreeasinHerpes"

Doesn'tthatjusthitthenailonthehead.




What happened to the spaces?


 No, not at all.
 First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD, then
 it's still incorrect: when you're ill from a viral infection, you
 didn't choose it but a developer can choose whether he wants to use
 GPL code or not.

 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). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant to 
hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close enough 
as an analogy.
Oct 24 2011
next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just an
 analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant to
 hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close enough
 as an analogy.


It's deceitful propaganda and mudslinging. If it was directed at D you'd 
be up in arms.
Oct 24 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:j84fli$1it5$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just 
 an
 analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant 
 to
 hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close 
 enough
 as an analogy.


 It's deceitful propaganda and mudslinging. If it was directed at D you'd 
 be up in arms.


So expressing disapproval about something, and the reason for the 
disapproval, is suddenly "deceitful propaganda and mudslinging"? Ah, I 
forgot, ever since the 60's nobody's allowed to have a negative option on 
anything...
Oct 24 2011
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
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.
Oct 25 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"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.
Oct 25 2011
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
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?
Oct 25 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:j87qki$2pnb$1 digitalmars.com...

 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,


So have the non-viral free licenses.


 and it's "nitpicking" to
 criticize somebody who says "Free as in Herpes"?


Yes. Because the statement is clearly intended as tongue-in-cheek.


 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.


Heh :) I certainly get pissed about about things, but not about statements 
that are true.


 Sure, you "simply correct" people and don't get
 pissed off. Are you going to make me dig up examples?


I said "usually", and even that was only referring to non-truthful 
statements about D.
Oct 25 2011
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff dilacero.org>  wrote in message

 Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and
 has been voluntarily adopted around the world,





 So have the non-viral free licenses.


And if I said they were "Free as in dogshit", would this also be "true"
and not mudslinging?
Oct 26 2011
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On 26.10.2011 17:16, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message

 Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and
 has been voluntarily adopted around the world,





 So have the non-viral free licenses.


 And if I said they were "Free as in dogshit", would this also be "true"
 and not mudslinging?


There is a serious point behind it, though.
The use of "free" in conjunction with the GPL, has a different meaning 
than "free" normally means.

The term "free software" is highly misleading, it should probably be 
spelt "Free Software(tm)". Or "Free* Software.   *Conditions apply."

Public domain is "free as in free".
GPL is NOT "free as in free". And they talk about the "libre" sense of 
free, but it ISN'T free in the libre sense, either! It's "free as in 
copyleft".

I wish they would stop using the word "free". I think it's dishonest 
marketing spin. Just use "copyleft".

Disclaimer: I have released some code under the GPL.
Oct 26 2011
next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Don Wrote:


 Public domain is "free as in free".


Maybe better call it "anarchy"?
Terminological improvements work both ways.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent foobar <foo bar.com> writes:
Don Wrote:


 On 26.10.2011 17:16, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message

 Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and
 has been voluntarily adopted around the world,





 So have the non-viral free licenses.


 And if I said they were "Free as in dogshit", would this also be "true"
 and not mudslinging?


 
 There is a serious point behind it, though.
 The use of "free" in conjunction with the GPL, has a different meaning 
 than "free" normally means.
 
 The term "free software" is highly misleading, it should probably be 
 spelt "Free Software(tm)". Or "Free* Software.   *Conditions apply."
 
 Public domain is "free as in free".
 GPL is NOT "free as in free". And they talk about the "libre" sense of 
 free, but it ISN'T free in the libre sense, either! It's "free as in 
 copyleft".
 
 I wish they would stop using the word "free". I think it's dishonest 
 marketing spin. Just use "copyleft".
 
 Disclaimer: I have released some code under the GPL.


To me this whole discussion looks like trying to call an agnostic an "atheist"
which is IMHO not correct. 
To me, GPL is intuitively more "free" than public domain. 
The concept of "free" depends heavily on POV and I'd argue that you're looking
at this from a wrong perspective: 
there are two freedoms in conflict here, that of the original owner's and that
of his respective users and while you want the latter, the GPL enforces the
former.
GPL is VERY free. This thread speaks of trying to make the original work *less*
free by allowing users to close it and modify without contributing back. 

I understand that this limits us from incorporating GPL work in phobos. but
that is a feature and not a bug in the definition of "freedom".
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/27/2011 02:44 AM, Don wrote:

 There is a serious point behind it, though.
 The use of "free" in conjunction with the GPL, has a different meaning
 than "free" normally means.


I actually agree, and have espoused this view myself in the past. If 
this was the reasoned argument that was actually made, instead of "free 
as in herpes", then I would have no problem with it.
Oct 27 2011
next sibling parent reply Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
 
 I actually agree, and have espoused this view myself in the past. If
 this was the reasoned argument that was actually made, instead of "free
 as in herpes", then I would have no problem with it.


I wish I'd never posted the item in the first place - it was intended as 
a kind of meta-meta-comment. I had just never heard the herpes analogy 
before.

Can we all just relax and go back to where we were.

Steve
Oct 27 2011
parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:05 Steve Teale wrote:

 I actually agree, and have espoused this view myself in the past. If
 this was the reasoned argument that was actually made, instead of "free
 as in herpes", then I would have no problem with it.


 
 I wish I'd never posted the item in the first place - it was intended as
 a kind of meta-meta-comment. I had just never heard the herpes analogy
 before.
 
 Can we all just relax and go back to where we were.


It was a bit funny, but naturally folks ended up turning it into a serious 
discussion, and it's a rather heated topic, so I don't think that it's all 
that surprising that it ended up this way.

- Jonathan M Davis
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Jeff Nowakowski Wrote:


 On 10/27/2011 02:44 AM, Don wrote:

 There is a serious point behind it, though.
 The use of "free" in conjunction with the GPL, has a different meaning
 than "free" normally means.


 
 I actually agree, and have espoused this view myself in the past. If 
 this was the reasoned argument that was actually made, instead of "free 
 as in herpes", then I would have no problem with it.


My experience says we can't have freedom without law. Anarchy is possible only
hypothetically (it would work only in a very unrealistic condition). So it's
pretty safe to assert freedom implies enforcement.
Oct 27 2011
parent Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/27/2011 02:01 PM, Kagamin wrote:

 My experience says we can't have freedom without law. Anarchy is
 possible only hypothetically (it would work only in a very
 unrealistic condition). So it's pretty safe to assert freedom implies
 enforcement.


The kind of enforcement the GPL requires is along the lines of consumer 
protection laws and not freedom. It's more like saying you have to list 
the ingredients in your food product.
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
Don wrote:

 On 26.10.2011 17:16, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message

 Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and
 has been voluntarily adopted around the world,





 So have the non-viral free licenses.


 And if I said they were "Free as in dogshit", would this also be
 "true" and not mudslinging?


 There is a serious point behind it, though.
 The use of "free" in conjunction with the GPL, has a different meaning
 than "free" normally means.

 The term "free software" is highly misleading, it should probably be
 spelt "Free Software(tm)". Or "Free* Software.   *Conditions apply."


And have a warning label, required by the "surgeon general of software", 
stating the hazards/dangers. :-)
Oct 27 2011
prev sibling parent renoX <renzyx free.fr> writes:
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
Oct 25 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"renoX" <renzyx free.fr> wrote in message 
news:j8383e$1ul8$1 digitalmars.com...

I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.

GPL: "Free as in Herpes"

Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.


 No, not at all.
 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), but how is 
calling GPL'd code "viral" not appropriate when just placing uninfected 
code next to it, infects it?

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? A "something for nothing", "Gen Y", "entitlement" mindset? See:

http://www.aspeneducation.com/article-entitlement.html
Oct 24 2011
parent reply renoX <renzyx free.fr> writes:
 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".
Oct 25 2011
parent "Chante" <udontspamme never.will.u> writes:
"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.
Oct 25 2011