Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:29 PM, harrismh777 wrote: Ok, so, you're basically saying that perfect simulation is not a requirement for something to 'be mathematics'. I don't think you can construct a nontrivial model for mathematics without including that, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong, an

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Steven D'Aprano wrote: software*is* mathematics No it isn't. Yes, it is. (If the machine is particularly simple -- you might be able to exactly simulate a lever in pure mathematics, but simulating, say, a nuclear bomb or a dialysis machine in mathematics is more of a challenge...)

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano > wrote: >> (If the machine is particularly >> simple -- you might be able to exactly simulate a lever in pure >> mathematics, but simulating, say, a nuclear bomb or a dialysis machine in >>

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > (If the machine is particularly > simple -- you might be able to exactly simulate a lever in pure > mathematics, but simulating, say, a nuclear bomb or a dialysis machine in > mathematics is more of a challenge...) I can easily model a mas

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:21:55 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > software *is* mathematics No it isn't. I might accept an argument that *algorithms* are mathematics, but software is not algorithms. Consider the difference between the mathematical concept of leverage and an actual physical lever. We w

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Saturday 16 April 2011 16:46:10 geremy condra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:21 PM, harrismh777 > wrote: > > > > This looks to me like an application of the troll motto "if > you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with > bull". It certainly does nothing to prove your claim,

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:21 PM, harrismh777 wrote: This looks to me like an application of the troll motto "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull". It certainly does nothing to prove your claim, despite clearly attempting to word-salad your way through an argument.

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

geremy condra wrote: > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2009151305785 > This is not a proof. This is an argument. There's a very big difference. To be clear, this article makes basically the same mistake you do- you assume that a program is exactly equivalent to its comp

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Westley Martínez wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 14:02 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that >> > would be correct. We're in the realm

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

In article <4da7abad$0$29986$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > What they give is ubiquity, which is a point in their favour. But just > because something is common doesn't make it useful: for the most part > both are used for style over substance, of sizzle without

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

In article <4da7a8f5$0$29986$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:50:24 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > > > Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary > > browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it be

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Personally, I think it is *good* that there is a plurality of browsers in > the market. In my perfect world, no single browser should capture more > than 20% share of users. In *MY* perfect world, choice of browser should be completely up

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:46:46 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: >> Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser >> execute untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good >> idea, supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that >> silently removes Java

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:50:24 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary > browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because > their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized > Microsoft? A littl

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:01:42 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie > wrote: >> I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- >> compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in >> people to your server. FWIW I'm n

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:23:01 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 08:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie >> wrote: >> > I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- >> > compliant server and then design client

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 08:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie > wrote: > > I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- > > compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in > > people to your server. FWIW I'm

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:01:42 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie > wrote: >> I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- >> compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in >> people to your server. FWIW I'm n

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > I think the only real evil is to set out to make a non-standards- > compliant server and then design client software that seeks to lock in > people to your server. FWIW I'm not certain that is anything that MS > deliberately set out to do.

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:50:24 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote: > Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary > browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because > their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized > Microsoft? > Person

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Westley Martínez wrote: Also, why aren't Opera and Google criticized for their proprietary browsers (Chrome is essentially a proprietary front-end)? Is it because their browsers follow web standards, or is it because we have demonized Microsoft? My biggest gripe with Microsoft as that they *don

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 14:02 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that > > would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does > > anyone seriously think

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 14:02 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that > > would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does > > anyone seriously think

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM, harrismh777 wrote: > geremy condra wrote: >> >> Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do >> for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a >> political football. If you can prove something,*prove it*. If you >> cannot- n

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:04 AM, harrismh777 wrote: >    How mamy times have you altered the identity of your web browser so that > the web site would 'work'? You know, stupid messages from the server that > say, "We only support IE 6+, upgrade your browser...",  so you tell it > you're using IE

Re: OT] Free software versus software idea patents

HI Steven D'Aprano... > Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser execute > untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good idea, supposed > sandbox or not. No need, we have an abundance of half wits - erm I mean, surfers - out there willing click on anyth

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Now, if only we could convince web users that having your browser execute > untrusted code downloaded from the Internet is not such a good idea, > supposed sandbox or not. What the world needs is a virus that silently > removes Javascript

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > 4) Assumes people aren't deliberately fiddling the figures. Yeah, that > would be correct. We're in the realm of conspiracy theories here... does > anyone seriously think that browser stats are THAT important that they'd > go to multiple

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM, harrismh777 wrote: > >    How many web crawlers have you built? Are there any web programmers out > there who need a web bot to hit multiple sites zillions of times a month > from different places on earth to 'up' the number of hits for economic > reasons? I've see

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

geremy condra wrote: Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a political football. If you can prove something,*prove it*. If you cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that math says

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM, harrismh777 wrote: >    I am sorry, I was not clear and you rightly misunderstood my indirection. > I am not claiming that software describes hardware. Please allow me to > restate. >    Mathematics describes hardware, yet hardware is patentable and > mathematics

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Ian Kelly wrote: There is at least one method of measuring it without resorting to sales figures: logging user-agent data from web browsers. Is it perfectly accurate? Of course not. But there are a number of different organizations that do this, sampling hundreds of thousands of different webs

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

geremy condra wrote: I'm familiar with the case, and agree with Knuth (and you) that math should not be patentable. I'd also agree that algorithms are mathematics. Critically, algorithms*are not* software. it isn't clear to me that software and computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus on

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > That would be a patent on a business process, which is allowed. In fact, > as I recall, at least one lawyer has made an attempt to patent a business > process relating to law. IBM tried patenting the business of patent trolling, which

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:43:00 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: > Anyone here who does not understand how absurd software patents can get > should contemplate the following (based on a real patent from about 20 > years ago, when CDroms were new. > > A Methods for Ensuring that the Correct CDROM is in the

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:37:08 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > There is at least one method of measuring it without resorting to sales > figures: logging user-agent data from web browsers. Is it perfectly > accurate? Of course not. But there are a number of different > organizations that do this, sampl

Re: OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 15:38 +0100, wisecrac...@tesco.net wrote: > Hi Westley... > > > The pre-builts from Best Buy that get reloaded, reloaded with what? I > > live in California, the center of software development. I only know one > > person who uses Linux, and they only use it for work (he doe

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote: > This data is of course skewed a bit toward computers that people are > using web browsers on. Right, Linux servers are most likely underrepresented. At best the data indicates what the population at large is using on their desktops. > Also

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:22 AM, harrismh777 wrote: >> It is not measured in any way, and it is almost impossible to determine >> therefore in any accurate fashion. There >> really are no data... what we need here is a census of sorts. > > The

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:22 AM, harrismh777 wrote: >    This is very difficult... and I'm not dodging the ball here... its just > the truth. The 'market share' data are bogus. Reason? ... because the free > software 'market' is not a market. This is just word-play. It has no bearing on the accu

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On 4/12/2011 4:15 AM, harrismh777 wrote: Anyone here who does not understand how absurd software patents can get should contemplate the following (based on a real patent from about 20 years ago, when CDroms were new. A Methods for Ensuring that the Correct CDROM is in the CDROM drive. While

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:15 AM, harrismh777 wrote: > geremy condra wrote: >>> >>>    Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is not >>> just >>> >  based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics. > >> I am extremely skeptical of this argument. > >     ... as are a great number of

Re: OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Hi Westley... > The pre-builts from Best Buy that get reloaded, reloaded with what? I > live in California, the center of software development. I only know one > person who uses Linux, and they only use it for work (he doesn't even > live in CA anymore). I have say your delusions about the use

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 04:22 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >> > The desktop > >> > is all that is left... and that is dying... rapidly. Their lockin is > >> > well > >> > entrenched (like Borg implants ) but the number of mom& pops ( like my > >> > entire extended family, for

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Ian Kelly wrote: > The desktop > is all that is left... and that is dying... rapidly. Their lockin is well > entrenched (like Borg implants ) but the number of mom& pops ( like my > entire extended family, for instance) who are moving to Ubuntu (themselves) > is astounding! It will not be l

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

geremy condra wrote: Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is not just > based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics. I am extremely skeptical of this argument. ... as are a great number of other people; corporations, lawyers, venture capitalists, SPAM SPAM S

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

geremy condra writes: > […] I think it's quite reasonable to contend that the existence of > lambda calculus no more rules out the applicability of patents to > software (which I detest) than it rules out the applicability of > patents to hardware (which I find only slightly less ridiculous) or >

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:17:09 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Steven D'Aprano >> wrote: > [...] >>> Of course, some mathematics is obvious, or at least intuitive (although >>> proving it rigorously can be r

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:17:09 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Steven D'Aprano > wrote: [...] >> Of course, some mathematics is obvious, or at least intuitive (although >> proving it rigorously can be remarkably difficult -- after 4000 years >> of maths, we still don'

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:53:57 -0700, geremy condra wrote: >> I am extremely skeptical of this argument. Leaving aside the fact that >> you've randomly decided to drop the "decidable" qualifier here- a big >> problem in its own right- it i

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > So what is that number?  Anecdotes are unreliable; I would like to see > the actual data.  The only non-techie I personally know who uses Linux > is my wife, and she only uses it because it's what's installed at > home.  My brother-in-law was a L

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM, harrismh777 wrote: > The deal with motive number (2) is that there are fewer and fewer teams who > are concerned with interoperability. For instance (my team), we moved our > stuff to gnulinux based systems and dumped Microsoft completely... we have > no need for t

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:53:57 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM, harrismh777 > wrote: >> Chris Angelico wrote: >      All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point >      being, > all >  software is mathematics... >> >>> With enoug

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM, harrismh777 wrote: > Chris Angelico wrote: >>> >>> >      All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being, >>> > all >>> >  software is mathematics... > >> With enough software, you can simulate anything. That means that the >> entire universe can

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 10:18 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, harrismh777 wrote: > >Not so fast there, Steve. If they [Microsoft] are paying anything > > (unsubstantiated, unknowable) to Python, Apache, or (Linux, whatever you > > mean by that term...) there are

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Chris Angelico wrote: > All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being, all > software is mathematics... With enough software, you can simulate anything. That means that the entire universe can be expressed as lambda calculus. Does that mean that nothing can ever be pa

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Chris Angelico wrote: Not so fast there, Steve. If they [Microsoft] are paying anything > (unsubstantiated, unknowable) to Python, Apache, or (Linux, whatever you > mean by that term...) there are only two motives: http://www.python.org/psf/ - Microsoft is listed. http://www.apache.o

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, harrismh777 wrote: >    Not so fast there, Steve. If they [Microsoft] are paying anything > (unsubstantiated, unknowable) to Python, Apache, or (Linux, whatever you > mean by that term...) there are only two motives: http://www.python.org/psf/ - Microsoft is list

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > What do you mean 'just like"?They are nothing alike. All three of Python, Apache and Linux have accepted donations from Microsoft. Microsoft is a corporate sponsor of the PSF. Microsoft is not in the business of donating money and time to competitors out of the

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 23:55 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:37:45 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>> The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that they are in > >>> > partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously and > >>>

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Steven D'Aprano writes: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:50:56 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > > >> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET > > […] > > > > It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology > > (Mono) that knowingly i

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:37:45 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that they are in >>> > partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously and >>> > unconsciously. This must be punished. >> Just like Python, Apache, a

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

in 654905 20110408 171055 Ethan Furman wrote: >Westley Mart�nez wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 01:41 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: >>> >>> Freedom isn't free... you have to fight for it... always. >> >> Why should a business listen to you? You're not gonna buy any software >> anyways. >> > >From a

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Westley Martínez wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 01:41 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: Freedom isn't free... you have to fight for it... always. Why should a business listen to you? You're not gonna buy any software anyways. From a thread a few months back I can say there are a couple companies wi

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 01:41 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to do > > to punish them? > > What do you mean 'just like"?They are nothing alike. > > (which is why the community is upset by sone, but no

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Steven D'Aprano wrote: Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to do to punish them? What do you mean 'just like"?They are nothing alike. (which is why the community is upset by sone, but not the others: hint) The punishment? ... withdraw support and use of

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Steven D'Aprano wrote: The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that they are in > partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously and > unconsciously. This must be punished. Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to do to punish them? What d

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:37:27 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that they are in > partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously and > unconsciously. This must be punished. Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:33 AM, harrismh777 wrote: >    Therein lies *the* problem. The point that gets missed over and over is > that there CAN BE NO PATENT COVERING MATHEMATICS ...  period. > >    Yes, C# and .NET are covered by hundreds of software patents. Its an > insane mess... which must be

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Adam Tauno Williams wrote: Please read If you still do not understand why this is a bogus issue then just go away. Good blog--- off the point, but a nice rant none-the-less. = block quote With all this in mind, you

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra)

Steven D'Aprano wrote: >Perhaps what you mean is, none of the licences granted are *irrevocable*. >But the same applies to the GPL -- break the GPL's (generous) terms, and >you too could find that your licence is revoked. Actually, you could argue since the GPL doesn't meet the legal definitio

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:50 -0400, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:31 AM, harrismh777 wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > ...n Mono, which > is an open source implementation of the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 > standards. The only difference between it and Python is that Python > was

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

harrismh777 wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> > At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer >>> > science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of >>> > wasteful litigation and head-ache. >> Do you have an example of this wasteful litigation? > >

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Steven D'Aprano wrote: In my view, Mono encourages .NET; and that's bad. Idea patents and particularly idea patents covering mathematics Do you have an example of a patent covering mathematics that applies to .NET? Therein lies *the* problem. The point that gets missed over and over is

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:31 AM, harrismh777 wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> >> Let's reword your concern slightly: >> >> >>     It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for >>     technologies (including, but not limited to, HTML, CSS, C++, >>     XML, Public Key Cryptography, packet

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Steven D'Aprano wrote: Let's reword your concern slightly: It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for technologies (including, but not limited to, HTML, CSS, C++, XML, Public Key Cryptography, packet-based multimedia, IPv6) that knowingly or unknowingly [the late

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra)

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Do you want to know who scares me? Google and Apple. Google, because > they're turning software from something you run on your own computer to > something you use on a distant server you have no control over. And > Apple, because they're tur

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:50:56 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > >> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET > […] > > It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology > (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, th

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:03:54 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: >> It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology >> (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the >> “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an >> entity t

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

Ben Finney wrote: It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict the fr

[OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra)

Steven D'Aprano writes: > Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET […] It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an