On 8/5/21 12:26 AM, Marcin Jaczewski via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
>
> śr., 4 sie 2021 o 19:16 Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>>
> napisał(a):
>
>
> On 8/3/21 11:41 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/3/21 11:07 PM, Emile Cormier via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>> Sorry, but who do you expect to get involved in a C++ language
>>> extensions encumbered by patents? Does your "C++ Superset" allow
>>> a patent-free, open-source implementation?
>>
>> Part of what I mentioned is patent pending but I can certainly
>> loosen restrictions, but the Root Pointer headers will remain
>> patented.
>>
> BTW thank God software can now be patented. Here's my anecdote:
>
> - I was working for Corel Linux back in 2000 until Microsoft
> dissolved it;
>
> - I wrote my own Fornux Powercalc and proposed it to Microsoft but
> got silently embraced and extended my Microsoft Powertoys:
>
> https://github.com/philippeb8/fcalc
> <https://github.com/philippeb8/fcalc>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Powercalc.PNG
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Powercalc.PNG>
>
> - Herb Sutter from Microsoft almost embraced and extended the logic
> of Root Pointer:
>
> https://github.com/hsutter/gcpp <https://github.com/hsutter/gcpp>
>
>
> From page you posted: "Herb Sutter -- Updated 2016-10-16"
> This means near 5 years ago, and you say "almost". Is this not the other
> way around?
> How do you want to pattern something that has a similar version that is
> already publicly available?
>
> And for calc, when you write the first version of this? your github show
> only date 2019 where other link shows that it is a program for WinXP.
> And even if your version 1.0 was before XP then there was already
> Wolfram Mathematica 1.0 from 1988 that had bigger capabilities.
> This means your calc is not something unique to steal off.

BTW, I don't think "steal" is the right word. The fcalc repo has MIT
license, which is rather permissive. Though I don't know if that was the
case back when Microsoft supposedly "borrowed" the code.