On 8/4/21 11:09 PM, Jason McKesson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:55 PM Phil Bouchard <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/4/21 6:43 PM, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Also... you never *actually* answered the point. Namely, that you're
>>> talking about "embracing" C++ and "extending" it with
>>> patent-proprietary technologies that will ensure that anyone trying to
>>> implement it will only be able to do so if they agree to your terms.
>> The ISO committee allows this in mechanics, electronics, ... and its fine. Why not software engineering?
> Again, you kinda side-stepped the point.You're saying "Microsoft is
> bad for embracing and extending. Also, here's my proposal to embrace
> and extend C++!" Do you not see a contradiction there?

You're right but I already negotiated the framework that can be used for
unpatented memory manager alternatives. I personality think a mixture of
smart pointers and a garbage collector is the second best alternative as
proven by Python.

Please understand that software engineering is now protected by patent
laws and I personally think it's great because it's the only way to
protect ourselves against a giant squid like Microsoft. We're not in the
70s anymore, time changes so let's not swim against the river.

Maybe I will dissolve the patent eventually but for now I need protection.

>
> In any case, the patent issue is not *just* about ISO's rules. GCC is
> released under GPL. Does GPL even *allow* them to ship a version
> containing patented code? If not, you've just lost one of the 3 major
> C++ compilers.

Good observation... Actually the Boost license I am using is
questionable but I can just change it to the Apache license that
protects both the patent licensee and patent contributors which is
permissive at the same time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences


>
> Personally, I'd rather C++ die a slow death against Rust than have it
> encumbered by patents.

(That's the last thing I would expect to hear from a ISO C++ committee
member... but okay)

We still have legacy code around anyways.


>
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 7:19 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/4/21 7:14 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 01:44, Phil Bouchard <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/4/21 6:34 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>>>> I must admit I utterly fail to see what any of this discussion has to
>>>>> do with proposals for the C++ standard.
>>>> My point is I will circle back with the community because I will use C++ for AI R&D.
>>> In other words, nothing, so please take this off-topic noise elsewhere.
>> Nothing? GPU programming, parallel processing and AI algorithms can eventually be upgraded into a library and part of it into the standards.
> His point is that you're not coming to us with a proposal for any of
> that *at the present time*. You're basically saying, "here's a product
> we're working on (that has some submarine patents in it, but I totally
> won't use them to hurt programmers, honest!) that maybe I want to
> standardize as a separate language kind of thing that maybe gets
> folded into C++ eventually".
>
> This forum is for proposals for the C++ language, and this as of yet isn't that.
This thread is about recruiting for a new SCC / ISO C++ Superset branch
but I understand if the patent traumatises everybody but in no way I
will fully unpatent it for the moment. I rather die in agonizing pain
than seeing Microsoft embracing and extending my efforts again.

-- 
*Phil Bouchard*
Founder & CTO
C.: (819) 328-4743
Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>