On 8/6/21 7:31 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> On 8/6/21 11:19 AM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/4/21 6:27 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/4/21 5:03 PM, Emile Cormier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I fear software patent trolls more than I do corporations extending
>>>> standards in order to lock-in their customers. At least with the
>>>> latter, I can still choose to adopt the original standard (e.g.
>>>> POSIX vs Win32 API). I fear software patents will end up creating a
>>>> minefield where only big corporations with an army of lawyers can play.
>>>
>>> My goal is to contribute and to give back.
>>>
>> I'll read more about the GPL licenses and patents, I'm pretty sure
>> both can coexist.
>>
> 1)
>
> "GPLv3 specifically states that you must grant all downstream recipients
> of a covered work an irrevocable, royalty free license to the patented
> component, or you can't distribute the software."
>
> So Linus, the Gnu GCC and maybe Clang communities should be happy then.
>
>
> 2)
>
> The ISO C++ committee can still add the framework I suggested after I've
> loosened the restrictions of the patent.
>
>
> 3)
>
> Commercial usages or transitions to other languages can be negotiated.
>
>
> Sounds good?

No, not to me at least. No negotiations, no potential restrictions, no
hidden or explicit costs, no licenses, with respect to users,
implementers or distributors must be necessary. In other words - no
patents in C++.

Please, keep your patented technology separate from standard C++.