Phil Bouchard
Founder & CTO
C.: (819) 328-4743
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:55 PM Phil Bouchard <boost@fornux.com> 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@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:On 8/4/21 7:14 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 01:44, Phil Bouchard <boost@fornux.com> 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.