On 8/4/21 11:09 PM, Jason McKesson wrote:
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.
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