Subject: Re: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License
From: Phil Bouchard (philippeb8_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-05 14:43:14
On 08/05/2017 10:20 AM, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
>> So for some reason I do not trust Microsoft. And I was wondering if
>> the Boost license protects us from an idea behind a library we wrote.
>> Otherwise this makes the Boost license not very useful.
> Protects us from? You mean protects the idea from being copied right?
> I don't think a license can do that whatsoever, since it is based on
> copyright not on a patent. A patent might be able to protect an idea,
> copyright can only protect the actually written words, i.e. the code
> itself not the concepts.
You mean it can only protect us from our code being copy & pasted around.
> Also: have you reached out to Herb Sutter? I actually don't get your
> concern, do you want to be credited? His library is published under the
> MIT license, that's still open-source.
These days when I present root_ptr then I am being told: "Oh your
library is like deferred_heap" when it should be the other way around. I
also learned the hard way not to contact Microsoft in any way otherwise
even my complaint will be plagiarized (sarcasm here).
Everybody here knows root_ptr was once called block_ptr and shifted_ptr
so my previous attempts came to life long before deferred_ptr. I just
don't want to have Microsoft in the way anymore.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk