Re: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License

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.

Regards,
-Phil