Subject: Re: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License
From: Phil Bouchard (philippeb8_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-05 16:11:12
On 08/05/2017 11:53 AM, Jens Weller via Boost wrote:
> Hello Phil,
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 05. August 2017 um 16:04 Uhr
>> Von: "Phil Bouchard via Boost" <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> An: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Cc: "Phil Bouchard" <philippeb8_at_[hidden]>
>> Betreff: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License
>> Just to put everybody in context:
>> 1) Microsoft had invested into Corel so that they get rid of Corel Linux
>> back in 2000 when I was working there:
>> 2) Microsoft once again copied my Fornux PowerCalc after I had presented
>> it to them using some web interface:
>> With their Microsoft PowerToys:
> So this is personal?
No I just want to point out their strategy to the community so that it
doesn't happen to anyone else.
>> 3) And now here I am with Microsoft trying to copy the idea behind
>> root_ptr's node_proxy:
>> With their "deferred_ptr heap":
>> 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.
> You should have some more evidence, that there is a relation between Herbs gcpp, and your root_ptr.
> Btw. Herb presented this last year in his CppCon keynote:
> So thats why its fairly well known in the community.
Well we can look at the logs of block_ptr / root_ptr which date back to
February 2016 on Github and Mr. Sutter's first commit ironically was
done later in September of the same year.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk