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 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
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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:
>> https://www.forbes.com/2000/10/03/1003corel.html
>>
>>
>> 2) Microsoft once again copied my Fornux PowerCalc after I had presented
>> it to them using some web interface:
>> http://www.fornux.com/
>>
>> With their Microsoft PowerToys:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerToys#Included_applications
> 
> 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:
>> https://github.com/philippeb8/root_ptr
>>
>> With their "deferred_ptr heap":
>> https://github.com/hsutter/gcpp
>>
>>
>> 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:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfmTagWcqoE
> 
> 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.

Regards,
-Phil