Poor Miguel: Still dreaming to work for Microsoft
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| litosteel Aug 13, 2010 1:40 PM EDT |
Java is as Dangerous as Mono (C#). They were created by Corps. Please do yourself a favor and READ Richard Stallman "The Trap" articles. |
| DarrenR114 Aug 13, 2010 2:12 PM EDT |
That's a bit disenguous. C was also developed and marketed by a single corporation to facilitate the development of UNIX. Mono was no more developed by a commercial interest than PERL. That Miguel developed started the project while working for a software company is no more a problem than the fact that PERL was developed by Larry Wall to make his work at Unisys easier. I started reading "The Trap" articles but stopped because I couldn't stop gagging on the cr@p. Do yourself a favor and do a little research on the demographics of software developers. You'll find that the vast majority of software development is internal work done for companies. The bottom line is that the bulk of software development is done to satisfy business needs. |
| gus3 Aug 13, 2010 2:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:C was also developed and marketed by a single corporation to facilitate the development of UNIX.If that's the case, why was the first standard C grammar termed "K&R C", for Kernighan and Richie, instead of "Bell Labs C"? As for Perl, its source was published on comp.sources.misc less than a year after Larry Wall started developing it. Since I don't find any lawsuits or legal wranglings from Unisys concerning Perl, it's a safe bet that they exercised no copyrights over it. Tcl? University. PHP? Personal project. LISP? University. Smalltalk? Corporate. Forth? Personal, for employment tasks. Pascal? University. ALGOL? University. BASIC? University. C++? Corporate. Bourne shell? Corporate. Quoting:Do yourself a favor and do a little research on the demographics of software developers. You'll find that the vast majority of software development is internal work done for companies.You're moving the goal-posts, from programming language development to software development in general. |
| DarrenR114 Aug 13, 2010 6:41 PM EDT |
@Gus,
Your list does not prove "goodness" or "badness" of a particular framework/API/development tool solely based on the underlying motivation or corporate objectives. Just because the original language spec has become popularly known as the 'K&R' does not make Bell Labs any less the *owner* of the work product. Google on "C History" and you'll see what I'm referring to. http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html Kernighan, Ritchie AND Thompson developed C as part of their work to develop UNIX, after Bell Labs decided to pull out of the Multics project. They based their work on B. There was very much a "commercial" motivation to their work. It was sanctioned and funded in full by Bell Labs. The point being: just because there is a commercial motivation (be it to boost the company bottom line or simply to make one person's paying job easier) doesn't mean that there is anything intrinsically "evil", "bad", or "wrong" about the work product itself. Rather than waste time with RMS's claptrap, it would be better for the OP to brush up on ESR's "Cathedral and Bazaar". |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 13, 2010 7:23 PM EDT |
C was based on B ... whatever happened to A? And when can we expect D? |
| gus3 Aug 13, 2010 7:34 PM EDT |
Where did I say anything about "good" or "bad"? I'm simply looking at the origins of other common programming languages. Stop putting words in my mouth, pay attention to the words I am saying, or else no conversation with you will go anywhere. Oh, and let's not forget two very early languages: COBOL: Academic and military FORTRAN: IBM That should put to rest any idea that I'm saying "academic" is "good" and "corporate" is "bad". |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 13, 2010 8:23 PM EDT |
Or how about: Computing - Brought to you by the military-industrial complex |
| jhansonxi Aug 13, 2010 10:04 PM EDT |
"And when can we expect D?" Already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language) |
| hkwint Aug 14, 2010 9:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:does not make Bell Labs any less the *owner* of the work product. So tell me, how many software patents did / does Bell labs have on C? Because that is what seems to make Oracle the owner of Java. |
| jdixon Aug 14, 2010 10:35 PM EDT |
> So tell me, how many software patents did / does Bell labs have on C? At that time, software was generally (and correctly, IMO) considered not to be patentable. |
| hkwint Aug 15, 2010 10:40 AM EDT |
That was the point I tried to make: Bell Labs was less owner of C than Oracle of Java, because one could use C without paying patent licenses to Bell Labs. Though I'm not sure because I wasn't born back then, but I think that's the difference. |
| mmelchert Aug 16, 2010 12:58 AM EDT |
> C was based on B ... whatever happened to A? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCPL The design, and philosophy, of BCPL strongly influenced B, which in turn influenced C |
| KernelShepard Aug 16, 2010 7:31 AM EDT |
Interestingly, the Microsoft CP allows anyone to extend .NET/C#, but the JCP does not (hence the lawsuit against Google over Dalvik). Miguel is right that .NET is more free than Java. That doesn't mean it's 100% safe from lawsuits, obviously, but it does counter what a lot of people who have been vocally against Mono have been arguing for years. Jeremy Allison and a number of other people argued that Miguel should have taken Java and extended it to his needs instead of cloning .NET. Well, now we see why it was a very good thing that Miguel did not do so. |
| bigg Aug 16, 2010 8:48 AM EDT |
So is it safe to say Java is now officially dead? Looks like Microsoft has won again. |
| hkwint Aug 16, 2010 10:36 AM EDT |
- |
| hkwint Aug 16, 2010 10:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:but it does counter what a lot of people who have been vocally against Mono have been arguing for years. Depends on who you're asking: At the very same time, it doesn't counter, but confirm the opinion to stay away from patented proprietary frameworks, like Java and .NET. Consider the case people warn you for crocodiles, and you are bitten by a snake . Pointing out the people who warned you for crocodiles were wrong as it's now officialy proven snakes are more dangerous, is not going to create a shield against crocodiles. To be safe from crocodiles and snakes, the best remedy is to stay away from them. |
| bigg Aug 16, 2010 11:39 AM EDT |
> stay away from patented proprietary frameworks Unfortunately that is not likely to be enough. Even Fortran, which showed up in the 1950's, is at risk of patent attacks. As the language evolves and new features are added, there is the possibility that any specific implementation will violate some patents. Maybe COBOL is sufficiently stale that it doesn't matter, but I don't see the world giving up .NET and Java to move to COBOL. |
| tuxchick Aug 16, 2010 12:03 PM EDT |
So we're back to "The US patent system is broken to the point of absurdity" |
| jdixon Aug 16, 2010 12:10 PM EDT |
TC, it's not just the patent system. The majority of the US legal system is broken to the point of absurdity. The cynic in me would opine that's what you can expect when you let lawyers write the laws, but I'll not expound further for fear of TOS violations. |
| bigg Aug 16, 2010 12:19 PM EDT |
> So we're back to "The US patent system is broken to the point of absurdity" It seems we get there a lot. > The cynic in me would opine that's what you can expect when you let lawyers write the laws I would argue that this is what happens when you have an issue that puts most voters to sleep combined with a lot of money on only one side. |
| hkwint Aug 16, 2010 1:05 PM EDT |
bigg: Yeah, forgot to note any C-software might just as easily 'step' on patents. Bummer. So the 'language' C is more free than .NET (because it's less "owned"), and .NET may be more free then Java, but in the end it doesn't matter because you will step on a patent-mine anyhow. TC: Not only in the US. The countries with absurd laws recently cooperated to force their absurdities upon the countries with same IP-regimes too, so soon this will be a worldwide problem. Then, it will be less obvious to notice how absurd it is. I see it like this: If the whole world was like Angola, nobody would notice how full of mines that country is. The one who invents a patent-mineguzzler http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nolandmines.c... earns a patent, in my opinion. |
| jdixon Aug 16, 2010 3:16 PM EDT |
> The one who invents a patent-mineguzzle Patent the business "process" of patenting obvious software practices (or buying up the rights to existing same) and suing anyone who might even conceivably violate them. I doubt it's been done, and it's not like prior art is any barrier. |
| DarrenR114 Aug 16, 2010 3:28 PM EDT |
@hans, I'm not so worried about patents as I am about copyrights - patents have a very limited lifespan compared to the ever-extending lifespan of copyrights. And in case you haven't noticed, copyright infringement has become easier and easier to demonstrate (see "non-literal copying") such that you can't build a structure that looks like another building without the original building designer's permission. I think the biggest reason you haven't seen much action, regarding copyrights and patents, in the courts from Bell Labs is that until 1983, AT&T (Bell Labs parent) was forbidden, under terms of the "1956 Consent Decree", from selling computer IP, such as C, or UNIX, as "products". http://www.technologyforall.com/TechForAll/legalHistory.html |
| hkwint Aug 16, 2010 6:50 PM EDT |
I'd have to read the part of "non literal copying". But here's why I'd disagree: You can write a book, and publish it, sell it, and if you've written it yourself, you can almost be certain it doesn't infringe on existing copyright. However, if you write a program, publish it and sell it, you can almost be certain it infringes patents. So, in my opinion, patents do stifle creating new programs, while copyright doesn't stifle writing new books. |
| tuxchick Aug 16, 2010 7:05 PM EDT |
Books, music, and art all borrown from each other. Concepts, ideas, images, techniques, composition, phrases, riffs, colors, etc....I don't see why software should be any different. Just different ways of doing similar things. |
| gus3 Aug 16, 2010 9:12 PM EDT |
But if I write a story about a girl wizard named Parry Hotter, who has a 3/4-inch bolt on her forehead, and it is not obviously some kind of parody or satire (or adult... whatever), can J. K. Rowling's legal reps come after me? Yes. Will they come after me? Only if it goes into a second printing, probably. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 17, 2010 3:19 AM EDT |
First printing most likely. The Rowling estate is quite vigorous in defending the Harry Potter brand. |
| DarrenR114 Aug 17, 2010 12:49 PM EDT |
Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_prot... The second to last FAQ is particularly troubling: Does copyright protect architecture? Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works Copyright protection for "non-literal elements" is a well-established principle for all copyrightable work - not just something that SCO dreamed up recently. This is why J.K. Rowling prevailed in her lawsuit against the Russians who changed the names & places, but kept the general plot. But regarding software specifically, here's a bit more info that explains the concerns with copyright (and why I feel that the ever-extending nature of copyrights is more dangerous than patents): http://www.theiplawblog.com/archives/-copyright-law-is-that-... (Specifically, the 4th and 5th paragraphs are germane to the topic of protection of "non-literal" elements.) |
| hkwint Aug 18, 2010 8:37 PM EDT |
Come on, if you write a child book from scratch and make it up yourself, there's about 0.00000000000000 chance (except when using Python) you will be sued by J.K. Rowling, because the chances of "accidental copyright collision" is about "the same float". So the risk of your inspiration infringing on current IP is negligable. With patents, such clearly is not the case. I agree copyright extension may be dangerous, but it's no hindrance to publishing and selling ones own inspiration. The patent system is though. And let me ask you something: If you write a piece of software, copyright it, and then I reverse engineer it, recompile and sell it, should it all the suddenly not be copyright infringement? Because that's probably the reason architectural works are subject to copyright. I once worked at a company which designed plastic parts, and it's always dissatisfying if you develop something (meaning lots of efforts, far beyond researching and designing only!) and then somebody else 'measures' your part and starts selling it without paying for the development you did. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!