«

Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Jan 1, 5:23 pm, tm<thomas.mer...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> On 22 Dez. 2010, 15:53, Malcolm McLean
>> <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> (But I do wonder if Microsoft nicked my compnumeric function which
>>> sorts strings with embedded numbers. Did they generate the idea
>>> independently? I'd really like to know.)
>>
>> It is not hard to write such a function. See
>>
> The skill is in thinking of the idea. Any competent programmer ought
> to be able to implement it.
>
> When you see directory (sorry, folder) listing in old versions of
> Windows you can't help noticing it's irritating that when you use a
> numbering system like fred1, fred2, ... fred10, fred11 the freds come
> out in ascii order rather than in your numerical order.

FWIW, the newer versions of Windows have a registry setting to disable
the numeric sort (XP at least certainly does; IIRC, TweakUI for WinXP
provides a checkbox for that). Which is a Good Thing, because the
numeric sort screws up really bad if you happen to have file names that
use hexadecimal numbering.

> Had I patented
> compnumeric I'd get a slice of Windows royalties - maybe 1p for every
> copy - which would add up to a nice amount. The problem is you have to
> do a patent search, then register the patent, then persuade Microsoft
> to use it, all of which takes time and money, which I haven't got.

You might not have to convince them; perhaps you could wait until they
re-invented your algorithm, then sue them like a good patent troll would do.

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.)
--
Marcin Grzegorczyk

On 2011-01-04, <> wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <> wrote:
>> IANAL, but surely something as natural as this would fail some sort of
>> "obviousness" test?

> You'd be amamzed at what is, and isn't, obvious to a patent examiner.

I suspect what happened is that someone patented "not being a complete
moron" then refused to license it to the patent office.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

On Jan 3, 8:48*am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-01-03, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 6:32?pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> >> 2. ?Not all commercial use is closed source.
> > I was addressing the ones that were
>
> Fair enough. *The original context was a comment (I think by Malcolm?)
> to the effect that... Hang on, got it in here somewhere:
>
> * * * * Malcolm McLean wrote:
> * * * * >However whenever I release source code onto the web, I always do so
> * * * * >as public domain rather than GPL. The reason is that an important
> * * * * >set of users is programmers in for-profit environments. Often those
> * * * * >companies are small and the profits only just enough to keep them
> * * * * >in business. I don't see any purpose in excluding them [....]
>
> So the assertion originally on the table was that the GPL excluded for-profit
> use. *This drifted both into more general licensing and more general usage.
>
> >> 3. ?You can have closed source packages and open source packages in the same
> >> system, provide the source to the open source packages, and not provide source
> >> to the closed source packages.
> > I thought even that was difficult with some libraries.
>
> So far as I can tell, nothing out there imposes license terms on other
> software that merely happens to be in the same room with it. *Some libraries
> require you to distribute source for your whole program if you link with
> them... But that doesn't prevent them from being used in an open source
> program that is part of the environment in which your closed-source program
> runs and earns you money.
>
> Even the GPLv3 doesn't really prohibit people from using the code in a
> for-profit environment. *My day job pays me for working on a fair bit of
> GPLv3 code. *It's used in conjunction with stuff we can charge for, and
> we provide support for the whole deal.
>
> Obviously, there are many examples of cases where a specific use would
> be easier with a less restrictive license, but in general, using open
> source licenses, even the much-feared GPL, does not prevent people in
> for-profit environments from using your code.
>
> FWIW, the open source project I get a vote on (pseudo) is LGPLv2, and
> is very definitely constructed so that you could use it in a for-profit
> environment. *

I was aware of LGPL. I believe a number of people in the open source
movement don't like it.

On 2011-01-09, Nick Keighley <> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 8:48?am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> FWIW, the open source project I get a vote on (pseudo) is LGPLv2, and
>> is very definitely constructed so that you could use it in a for-profit
>> environment. ?

> I was aware of LGPL. I believe a number of people in the open source
> movement don't like it.

So what?

The fact is, most of the major libraries of interest are released under
LGPL or something less restrictive, because otherwise people don't use
them. Thus, glibc remains under LGPL rather than something else. RMS
dislikes the LGPL, but since it's necessary, we still have it.

So who cares? The question is whether open source software can be used
commercially, not whether there exist people who object to this.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.