Re: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License

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" An: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: "Phil Bouchard" 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