Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #2687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000 |
| Last post | 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 102 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> - 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-06 03:03 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 18:26 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-06 12:29 +0000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 23:06 +1000
[OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-07 07:50 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-04-07 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 05:55 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 21:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 01:36 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:53 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:32 -0400
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:44 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 15:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 09:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:17 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 22:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 11:34 +0000
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-12 10:02 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 09:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-16 00:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 23:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Algis Kabaila <akabaila@pcug.org.au> - 2011-04-16 21:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-16 23:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 10:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 18:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-18 01:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 00:34 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 17:05 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:17 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 03:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 10:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2011-04-07 11:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> - 2011-04-07 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 14:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-08 01:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-09 23:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 19:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 10:18 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 20:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 21:01 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:26 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 04:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 06:59 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:13 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:56 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:50 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:38 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:29 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 08:42 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-15 23:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:37 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 01:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 19:15 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-14 14:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 00:11 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 21:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 08:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 01:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 15:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 12:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 14:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 02:28 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:49 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 03:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 07:14 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-08 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2011-04-09 07:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-04-07 14:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-10 11:53 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-12 09:04 -0700
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:25 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Python benefits over Cobra |
| Message-ID | <mailman.65.1302065189.9059.python-list@python.org> |
> > On 05-Apr-11 06:22 AM, Brendan Simon (eTRIX) wrote: > >> > >> Any other arguments where Python has benefits over Cobra ?? > >> > >> Cheers, Brendan. > >> > > Two questions: > > 1. Is Cobra Open Source? > > 2. The blog ended on October, did he run out of steam? > > > > I liked the '.', in place of '.self', but that's been rejected for Python. "Cobra is an open source project under the MIT license." according to the web site. It seems that it mostly, if not all, the work of one person. All code commits seem to be from Charles Esterbrook. It seems the latest release is Oct 2010, but I can see posts in the forum for April 2011, March, Feb, ..... I too like the '.' in place of self :) However, I don't like _ as line continuation :( Life is tough, eh ?? It also looks like there is work to have it run in a JVM. I presume that means that no .NET/Mono framework is required ??
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 03:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t7Vmp.7632$zn.3197@newsfe19.iad> |
| In reply to | #2687 |
Brendan Simon wrote: > >> > >> Any other arguments where Python has benefits over Cobra ?? > >> Python is built from C, Cobra is built from Cobra... Python does not require Microsoft .NET, nor MONO framework, Python has better community support, has a larger install base and developer community, and Python is sponsored by more commercial shops. (Which isn't always a fair statement...) The greatest strength of Python is its community. Cobra is pretty much a one-man operation with limited appeal at this time. Supposedly Cobra sports better performance due to static binding and machine code compilation; also Cobra sports better error checking, depending on your opinion (compile time versus run time). And of course, Cobra tries to enforce OOP (the only thing about it I like) / However, these are at the same time Cobra's weaknesses. Dynamic binding and interactive consistent interface is Python's strength. Python is flexible and easier to learn IMHO. Python is not the fastest horse in town... but has the ability for performance enhancement at any time due to good interoperability with C C++ addins. And frankly, by far and away, Python is fast enough. If I want strict OOP and speed I'm gonna compile from C++ from the get go. But that's me. Having said all of that, I must admit my bias against Microsoft .NET and the Mono frameworks. I personally cannot support a language that requires either one. Microsoft has made such a mess out of almost everything it has touched... including language design (er, lockin). Cobra patronizes this scheme and is therefore also evil. This is of course just an opinion (and a proud one I must admit). kind regards, m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 18:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.72.1302078388.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2693 |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > Having said all of that, I must admit my bias against Microsoft .NET and the > Mono frameworks. I personally cannot support a language that requires either > one. Microsoft has made such a mess out of almost everything it has > touched... including language design (er, lockin). Cobra patronizes this > scheme and is therefore also evil. This is of course just an opinion (and a > proud one I must admit). In other words, you have a bias against non-portability. Right now, I have around me two laptops running Windows XP, two running Ubuntu 10.10 64-bit, and two running Ubuntu 32-bit. (Surprisingly balanced.) With a very few exceptions, code that I write in IDLE on one box will run perfectly on any of the others. That won't happen in a language that requires a Microsoft framework, because it's simply not in their interests to ship for Linux (let alone OS/2, which I have at home). I do like me some true portability. Even if you don't intend to move off Windows, though, there's a lot of risk in tying yourself to a non-free framework, especially such a heavy one as .NET. You're completely at the mercy of the provider, in this case Microsoft, and if they make an incompatible change in the framework, you're forever stuck. At least with open source systems, you have the option of forking Python version whatever and compiling it for your new hardware (is there a Python 1.0 for amd64? heh). Hypothetical situation yes, but it's a question of trust. Do you trust Microsoft to never have any bugs in the .NET framework? (To be honest, I don't actually trust the Python devs *that* much. But if Python version 3.Foo has a bug that breaks my code, I do at least have the ability to fix it myself, if I care. Which I probably don't with Python, but I have done with other OSS.) Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4d9c5ca5$0$29991$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #2694 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:26:25 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > Right now, I have around me two laptops running Windows XP, two running > Ubuntu 10.10 64-bit, and two running Ubuntu 32-bit. (Surprisingly > balanced.) With a very few exceptions, code that I write in IDLE on one > box will run perfectly on any of the others. That won't happen in a > language that requires a Microsoft framework, because it's simply not in > their interests to ship for Linux (let alone OS/2, which I have at > home). I do like me some true portability. Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET and is available on Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, Unix and even that little-known operating system "Windows". *wink* http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page And some FUD-busting: http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/ -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 23:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.76.1302095184.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2701 |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET and is > available on Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, Unix and even that little-known > operating system "Windows". *wink* Ah! My apologies, I stand corrected. Not being familiar with it (and not really being able to google it - there's no guarantee it's the first hit), I assumed that the dependency was ".NET *and* Mono", meaning that the program needs .NET regardless. That reduces the risks considerably, although I'd still rather stick with Python itself. Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 07:50 +1000 |
| Subject | [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) |
| Message-ID | <87tyebf3r3.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> |
| In reply to | #2701 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET
[…]
It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
(Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
“.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict
the freedom of software recipients.
Software idea patents are incompatible with free software. Every
non-trivial program likely violates countless such patents, but most of
those patents are not yet enforced even in the unlucky jurisdictions
where they are recognised by law.
Microsoft, though, is clearly a vigorous enforcer of software idea
patents they hold. They have been very cagey about stating what they
will and won't enforce about patents they hold on .NET – and none of
those statements are binding.
The freedom of a software work isn't a matter of the copyright license
alone; it's a matter of the freedoms each recipient has in the work.
What the copyright license grants, the applicable patents held by
demonstrably litigious parties can take away.
> http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/
It squashes some myths, but does not address the restrictions imposed by
the .NET software idea patents at all AFAICT.
Here are some links that do address this:
<URL:http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/content/get-facts-mono>
<URL:http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono>
--
\ “Our products just aren't engineered for security.” —Brian |
`\ Valentine, senior vice-president of Microsoft Windows |
_o__) development |
Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 00:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <_Abnp.8356$zn.729@newsfe19.iad> |
| In reply to | #2723 |
Ben Finney wrote: > It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology > (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the > “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an > entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict > the freedom of software recipients. Yes, precisely. In my view, Mono encourages .NET; and that's bad. Idea patents and particularly idea patents covering mathematics ( every known piece of software ever written can be described by lambda algebra ) are not truly patentable... which is why some of us are vigorously fighting software patents (as well at the corporations who wield them). Software must be free (as in freedom). Encouraging interoperability with known agendas against freedom is inconsistent with the fundamental proposal. C# was an effort to lock-in commercial developers into the .NET framework (and it almost damn-well worked!). At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of wasteful litigation and head-ache. The FSF (my preference) and the OSI have helped move the entire community away from lock-in and litigation and toward a 21st century of true innovation and exploration the science and art of software engineering. kind regards, m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 07:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4d9d6587$0$29992$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #2744 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:03:54 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: >> It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology >> (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the >> “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an >> entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict >> the freedom of software recipients. > > Yes, precisely. > > In my view, Mono encourages .NET; and that's bad. Idea patents and > particularly idea patents covering mathematics Do you have an example of a patent covering mathematics that applies to .NET? > ( every known piece of > software ever written can be described by lambda algebra ) And every piece of hardware can be described by a mathematical function, so does this mean you oppose *all* patents? > are not truly > patentable... which is why some of us are vigorously fighting software > patents (as well at the corporations who wield them). What are you doing to fight software patents? > Software must be free (as in freedom). Encouraging interoperability with > known agendas against freedom is inconsistent with the fundamental > proposal. I would have thought that if you really, truly believed in freedom, you would be happy to allow people the freedom to interoperate with non-free software. But perhaps you meant that software must be free, provided only the right sorts of freedom are supported. > C# was an effort to lock-in commercial developers into the > .NET framework (and it almost damn-well worked!). Got a source for that? "News just in: 100% of all enterprises are using .NET or Java!" http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware5/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=162367 <sarcasm> And you can trust it because Forrester said so! </sarcasm> As I see it, C# has never had more than an 8% market share. But perhaps you have some better data. > At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer > science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of > wasteful litigation and head-ache. Do you have an example of this wasteful litigation? -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 11:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <OHlnp.10535$g56.5872@newsfe04.iad> |
| In reply to | #2756 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> In my view, Mono encourages .NET; and that's bad. Idea patents and
>> particularly idea patents covering mathematics
> Do you have an example of a patent covering mathematics that applies
> to .NET?
Therein lies *the* problem. The point that gets missed over and
over is that there CAN BE NO PATENT COVERING MATHEMATICS ... period.
Yes, C# and .NET are covered by hundreds of software patents. Its
an insane mess... which must be eliminated at all costs.
All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being,
all software is mathematics. No software should have been able to be
patented; and this is regardless of prior art, time-frames, wording,
&etc. Mathematics, processes in algorithm, and algorithm specifications
should never have seen the light of day as patentable. Believe it or
not, we're about to win that argument... the most recent Supreme Court
decision regarding process and process algorithms was a serious victory
in the right direction.
>> > ( every known piece of
>> > software ever written can be described by lambda algebra )
> And every piece of hardware can be described by a mathematical function,
> so does this mean you oppose*all* patents?
You have a serious misunderstanding regarding idea patents. An idea
that can be constructed is patentable (like a nand chip, the SN7400N,
for instance) but the mathematical concept of the 'nand gate' cannot be
patented. In other words, if Texas Instruments designs a specif kind of
hardware to implement the concept of 'nand gate' and builds the chip
(the quad nand SN7400N) and that chip design ( TTL ) is patented, that
in no way "patents" the mathematical concept idea for 'nand gate'.
Someone else is perfectly free to develop their own hardware to
implement the math concept 'nand gate' (like Motorola's CMOS 4011 quad
two input positive nand gate) and then patent *thier* hardware chip.
I am not apposed to patents... they are worded into the
Constitution of the United States for which I am honor-bound and patriot
bound to protect, with life if necessary. What I am apposed to is the
illicit use of the U.S. patent office by corporations to patent
mathematical ideas that constrain progress in computer science and usurp
the common liberties of we the people, costing all of us billions of
dollars in litigation expenses (only the damn lawyers win). Software
patents are evil and must be eliminated. Further, every effort must be
brought to the front in apposition to software patents around the globe.
This sin is not just local to the U.S. Every free nation (ones that
value freedom) must take a stand in this fight.
>> are not truly
>> patentable... which is why some of us are vigorously fighting software
>> patents (as well at the corporations who wield them).
> What are you doing to fight software patents?
For one thing, what I'm doing right now; talking to you.
For another, I join and support the organizations who are formally
fighting to eliminate software patents. There are many of these, but the
ones I support are:
http://endsoftpatents.org/home-page
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/
http://www.opensource.org/
Take a stand, if you value freedom, and if you value computer
science. Its your responsibility, as well as mine.
>> Software must be free (as in freedom). Encouraging interoperability with
>> known agendas against freedom is inconsistent with the fundamental
>> proposal.
> I would have thought that if you really, truly believed in freedom, you
> would be happy to allow people the freedom to interoperate with non-free
> software. But perhaps you meant that software must be free, provided only
> the right sorts of freedom are supported.
I take no action to prevent you (nor anyone else) from
inter-operating with non-free software nor the evil corporations who
provide it. You are not "free" in doing so, but I will not in any way
constrain you any further than your own choices. Again, you miss the point.
Proprietary software and proprietary interoperability are at work
to destroy my freedoms and the freedoms of computer science. At this
point in time, I am not legally "free" to build *any* non-trivial
software without requiring very expensive cross-licensing (which I
cannot afford) with evil corporate empires because of software idea
patents holding me by the nose whilst kicking my rear-end. This
situation is intolerable, and must be eliminated... the quicker the sooner.
>> C# was an effort to lock-in commercial developers into the
>> .NET framework (and it almost damn-well worked!).
> Got a source for that?
Another poster provided you with the numbers (which are
conservative, by the way). If it had not been for SUN and Java, we would
have been toast with Microsoft and C#. Fortunately .NET and C# turned
out to be a Microsoft fad vision flop, like Visual BASIC. But that also
misses the main point... which was and is--- proprietary software (and
frameworks, gimmics, &etc like that) are evil if their design purpose is
to lock-in 'market share' and usurp freedom of choice and freedom of
creativity|expression.
> <sarcasm>
> And you can trust it because Forrester said so!
> </sarcasm>
That's the trouble with some argumentation... its often sarcastic.
Sarcasm is usually based in emotions like the secondary emotion of
anger, or directly based in the primary emotion of fear. These points
can be debated without fear or sarcasm. I don't even really fear losing
freedom... but I don't mind fighting for it... and I won't give it up
without a fight either! That's my emotion.
Give me liberty or give me death--- Patric Henry
>
> As I see it, C# has never had more than an 8% market share. But perhaps
> you have some better data.
There is plenty of data... google it, or check your local B&N
bookseller (or equivalent). For a while C# was the fad taking the world
by storm... fortunately the storm has waned... but the threat is still
there. Of course, Windows failure with Vista and Win7 (not to mention
their lame phone) has helped. The love for Microsoft is gone... the only
thing that remains is the lock-in... like Borg implants... its gonna
take a while to cleanse the infected drones. We'll get there.
>> > At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer
>> > science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of
>> > wasteful litigation and head-ache.
> Do you have an example of this wasteful litigation?
You have to be kidding, right? Check *any* of the sites I listed
above and read about it... software idea patent litigation is a business
now worth billions of dollars per year. The only people who win are the
damn lawyers. The ones that lose are you and I. You want a good
example... google the lawsuit that is firing up between Microsoft and
Barnes & Noble over the nook... a general purpose computer running
android linux and being used to read books. Microsoft (the odious
giant) has brought suit (yes, it will cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars) against little 'ol B&N (the struggling bookseller) over
software idea patent infringement in the B&N nook reader. This makes me
damn mad, and it should anger you also. And you should want to do
something about it.. !
Don't tread on me.
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 17:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <inkrel$j5r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2782 |
harrismh777 wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer
>>> > science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of
>>> > wasteful litigation and head-ache.
>> Do you have an example of this wasteful litigation?
>
> You have to be kidding, right? Check *any* of the sites I listed
> above and read about it... software idea patent litigation is a business
> now worth billions of dollars per year.
One of the premier sites:
http://www.groklaw.net/
Mel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 05:55 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.121.1302206148.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2782 |
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:33 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > Therein lies *the* problem. The point that gets missed over and over is > that there CAN BE NO PATENT COVERING MATHEMATICS ... period. > > Yes, C# and .NET are covered by hundreds of software patents. Its an > insane mess... which must be eliminated at all costs. > > All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being, all > software is mathematics... With enough software, you can simulate anything. That means that the entire universe can be expressed as lambda calculus. Does that mean that nothing can ever be patented, because it's all just mathematics? At what point is there valid, patentable creativity to be found in combining known elements in previously unknown ways? Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 21:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <__top.14604$zn.8052@newsfe19.iad> |
| In reply to | #2805 |
Chris Angelico wrote:
>> > All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being, all
>> > software is mathematics...
> With enough software, you can simulate anything. That means that the
> entire universe can be expressed as lambda calculus. Does that mean
> that nothing can ever be patented, because it's all just mathematics?
Great question... the simple answer is, no. But the extended answer
is a little complicated and not well understood by most folks, so its
worth talking about, at least a lot. You may skip to the last paragraph
for the main point... or stay tuned for the explanation.
Mathematical processes and algorithms are not patentable (by rule)
because they are 'natural' and 'obvious'. In other words, a natural set
of laws (mathematics, just one example) are universally used naturally
and obviously by all humans in the course of thinking, creating,
expressing, &etc., and therefore these ideas are not patentable because
they are the natural and obvious 'stuff' from which and through which
the human mind processes the natural world. You cannot patent the
Pythagorean theorem. You cannot patent addition, nor subtraction, nor
the logical concepts for boolean algebra.... nor can you patent lambda
calculus. These are just examples.
You cannot patent the mathematical concept of nand gate; however,
Motorola may patent the mechanical electrical implementation of the nand
gate (CMOS 4011 quad nand). Also, Texas Instruments may patent their
mechanical electrical implementation of the nand gate concept (TTL
sn7400n quad chip). The chips are patentable, but the mathematical
concept 'behind' the chips is not patentable.
Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is
not just based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics. In other words,
software is not more and not less than an extension of the human mind
'itself' in mathematical and logical expression across symbol extended
through a machine framework. All humans naturally and obviously process
the world around them (regardless of race, creed, ethnic origin, color,
geography, %etc) through input, control, arithmetic, logic, and output.
Software running in a machine is nothing more nor less than software
running in my own mind, or in your own mind. The machine (as a logical
and mathematical symbol processor) sorts out world realities
(modalities) via input, control, arithmetic, logic, and output. All
software is the 'stuff' of natural and obvious human thought,
creativity, expression, communication, &etc. Granted, humans also have
emotions and will, but for simplicity sake we will oversimplify.
What has happened in the 20th century is that (to take natural
language as an example) one person holds the patent on the verb. Another
holds the patent on the noun. These two people cross-license their
patents on the verbs and nouns, forcing the people who want to
communicate with nouns and verbs to pay royalties, or to purchase noun
and verb licenses, or to be forced to communicate without nouns and
verbs. --- wouldn't that be interesting.
To put it in simple comp sci terms (input, control, arithmetic,
logic, and output) it works something like this: One corporation holds
the patent on input(), and another corporation holds the patent on
output(). Now then, all natural people need to use both input() and
output() for communicating ( listening and speaking ) within the
natural framework for their human endeavors, and yet they are forced by
law to pay for a license to be able to use input() and output()...
... their control, arithmetic and logic are not much good to them
otherwise. The holders of the input() and output() patents of course
cross license so that they are held harmless and so that they alone (the
oligarchy) control what is input() and output() and by whom. Needless
to say, this is not a good thing.
Software idea patents lay ownership to *so called* intellectual
property. In other words, those who wield software idea patents believe
that they hold ownership over the natural and obvious 'stuff' of human
thinking, creating, organizing, sorting, communicating, &etc. This is
nothing other than an intellectual slave trade. The slave trade of human
bodily bondage (which still goes on unpunished today, but waning) holds
that persons may be owned. The slave trade of the late 20th and early
21st centuries holds that person's thoughts and thinking processes may
be owned! This intellectual slave trade must end, now! Think about
this... if I tell you something of substance little or great and it
gives you pause for thought, then I have placed my thoughts (my process,
my programming, my intellectual property) into your head... you are now
thinking things that I myself have thought about prior to you. Now
then, I lay hold to the concept that I now own those thoughts (it is my
intellectual property you are now thinking of) and you therefore are
bound (by law) to license your thoughts to me for a sum of money, or
else quit thinking those thoughts ! Do you see how absolutely ludicrous
this sounds... and yet, it is law in the U.S. and in other places as well.
By allowing software idea patents --by law we as a society are
permitting the software oligarchy to enslave and to persecute all human
thinkers. We are saying that the natural and obvious 'stuff' of human
thought and creativity may be owned... that a person's thoughts may be
owned and therefore controlled or sold or shut down. Software is a pure
extension of human thought and creativity and must be permitted to be
free (as in freedom) from control or usurpations of any kind. Input,
control, arithmetic, logic, and output must reign free and unhindered
(as in free thought and expression) regardless whether those natural
human processes are live in the natural human mind or whether those
natural processes are expanded across processor frameworks or networks
(global or local). Human thought, creativity, and expression must be
free (as in freedom). Software must be free (as in freedom) for a free
society. Free Software - Free Society.
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 00:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.209.1302508440.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2967 |
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > Chris Angelico wrote: >>> >>> > All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being, >>> > all >>> > software is mathematics... > >> With enough software, you can simulate anything. That means that the >> entire universe can be expressed as lambda calculus. Does that mean >> that nothing can ever be patented, because it's all just mathematics? > > Great question... the simple answer is, no. But the extended answer is a > little complicated and not well understood by most folks, so its worth > talking about, at least a lot. You may skip to the last paragraph for the > main point... or stay tuned for the explanation. > Mathematical processes and algorithms are not patentable (by rule) > because they are 'natural' and 'obvious'. In other words, a natural set of > laws (mathematics, just one example) are universally used naturally and > obviously by all humans in the course of thinking, creating, expressing, > &etc., and therefore these ideas are not patentable because they are the > natural and obvious 'stuff' from which and through which the human mind > processes the natural world. You cannot patent the Pythagorean theorem. You > cannot patent addition, nor subtraction, nor the logical concepts for > boolean algebra.... nor can you patent lambda calculus. These are just > examples. > You cannot patent the mathematical concept of nand gate; however, > Motorola may patent the mechanical electrical implementation of the nand > gate (CMOS 4011 quad nand). Also, Texas Instruments may patent their > mechanical electrical implementation of the nand gate concept (TTL sn7400n > quad chip). The chips are patentable, but the mathematical concept 'behind' > the chips is not patentable. > Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is not just > based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics. I am extremely skeptical of this argument. Leaving aside the fact that you've randomly decided to drop the "decidable" qualifier here- a big problem in its own right- it isn't clear to me that software and computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus only models computation, and software has real properties in implementation that are strictly dependent on the physical world. Since perfectly predicting those properties would seem to require that you perfectly model significant portions of the physical universe, I think it's quite reasonable to contend that the existence of lambda calculus no more rules out the applicability of patents to software (which I detest) than it rules out the applicability of patents to hardware (which I find only slightly less ridiculous) or other meatspace inventions. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 01:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <8d9a097d-1160-4131-8bde-65e8e2ff3240@k5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2973 |
On Apr 11, 12:53 pm, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote: > > Chris Angelico wrote: > > >>> > All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being, > >>> > all > >>> > software is mathematics... > > >> With enough software, you can simulate anything. That means that the > >> entire universe can be expressed as lambda calculus. Does that mean > >> that nothing can ever be patented, because it's all just mathematics? > > > Great question... the simple answer is, no. But the extended answer is a > > little complicated and not well understood by most folks, so its worth > > talking about, at least a lot. You may skip to the last paragraph for the > > main point... or stay tuned for the explanation. > > Mathematical processes and algorithms are not patentable (by rule) > > because they are 'natural' and 'obvious'. In other words, a natural set of > > laws (mathematics, just one example) are universally used naturally and > > obviously by all humans in the course of thinking, creating, expressing, > > &etc., and therefore these ideas are not patentable because they are the > > natural and obvious 'stuff' from which and through which the human mind > > processes the natural world. You cannot patent the Pythagorean theorem. You > > cannot patent addition, nor subtraction, nor the logical concepts for > > boolean algebra.... nor can you patent lambda calculus. These are just > > examples. > > You cannot patent the mathematical concept of nand gate; however, > > Motorola may patent the mechanical electrical implementation of the nand > > gate (CMOS 4011 quad nand). Also, Texas Instruments may patent their > > mechanical electrical implementation of the nand gate concept (TTL sn7400n > > quad chip). The chips are patentable, but the mathematical concept 'behind' > > the chips is not patentable. > > Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is not just > > based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics. > > I am extremely skeptical of this argument. Leaving aside the fact that > you've randomly decided to drop the "decidable" qualifier here- a big > problem in its own right- it isn't clear to me that software and > computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus only models computation, > and software has real properties in implementation that are strictly > dependent on the physical world. Since perfectly predicting those > properties would seem to require that you perfectly model significant > portions of the physical universe, I think it's quite reasonable to > contend that the existence of lambda calculus no more rules out the > applicability of patents to software (which I detest) than it rules > out the applicability of patents to hardware (which I find only > slightly less ridiculous) or other meatspace inventions. > > Geremy Condra ----------------- ... the widespread belief, incorrectly known as the Church-Turing thesis, that no model of computation more expressive than Turing machines can exist. Yet Turing's original thesis only refers to the computation of functions and explicitly excludes other computational paradigms such as interaction. In this paper, we identify and analyze the historical reasons for this widespread belief. Only by accepting that it is false can we begin to properly investigate formal models of interaction machines. We conclude the paper by presenting one such model, Persistent Turing Machines (PTMs). PTMs capture sequential interaction, which is a limited form of concurrency; they allow us to formulate the Sequential Interaction Thesis, going beyond the expressiveness of Turing machines and of the Church-Turing thesis. ------------------------ From http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/cie05.pdf may be of interest (and also other papers of Peter Wegner questioning the universality of Turing machines lambda calculus etc)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 03:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <kqUop.41283$tL6.29664@newsfe03.iad> |
| In reply to | #2975 |
rusi wrote:
> ------------------------
> From
> http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/cie05.pdf
>
> may be of interest (and also other papers of Peter Wegner questioning
> the universality of Turing machines lambda calculus etc)
This is very interesting indeed.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus
This block quote below is sited from the above link... and gets at
my point in a simple way... but the remaining article is worth a read
too. This goes somewhat beyond the simple single taped Turing machine
concept. We are not talking about the 'universality' of the machine...
only that the software running in the machine is 'equivalent' to the
lambda calculus.
Software itself (the source symbols specifically) can be argued to
be nothing more nor less than another form of the symbols themselves
used in the lambda calculus. In fact, we ought to be able to build an
interpreter for reading and running lambda notation, or translating pure
lambda notations into any source lang we desire. Why not?
see also, for interest only:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1490
=====block quote=====
Lambda calculus and programming languages
As pointed out by Peter Landin's 1965 paper A Correspondence between
ALGOL 60 and Church's Lambda-notation, sequential procedural programming
languages can be understood in terms of the lambda calculus, which
provides the basic mechanisms for procedural abstraction and procedure
(subprogram) application.
Lambda calculus reifies "functions" and makes them first-class objects,
which raises implementation complexity when implementing lambda
calculus. A particular challenge is related to the support of
higher-order functions, also known as the Funarg problem. Lambda
calculus is usually implemented using a virtual machine approach. The
first practical implementation of lambda calculus was provided in 1963
by Peter Landin, and is known as the SECD machine. Since then, several
optimized abstract machines for lambda calculus were suggested, such as
the G-machine[12] and the categorical abstract machine.
The most prominent counterparts to lambda calculus in programming are
functional programming languages, which essentially implement the
calculus augmented with some constants and datatypes. Lisp uses a
variant of lambda notation for defining functions, but only its purely
functional subset ("Pure Lisp") is really equivalent to lambda calculus.
=====/block quote=====
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 13:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.266.1302629543.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2975 |
On 4/11/2011 4:36 AM, rusi wrote: > http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/cie05.pdf > > may be of interest (and also other papers of Peter Wegner questioning > the universality of Turing machines lambda calculus etc) Thank you for that reference. In summary, it says that while Turing machine are universal for finite function calculations, infinite interactive processes are not (finite) function calculations, and therefore need an extension to TMs. This is pretty obviously correct. Python iterators, and especially generators, implement the extension that the authors call 'persistent Turing machines' (PTMs, section 6.2), except that iterators (and generators by default) operate in 'pull' mode, while they describe PTMs as operating in 'push' mode (as with generator.send()). -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 11:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.274.1302633881.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2975 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: > On 4/11/2011 4:36 AM, rusi wrote: > >> http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/cie05.pdf >> >> may be of interest (and also other papers of Peter Wegner questioning >> the universality of Turing machines lambda calculus etc) > > Thank you for that reference. In summary, it says that while Turing machine > are universal for finite function calculations, infinite interactive > processes are not (finite) function calculations, and therefore need an > extension to TMs. This is pretty obviously correct. > > Python iterators, and especially generators, implement the extension that > the authors call 'persistent Turing machines' (PTMs, section 6.2), except > that iterators (and generators by default) operate in 'pull' mode, while > they describe PTMs as operating in 'push' mode (as with generator.send()). I didn't read the paper, but I believe Turing Machines are infinite. Interactive processes don't seem, at least to me, to change the applicability of Turing Machines - you merely pretend you have a bunch of squares preinitialized with your various inputs. If you have an infinite number of inputs, that's fine, you can have them with a preinitialized turing machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 15:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.280.1302637159.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2975 |
On 4/12/2011 2:44 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Terry Reedy<tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: >> On 4/11/2011 4:36 AM, rusi wrote: >> >>> http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/cie05.pdf >>> >>> may be of interest (and also other papers of Peter Wegner questioning >>> the universality of Turing machines lambda calculus etc) >> >> Thank you for that reference. In summary, it says that while Turing machine >> are universal for finite function calculations, infinite interactive >> processes are not (finite) function calculations, and therefore need an >> extension to TMs. This is pretty obviously correct. >> >> Python iterators, and especially generators, implement the extension that >> the authors call 'persistent Turing machines' (PTMs, section 6.2), except >> that iterators (and generators by default) operate in 'pull' mode, while >> they describe PTMs as operating in 'push' mode (as with generator.send()). > > I didn't read the paper, If you are interested in the subject, I recommend it. It is pretty clear and not long. > but I believe Turing Machines are infinite. An 'effective' algorithm/TM turns a finite input into a finite output in a finite time, without outside intervention, and then halts. The Halting Problem arose because of the requirement that effective machines halt, and indeed, a particular proof that a particular algorithm halts on all inputs in the defined domain is part of the proof that it is 'correct'. > Interactive processes don't seem, at least to me, to change the > applicability of Turing Machines - you merely pretend you have a bunch > of squares preinitialized with your various inputs. If you have an > infinite number of inputs, that's fine, you can have them with a > preinitialized turing machine. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 09:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da2c58a$0$29965$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #2973 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:53:57 -0700, geremy condra wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net>
> wrote:
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point
>>>> > being,
>>>> > all
>>>> > software is mathematics...
>>
>>> With enough software, you can simulate anything. That means that the
>>> entire universe can be expressed as lambda calculus. Does that mean
>>> that nothing can ever be patented, because it's all just mathematics?
>>
>> Great question... the simple answer is, no. But the extended
>> answer is a
>> little complicated and not well understood by most folks, so its worth
>> talking about, at least a lot. You may skip to the last paragraph for
>> the main point... or stay tuned for the explanation.
>> Mathematical processes and algorithms are not patentable (by rule)
>> because they are 'natural' and 'obvious'. In other words, a natural set
>> of laws (mathematics, just one example) are universally used naturally
>> and obviously by all humans in the course of thinking, creating,
>> expressing, &etc., and therefore these ideas are not patentable because
>> they are the natural and obvious 'stuff' from which and through which
>> the human mind processes the natural world. You cannot patent the
>> Pythagorean theorem. You cannot patent addition, nor subtraction, nor
>> the logical concepts for boolean algebra.... nor can you patent lambda
>> calculus. These are just examples.
>> You cannot patent the mathematical concept of nand gate; however,
>> Motorola may patent the mechanical electrical implementation of the
>> nand gate (CMOS 4011 quad nand). Also, Texas Instruments may patent
>> their mechanical electrical implementation of the nand gate concept
>> (TTL sn7400n quad chip). The chips are patentable, but the mathematical
>> concept 'behind' the chips is not patentable.
>> Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is
>> not just
>> based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics.
>
> I am extremely skeptical of this argument. Leaving aside the fact that
> you've randomly decided to drop the "decidable" qualifier here- a big
> problem in its own right- it isn't clear to me that software and
> computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus only models computation, and
> software has real properties in implementation that are strictly
> dependent on the physical world. Since perfectly predicting those
> properties would seem to require that you perfectly model significant
> portions of the physical universe, I think it's quite reasonable to
> contend that the existence of lambda calculus no more rules out the
> applicability of patents to software (which I detest) than it rules out
> the applicability of patents to hardware (which I find only slightly
> less ridiculous) or other meatspace inventions.
I agree with all of this: I too detest software patents, and find
hardware patents problematic but pragmatic. But if there's a reason for
accepting one and rejecting the other, it's far more subtle than the hand-
waving about mathematics. I believe that the reason falls more to
*pragmatic* reasons than *philosophical* reasons: software patents act to
discourage innovation, while hardware patents (arguably) act to encourage
it. After all, encouraging innovation is what patents are for.
M Harris' argument fails right at the beginning:
"Mathematical processes and algorithms are not patentable (by rule)
because they are 'natural' and 'obvious'."
It's not clear to me how the Banach-Tarski paradox can be described as
'natural':
Using the axiom of choice on non-countable sets, you can prove
that a solid sphere can be dissected into a finite number of
pieces that can be reassembled to two solid spheres, each of
same volume of the original. No more than nine pieces are needed.
... This is usually illustrated by observing that a pea can be
cut up into finitely pieces and reassembled into the Earth.
http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node36.html
And I think anyone who knows the slightest bit of mathematics would be
falling over laughing at the suggestion that it is 'obvious'.
Of course, some mathematics is obvious, or at least intuitive (although
proving it rigorously can be remarkably difficult -- after 4000 years of
maths, we still don't have an absolutely bullet-proof proof that 1+1=2).
But describing mathematics as 'obvious' discounts the role of invention,
human imagination, ingenuity and creativity in mathematics. There's
nothing obvious about (say) asymmetric encryption, or solving NP-complete
problems like the knapsack problem, to mention just two examples out of
literally countless examples.[1]
If it were just a matter of joining the dots, there would be no unsolved
problems, since Euler would have solved them all 200 years ago.[2]
Part of the patent problem is that the distinction between discovery of a
fact (which should not be patentable) and invention (which, at least
sometimes, should be patentable) is not clear. The iPod existed as a
Platonic ideal in some mathematical bazillion-dimensional abstract design
space long before it was invented by Apple; does that make it a discovery
rather than an invention? On the other hand, it is doing Apple a great
disservice to ignore their creativity in finding that design point, out
of the infinite number of almost-iPods that suck[3] or don't work.
[1] Probably aleph-1 uncountably infinite rather than aleph-0 countably
infinite, proving it is not obvious to me.
[2] In maths things are usually named after Euler, or the first person to
discover them after Euler.
[3] Or suck worse than the iPod. YMMV.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 11:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.223.1302545833.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2976 |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:53:57 -0700, geremy condra wrote: <snip> >> I am extremely skeptical of this argument. Leaving aside the fact that >> you've randomly decided to drop the "decidable" qualifier here- a big >> problem in its own right- it isn't clear to me that software and >> computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus only models computation, and >> software has real properties in implementation that are strictly >> dependent on the physical world. Since perfectly predicting those >> properties would seem to require that you perfectly model significant >> portions of the physical universe, I think it's quite reasonable to >> contend that the existence of lambda calculus no more rules out the >> applicability of patents to software (which I detest) than it rules out >> the applicability of patents to hardware (which I find only slightly >> less ridiculous) or other meatspace inventions. > > I agree with all of this: I too detest software patents, and find > hardware patents problematic but pragmatic. But if there's a reason for > accepting one and rejecting the other, it's far more subtle than the hand- > waving about mathematics. I believe that the reason falls more to > *pragmatic* reasons than *philosophical* reasons: software patents act to > discourage innovation, while hardware patents (arguably) act to encourage > it. After all, encouraging innovation is what patents are for. > > M Harris' argument fails right at the beginning: > > "Mathematical processes and algorithms are not patentable (by rule) > because they are 'natural' and 'obvious'." > > It's not clear to me how the Banach-Tarski paradox can be described as > 'natural': > > Using the axiom of choice on non-countable sets, you can prove > that a solid sphere can be dissected into a finite number of > pieces that can be reassembled to two solid spheres, each of > same volume of the original. No more than nine pieces are needed. > ... This is usually illustrated by observing that a pea can be > cut up into finitely pieces and reassembled into the Earth. > > http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node36.html > > > And I think anyone who knows the slightest bit of mathematics would be > falling over laughing at the suggestion that it is 'obvious'. I'd quibble with you over terminology here. BTP arises naturally- ie, without being explicitly constructed- in certain axiomatic systems. But I get your point. > Of course, some mathematics is obvious, or at least intuitive (although > proving it rigorously can be remarkably difficult -- after 4000 years of > maths, we still don't have an absolutely bullet-proof proof that 1+1=2). Erm. This is getting a bit far afield, but yes, we do. The statement you provide above part of Presbuger arithmetic, which is both complete and decidable. > But describing mathematics as 'obvious' discounts the role of invention, > human imagination, ingenuity and creativity in mathematics. There's > nothing obvious about (say) asymmetric encryption, or solving NP-complete > problems like the knapsack problem, to mention just two examples out of > literally countless examples.[1] Meh. Obvious is in the eye of the beholder, and I doubt we'll wind up coming up with a satisfying and rigorous definition here. I'd therefore rest on the concept of 'natural' I outlined earlier, which would clearly forbid patenting the product of discovery but allow patenting inventions. > If it were just a matter of joining the dots, there would be no unsolved > problems, since Euler would have solved them all 200 years ago.[2] > > Part of the patent problem is that the distinction between discovery of a > fact (which should not be patentable) and invention (which, at least > sometimes, should be patentable) is not clear. The iPod existed as a > Platonic ideal in some mathematical bazillion-dimensional abstract design > space long before it was invented by Apple; does that make it a discovery > rather than an invention? On the other hand, it is doing Apple a great > disservice to ignore their creativity in finding that design point, out > of the infinite number of almost-iPods that suck[3] or don't work. I agree. Of course, your post existed as a billion-point platonic ideal beforehand, so you can't really claim credit (man, Plato figured *everything* out!), but still. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web