Microsoft vs The Boost License

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
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


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.


Thanks a lot for your help!
-Phil


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
Hello.

What do you want instead of Boost license? GPLv3? :)


05.08.2017 17:04, Phil Bouchard via Boost пишет:

> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your help!
> -Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

> 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.
Protects us from? You mean protects the idea from being copied right?
I don't think a license can do that whatsoever, since it is based on
copyright not on a patent. A patent might be able to protect an idea,
copyright can only protect the actually written words, i.e. the code
itself not the concepts.
Also: have you reached out to Herb Sutter? I actually don't get your
concern, do you want to be credited? His library is published under the
MIT license, that's still open-source.
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your help!
> -Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 08/05/2017 10:20 AM, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Protects us from? You mean protects the idea from being copied right?
> I don't think a license can do that whatsoever, since it is based on
> copyright not on a patent. A patent might be able to protect an idea,
> copyright can only protect the actually written words, i.e. the code
> itself not the concepts.

You mean it can only protect us from our code being copy & pasted around.

> Also: have you reached out to Herb Sutter? I actually don't get your
> concern, do you want to be credited? His library is published under the
> MIT license, that's still open-source.

These days when I present root_ptr then I am being told: "Oh your
library is like deferred_heap" when it should be the other way around. I
also learned the hard way not to contact Microsoft in any way otherwise
even my complaint will be plagiarized (sarcasm here).

Everybody here knows root_ptr was once called block_ptr and shifted_ptr
so my previous attempts came to life long before deferred_ptr. I just
don't want to have Microsoft in the way anymore.


Regards,
-Phil


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Hello Phil,

> Gesendet: Samstag, 05. August 2017 um 16:04 Uhr
> Von: "Phil Bouchard via Boost" <[hidden email]>
> An: [hidden email]
> Cc: "Phil Bouchard" <[hidden email]>
> 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?

> 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.

cheers,

Jens Weller

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
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" <[hidden email]>
>> An: [hidden email]
>> Cc: "Phil Bouchard" <[hidden email]>
>> 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


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Bouchard via Boost
> Sent: 05 August 2017 15:04
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Phil Bouchard
> Subject: [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
>
>
> 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.

Boost license does not protect *you* much.

What it does do is protect *everyone* from any attempt to by Microsoft or others to patent or claim copyright on the code or idea,
and thus preventing or restricting its use.

Boost provides excellent evidence of prior art, not just from being in a release, but also being the subject of public discussions
on Boost.

(If Boost had published the SHE exception handling, for example, the World would have been a Better Place ;-)  And it would have
been even better place if software patents had been very much more restricted - I blame the US and UK and EU patent offices, and too
many lawyers in parliaments.)

That is no excuse for Microsoft not giving due credit to your work.  You can't claim any recompense but it is very bad manners, in
this case bad corporate manners.

I'd ask for your work to be recognised and referenced.  I believe Herb to be an honourable man, so I'd try him first.

Paul

PS To library authors - we should continue to explicitly acknowledge all contributions through references.

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
+44 (0) 1539 561830










_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 08/05/2017 12:11 PM, Phil Bouchard via Boost wrote:

> On 08/05/2017 11:53 AM, Jens Weller via Boost wrote:
>>
>> 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.

The evidence in this case is probabilistic because what are the chances
we come up both at the same time the exact same idea after 60 years of
research on the subject?


Regards,
-Phil


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 08/05/2017 12:19 PM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
>
> Boost license does not protect *you* much.
>
> What it does do is protect *everyone* from any attempt to by Microsoft or others to patent or claim copyright on the code or idea,
> and thus preventing or restricting its use.

This means unless the MIT license is compatible with the Boost license
then they are infringing the copyright agreement.

> Boost provides excellent evidence of prior art, not just from being in a release, but also being the subject of public discussions
> on Boost.
>
> (If Boost had published the SHE exception handling, for example, the World would have been a Better Place ;-)  And it would have
> been even better place if software patents had been very much more restricted - I blame the US and UK and EU patent offices, and too
> many lawyers in parliaments.)
>
> That is no excuse for Microsoft not giving due credit to your work.  You can't claim any recompense but it is very bad manners, in
> this case bad corporate manners.
>
> I'd ask for your work to be recognised and referenced.  I believe Herb to be an honourable man, so I'd try him first.

Contacting popular people is a very hard thing to do as he probably
receives tons of emails already.


Regards,
-Phil


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> 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

Herb's been banging a drum regarding alternative mechanisms for
allocation cleanup in C++ for as long as I can remember. I believe that
repo above was to demonstrate how easy it would be for C++ to
standardise some GC implementation based on the above.

I personally think he's wrong on standardised GC for C++, and so does
almost everyone else I know. But Herb has more than earned respect for
any opinion he takes on anything in my book.

And I appreciate that you feel plagiarised. But standards folk almost
never propose standardisation of their own inventions by definition. I
wouldn't take it personally.

Niall

--
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 5 August 2017 at 19:35, Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This means unless the MIT license is compatible with the Boost license
> then they are infringing the copyright agreement.
>

Only if they copied (copy-right!) large portions of your code verbatim.
Your idea would need a patent, a software patent, which would mostly (only)
be recognised in the US.

degski
--
"*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend,
Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 5 August 2017 at 19:11, Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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.
>

For a similar idea <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_pointer> a patent
was filed in 2002, by IBM and Michael Maged (and it seems Andrei
Alexandrescu was involved as well). As you can read, the application was
abandoned in 2010, which says all about how difficult/usefull this approach
is. I think it's best to forget about it. I surmise that any production
ready M$ code is highly unlikely to look anything close to your code
(no-body writes code like that :-)), god it's ugly). and prior art can
possibly be demonstrated.

degski
--
"*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend,
Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 08/05/2017 01:39 PM, degski via Boost wrote:

> On 5 August 2017 at 19:11, Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> For a similar idea <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_pointer> a patent
> was filed in 2002, by IBM and Michael Maged (and it seems Andrei
> Alexandrescu was involved as well). As you can read, the application was
> abandoned in 2010, which says all about how difficult/usefull this approach
> is. I think it's best to forget about it. I surmise that any production
> ready M$ code is highly unlikely to look anything close to your code
> (no-body writes code like that :-)), god it's ugly). and prior art can
> possibly be demonstrated.

Lol and thank you all for your advices. I guess my best defense is
present my work to the CppCon 2018 and keep working on it. Meanwhile I
am presenting it to the ISO C++ committee.


Regards,
-Phil


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 5 August 2017 at 20:54, Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Lol and thank you all for your advices. I guess my best defense is present
> my work to the CppCon 2018 and keep working on it. Meanwhile I am
> presenting it to the ISO C++ committee.
>

Yes, just (more easily said than done) work towards the best implementation
possible and you *will* be acknowledged.

degski
--
"*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend,
Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 08/05/2017 12:57 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

>> 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
>
> Herb's been banging a drum regarding alternative mechanisms for
> allocation cleanup in C++ for as long as I can remember. I believe that
> repo above was to demonstrate how easy it would be for C++ to
> standardise some GC implementation based on the above.
>
> I personally think he's wrong on standardised GC for C++, and so does
> almost everyone else I know. But Herb has more than earned respect for
> any opinion he takes on anything in my book.
>
> And I appreciate that you feel plagiarised. But standards folk almost
> never propose standardisation of their own inventions by definition. I
> wouldn't take it personally.

Thanks for your advice Niall, I appreciate.


Regards,
-Phil


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 08/05/2017 02:01 PM, degski via Boost wrote:

> On 5 August 2017 at 20:54, Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Lol and thank you all for your advices. I guess my best defense is present
>> my work to the CppCon 2018 and keep working on it. Meanwhile I am
>> presenting it to the ISO C++ committee.
>>
>
> Yes, just (more easily said than done) work towards the best implementation
> possible and you *will* be acknowledged.

Thanks!

On the coding side I just need to get rid of that static mutex and it'll
be even more efficient in multithreading mode.

On the promotion side to ISO I know the procedures are strict (like a
thesis you have to defend in person) and takes some time but it looks
like I reached to point of no return ;)


Regards,
-Phil


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 10:39 AM degski via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> For a similar idea <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_pointer> a patent
> was filed in 2002, by IBM and Michael Maged (and it seems Andrei
> Alexandrescu was involved as well). As you can read, the application was
> abandoned in 2010, which says all about how difficult/usefull this approach
> is.


Hazard pointers relate specifically to concurrency and not general memory
management.  Efforts to standardize them are ongoing:
https://wg21.link/p0233r4

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Phil Bouchard via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 08/05/2017 12:11 PM, Phil Bouchard via Boost wrote:
>
>
> The evidence in this case is probabilistic because what are the chances we
> come up both at the same time the exact same idea after 60 years of research
> on the subject?
>

High, actually.
It happens all the time.  There is a math thesis about it - predicting
the odds of a thesis idea being simultaneously worked on independently
by someone else.
And just as the thesis would suggest, there is actually more than one
paper on the subject.

Tony

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 5 August 2017 at 21:21, Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On the promotion side to ISO I know the procedures are strict (like a
> thesis you have to defend in person) and takes some time but it looks like
> I reached to point of no return ;)


Maybe the Microsoft *vs* root_ptr way of looking at things is wrong. Herb
Sutter presented an idea (never stated it was all his) and wrote in his
words a "Toy" implementation, with no promiss of going beyond this, to
demonstrate that idea. It sounds to me like an invitation for some-one to
implement the real deal. That some-one could be you. So why don't you
rename root_prtr (again :-) ) to deferred_ptr and incorporate any (other)
ideas in HS's, that you might have missed, and I guess you will have an
early supporter.

degski
--
"*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend,
Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Microsoft vs The Boost License

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 08/05/2017 11:09 PM, Gottlob Frege via Boost wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Phil Bouchard via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 08/05/2017 12:11 PM, Phil Bouchard via Boost wrote:
>>
>>
>> The evidence in this case is probabilistic because what are the chances we
>> come up both at the same time the exact same idea after 60 years of research
>> on the subject?
>>
>
> High, actually.
> It happens all the time.  There is a math thesis about it - predicting
> the odds of a thesis idea being simultaneously worked on independently
> by someone else.
> And just as the thesis would suggest, there is actually more than one
> paper on the subject.

Well 1/60 * 1/60 = 0.0002778. Chances Microsoft plagiarized are simply
higher.

But it doesn't matter because their "work" is far from being production
ready.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12
Loading...