On 8/23/2018 4:57 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
Urs mentions encryption being used by CodaMusic (I've never heard
of them) and that clearly shows an intention of lock-in. OTOH Wols
doesn't lay out here the evidence of the reported intent of Word's
changes. (Actually, I thought it was an open format
Am 23. August 2018 22:27:33 MESZ schrieb Ben :
>On 8/23/2018 4:21 PM, David Wright wrote:
>> On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 22:18:51 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
>>> David Wright writes:
>>>
On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 19:55:01 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
> On 18/08/18 12:51, David Kastrup wrote:
On 8/23/2018 4:21 PM, David Wright wrote:
On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 22:18:51 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
David Wright writes:
On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 19:55:01 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:51, David Kastrup wrote:
Indeed, that wasn't expressed too well. What I meant is that
On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 22:18:51 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
> David Wright writes:
>
> > On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 19:55:01 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
> >> On 18/08/18 12:51, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> >> Indeed, that wasn't expressed too well. What I meant is that
> >> >> > CodaMusic's policy to
Jacques Menu Muzhic writes:
> Hello Johan,
>
> Do you know the *real* difference between theory and practice? In
> theory, they’re one and the same thing, but in practice, they’re quite
> different...
It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
--
David Kastrup
Hello Johan,
Do you know the *real* difference between theory and practice? In theory,
they’re one and the same thing, but in practice, they’re quite different...
JM
> Le 22 août 2018 à 09:25, Johan Vromans a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:21:08 -0700, Aaron Hill
> wrote:
>
>> Patents
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:21:08 -0700, Aaron Hill
wrote:
> Patents are entirely concerned with inventions, that is novel, useful,
> and non-obvious solutions to specific problems that result either in an
> actual product or a practical process.
That's the theory... Practice is different,
Karlin High writes:
> On 8/21/2018 1:02 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
>> you have to get clear in your mind the distinction between the
>> description, and what is described.
>
> Like that French artist who made paintings of objects titled "This is
> not $OBJECT?"
Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:34:59 -0500, Karlin High wrote:
On 8/21/2018 1:02 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
you have to get clear in your mind the distinction between the
description, and what is described.
Like that French artist who made paintings of objects titled "This is
not $OBJECT?"
On 8/21/2018 1:02 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
you have to get clear in your mind the distinction between the
description, and what is described.
Like that French artist who made paintings of objects titled "This is
not $OBJECT?"
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA
On 2018-08-21 11:02, Wol's lists wrote:
A patent is
protected by copyright because it is not a thing. It's the thing it
describes that is protected by patent.
Obligatory "I am not a lawyer", but I took a class on intellectual
property at university.
Patents and copyrights are different
On 19/08/18 08:44, David Kastrup wrote:
Wols Lists writes:
On 19/08/18 00:34, David Kastrup wrote:
As any theoretical physicist will tell you, anything that involves
actual hardware also is maths.
Are you telling me that maths PREscribes reality?
No. Reality's math is inseparable from
Wols Lists writes:
> On 19/08/18 00:34, David Kastrup wrote:
>> As any theoretical physicist will tell you, anything that involves
>> actual hardware also is maths.
>
> Are you telling me that maths PREscribes reality?
No. Reality's math is inseparable from reality. The Schrödinger
equation
On 19/08/18 00:34, David Kastrup wrote:
> As any theoretical physicist will tell you, anything that involves
> actual hardware also is maths.
Are you telling me that maths PREscribes reality? Are you telling me
that Newton got it right?
If hardware is maths, then how comes physicists aren't
Wols Lists writes:
> On 18/08/18 23:28, David Kastrup wrote:
>> zip has been defined using patentable techniques (like
>> https://www.google.com/patents/US5051745) but the implementations are
>> usually unencumbered.
>
> Just because it has been patented does not mean it is patentable :-(
>
> Of
On 18/08/18 23:28, David Kastrup wrote:
> zip has been defined using patentable techniques (like
> https://www.google.com/patents/US5051745) but the implementations are
> usually unencumbered.
Just because it has been patented does not mean it is patentable :-(
Of course, the problem is
Wols Lists writes:
> On 18/08/18 21:18, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> "Undocumented proprietary format" doesn't express the intent which
>>> > "lock-in" does. As David pointed out, patents can be used to protect
>>> > a proprietary format, only I don't think that, for example, the exFAT
>>> >
On 18/08/18 21:18, David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Undocumented proprietary format" doesn't express the intent which
>> > "lock-in" does. As David pointed out, patents can be used to protect
>> > a proprietary format, only I don't think that, for example, the exFAT
>> > filesystem is, in his words, a
David Wright writes:
> On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 19:55:01 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
>> On 18/08/18 12:51, David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> Indeed, that wasn't expressed too well. What I meant is that
>> >> > CodaMusic's policy to use binary non-released (for some time even
>> >> > encrypted) file formats
On Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 19:55:01 (+0100), Wols Lists wrote:
> On 18/08/18 12:51, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> Indeed, that wasn't expressed too well. What I meant is that
> >> > CodaMusic's policy to use binary non-released (for some time even
> >> > encrypted) file formats strongly discouraged anyone
On 18/08/18 12:51, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Indeed, that wasn't expressed too well. What I meant is that
>> > CodaMusic's policy to use binary non-released (for some time even
>> > encrypted) file formats strongly discouraged anyone to make a program
>> > use these files.
> That's more than just
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 18. August 2018 13:08:19 MESZ schrieb DK:
>>Urs Liska writes:
>>
>>> We've talked about the issue over and over again, but how do we
>>> call it when using proprietary software prevents us from changing
>>> the tools to work with our data/documents? (Well, actually the
0
Am 18. August 2018 13:08:19 MESZ schrieb David Kastrup :
>Urs Liska writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm pulling my hair because I don't manage to find a certain term to
>> use in an abstract.
>>
>> We've talked about the issue over and over again, but how do we call
>> it when using proprietary
Urs Liska writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm pulling my hair because I don't manage to find a certain term to
> use in an abstract.
>
> We've talked about the issue over and over again, but how do we call
> it when using proprietary software prevents us from changing the tools
> to work with our
Incompatibility for the second term, vendor lock-in for the first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
Andrew
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 at 20:17, Urs Liska wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm pulling my hair because I don't manage to find a certain term to use
> in an abstract.
>
> We've talked about the
Am 18. August 2018 12:25:25 MESZ schrieb Trevor :
>
>locked-in?
Strike!
"Vendor lock in" was it what I was looking for.
Thanks
Urs
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: "Urs Liska"
>To: "lilypond-user"
>Sent: 18/08/2018 10:53:32
&
locked-in?
-- Original Message --
From: "Urs Liska"
To: "lilypond-user"
Sent: 18/08/2018 10:53:32
Subject: Proprietary Software term
Hi,
I'm pulling my hair because I don't manage to find a certain term to
use in an abstract.
We've talked about the issue
Hi,
I'm pulling my hair because I don't manage to find a certain term to use in an
abstract.
We've talked about the issue over and over again, but how do we call it when
using proprietary software prevents us from changing the tools to work with our
data/documents? (Well, actually the same
28 matches
Mail list logo
