[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: An Analysis Pattern for Inventories

From: Daniel E Baumann
Subject: Re: An Analysis Pattern for Inventories
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:19:23 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.27i

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:46:31PM -0500, Dirk Riehle wrote:
> Hmmm, if I understand your argument, and would take it to its logical 
> conclusion, then patterns are actually bad, because unless they have 
> explicitly been released to you, you can't use them? Thereby, anyone who 
> writes a pattern and doesn't release it to you, takes away freedom from 
> you, because he or she reduces your space of (design) possibilities?
> That violates the spirit of patterns, which are canned experience to be 
> used by people. While companies may try to use the pattern presentation 
> form to describe something they have patented, most pattern descriptions 
> have not been written up in this spirit.
> I cannot see how your formally correct approach could possibly work. An 
> example: I'm the author of the Role Object pattern. Role objects are 
> objects grouped around a core object. For example, you could have a person 
> core object, and multiple role objects grouped around it for different 
> purposes, for example a customer, an employer, and a developer role object. 
> I don't know of a single non-trivial business system that does not make use 
> of this pattern. So I would believe you have it too and are in violation of 
> your own argument.
> But of course this is not a real problem, because I only hold the copyright 
> on one particular description of the Role Object concept/pattern. I don't 
> think there is a patent on the actual concept, so everyone is free to use 
> it. Again, here, distinguish pattern description from underlying 
> pattern/concept.
> I can understand your fear of a trojan horse pattern or something like it, 
> but for all realistic means you are free to use the Design Patterns, 
> Analysis Patterns etc. of this world. There are at least two reasons: you 
> already use them, knowingly or unknowingly, they are in your code, and even 
> if you weren't using them, the rest of the world does, without fearing any 
> licensing fees etc. because there is no owner.
> So I think there is no formal position to which you can retreat--you will 
> have to face some uncertainty.

This make no sense. Why would we not be allowed to use desgin patterns
in GNUe code? I am 100% certain that jcater has used some already in
his existing code. I am sure we will also use some in GEASv2
code. Also, if the pattern is copyrighted (the document describing it)
that doesn't mean you are prohibited form using it....only way
that is going to happen is if it is patented like you said. This
trojan horse design pattern fear is unfounded, IMHO. Patterns have
been open for a while and the likelihood of us accidently using some
patented design pattern is slim to none. Welcome to the new OO world
of patterns.
Daniel E Baumann      address@hidden

And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community...if ``hard nosed 
realists'' say that profit is the only ideal...just ignore them, and use 
copyleft all the same.
      -- RMS

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]