http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

[drago01]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Julian
Aloofi<julian.fedoralists at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
>> Underwood<jonathan.underwood at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2009/7/7 Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com>:
>> >> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> >>> > http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
>> >>>
>> >>> You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
>> >>>
>> >>> The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
>> >>> infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
>> >>
>> >> I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either
>> >> of the above.  Please cite exactly which statement in the Community
>> >> Promise you take issue with.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
>> >
>> > "If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
>> > infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
>> > Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect
>> > to any Covered Implementation made or used by you."
>> >
>> > So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key
>> > component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent
>> > lawsuit against MS for something *unrelated*,
>>
>> " against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification"
>> I don't see why Red Hat would ever sue MS because of a C# / CLI patent.
>>
>> Anything unrelated _IS_ unrelated.
> Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI patents.
> And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just
> sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification.
> Maybe that's less of a problem for Red Hat because they don't like
> patents anyway and are not likely holding any XPS related patents, but
> it could be a problem for the OIN.

Yeah got this after reading Ajax's post.