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

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



2009/7/7 Adam Jackson <ajax 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, MS could turn around and
revoke the promise not to sue Red Hat for distributing a C#/CLI
implementation, crippling the product that Red Hat now relies on. So I
doubt that RMS's concerns are much assuaged by the Community Promise.
But I'm just guessing. With similar reasoning it probably cripples the
OIN's ability to sue back as well.

J.


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