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

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



On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
Underwood<jonathan underwood gmail com> wrote:
> 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*,

" 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.


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