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

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



Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
> 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.
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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil


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