[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 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra<rms 1407 org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> > The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
> >> > infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
> >> >
> >> > [1] => means you can't do it with GPL
> >>
> >> It explicitly grant this right.
> >
> > What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
> >
> > And you have no right!
> If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
> you" or "you have the right to implement this"
> Where exactly is the difference?

In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some
jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.

In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.

Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?

> > Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a
> > RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
> Source?

It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and the FAQ
instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.

> > You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between
> >  a) having a right
> > or
> >  b) not being sued if you infringe
> >
> So what? "not being sued" is the key here... (does not matter how they
> phrase it, see above)
> You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure
> you need a lawyer to clarification this.

I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what
is in the mouth of marketing agents.

Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times
more than a marketing agent's tongue.


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