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

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

drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
(Thank you.)

(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the
same OSP, and even so, given the opinion on how poorly OOXML is covered, I
doubt M$ would do anything to make the Mono/C#/CLI situation appreciably

No its not the same "Open Specification Promise" != "Community Promise"

...but there are certainly people weighing in on both.

Hmm, I thought I'd seen an actual statement from SFLC on the CP, but now I can't find it again. Still most of what I saw is others that feel the CP is no better than the OSP (some even said it is worse). Certainly some of the same points apply.

Oh, and drago01:
I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].
I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they sure
don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.

I stated serval times that I am not a laywer and therefore can be
wrong, than Riu stated that we don't need laywers because his point is
obivious (to him).

Fair enough. The point was just that your argument is better if 5 seconds of google doesn't appear to refute it. It was just a friendly suggest on 'how to make a better argument'.

But unfortunatly the US laws suck, and that won't change anytime soon.

Unfortunate, yes :-).

When providing links make sure that they cover the same topic ;)
Because than _you_ look that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Touché. (Though my point was partly the obvious google results.) Still, you are right. How about these?

Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests

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