2009/7/7 Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
