On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Underwood<jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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*, " 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. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
