On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Julian Aloofi<julian.fedoralists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01: >> 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. > 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. Yeah got this after reading Ajax's post. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
