On 07/07/2009 07:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > RAND does not necessarily mean royalty-free Oh, I agree. The trick is nobody knows what those RAND terms are. Free, not free, something-we-never-dreamed-of, etc. Various folks (e.g. OSNews) have been attempting to get Microsoft to present them with a RAND license offer to clear this up. So, the legal theory is that since ECMA requires RAND license terms, and the spec is a published ECMA spec, and various people have been trying to get a RAND license offer for a while, that if Microsoft drags you before a magistrate charging that you didn't get a license, that "licenses were not available and therefore implicitly not required" would convince him that the prosecution is malicious and get the case tossed out on its ear. Whether the argument holds any water or not, I have no idea, it's just what I've heard from defenders. -Bill -- Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 http://www.bfccomputing.com/ Cell: 603.252.2606 Twitter, etc.: bill_mcgonigle Page: 603.442.1833 Email, IM, VOIP: bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
