____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 15 December 2007 13:06 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Linonut on Friday 14 December 2007 15:42 : \____
>>
>>> * Tom Shelton fired off this tart reply:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-12-14, [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps keep it as an option, but maybe not included by default?
>>>>>> Software patents do not apply outside of Nafta and Australia, so
>>>>>> there's no particular issue for the rest of us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than the fact that .NET is utterly superfluous, supports part of
>>>>> Microsoft's quest for continued domination, poisons the Free Software
>>>>> community with Microsoft's broken development paradigm, dilutes Free
>>>>> Software development resources by encouraging developers to waste time
>>>>> bug-fixing Windows clients, divides the Free Software community into
>>>>> partisan groups who waste time arguing about patents rather than
>>>>> working, diverts development away from Java (just as it was designed to
>>>>> do, as a slap in the face to Sun for their MS litigation, and a means of
>>>>> "controlling" virtual machine technology, discouraging fully compatible
>>>>> cross-platform development), and may (at some time in the future) help
>>>>> to support Microsoft's claims of "IP infringement" in GNU/Linux (since
>>>>> not *all* parties who develop with Mono can know *exactly* what is or is
>>>>> not covered by the ECMA RAND "guarantee" - such as it is).
>>>>>
>>>>> But apart from that it's fine.
>>>>
>>>> Any part that is defined in the ECMA standard is covered by the RAND
>>>> "guarentee". Anything that isn't defined in the standard isn't...
>>>
>>> Is that kind of like the ISO "guarantee"?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't trust Microsoft at /all/, without an ironclad contract. And
>>> I wouldn't necessarily trust my lawyers to negotiate one for me.
>>
>> They could sue box proxy. Same scenario with OOXML, as highlighted just a
>> few days ago.
>>
>
> RAND is a wonderful statement, as our troll knows all too well, since it
> is not about being reasonable nor is it about being non-discriminatory.
>
> Of course, as I said above, Microsoft's patents do not apply outside of
> Nafta and Australia anyway, so ECMA is not in a position to require RAND
> on them, as software patents do not apply in the EU, which is where ECMA
> resides.
Last week I wrote something about Microsoft getting /around/ international laws
and forcing its software patent royalties even overseas, via Novell et al.
It's disgusting, but it's true.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Those who can, Open-Source
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 115 total, 1 running, 113 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
