Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
On 1 Jul 2009 21:58:05 GMT, Gregory Shearman wrote:
On 2009-07-01, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 04:41:37 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
On 2009-07-01, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:44:43 +0100, Ben wrote:
I agree that Mono has some practical advantages, but why are we making
free implementations of it instead of a competing specification, which
cannot be attacked by litigation?
First of all, that's impossible. Any code and implementation runs the risk
of violating someones patents. There's just no way to know if any piece of
code you write doesn't infringe on a patent.
Second of all, I'd rather run the risk of violating a random patent
owned by someone who isn't, or maybe even is, a dickhead by default
than to take the almost certain chance that I'm implementing something
that violates a patent of a known felon and hostile monopoly.
Well, you HAVE to run that risk. There is no choice. All software
potentially infringes on someones patents. If you don't want to take that
risk, you might as well get out of software.
Or move to a country with sane patent laws.
In which case, the whole Mono controversy doesn't apply to you then.
It does when the sponsor company for mono (Novell) and most community
developers live in countries where these "insane" patent laws apply, and
when most distributions are based in these countries, because future
releases may not include mono if it ever went to court, and all mono
development would cease.
Good luck developing mono from your new country then.
|
|
