Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In article <867hz6aux7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Here is Microsoft and HP's statements to ECMA:
>> >
>> > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/E
>> > CMA-334%20&%20335/2001ga-123%20&%202002ga-003.pdf
>> >
>> How about you actually *read* your links for a change, you blundering
>> idiot?
>>
>> Do you see the word 'royalty free' anywhere in there?
>
> Why would you expect an ECMA Patent Declaration to include the words
> "royalty free"? For the N'th time, that document is a statement that
> any patents required for the standard will be licensed on terms that
> meet ECMA requirements. ECMA does not require royalty free, so one
> generally would not put "royalty free" in the patent declaration, even
> if the patents will in fact be offered under a royalty free license.
Because you Microsofties keep specifically saying that Microsoft is
licensing the patents in the CLI and C# RAND and royalty-free.
So stop wiggling, and produce that royalty-free license that you keep
saying exists.
Or you can admit that it doesn't exist.
And stop trying to shift away from your original assertions. Put up, or
shut up.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
