Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:20:45 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> And let me ask you something that Timmy appears not to know, but you
>>>> with your encyclopedic knowledge of all things Microsoft might: *where*
>>>> can I find that royalty-free patent license to the patents in .NET?
>>>
>>> There isn't one. There is, however, a royalty free patent grant for
>>> ECMA/ISO C# and CLI,
>>
>> Which is what I meant, and you know it.
>>
>> But still, can you tell me where that royalty-free patent grant is? Tim
>> seems to have a problem finding it.
>
> Here is Microsoft and HP's statements to ECMA:
>
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ECMA-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?
> Further, Jim Miller, a MS program manager states that the license is
> royalty free.
>
> http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-response-to-net-patents.html
>
Yes, and that is a developer stating his opinion. An opinion that is
later contradicted. Note that Jim says that any patents 'will be'
royalty-free, but the actual statement submitted to ECMA says no such
thing.
> That's assuming you even need a license, as of yet there is no known
> patents on the CLI and C#. The only patents are in the .NET stack.
So, if there are no patents, why does Microsoft not give out a
royalty-free patent grant in its ECMA statement?
How about for once giving a straight answer, instead of giving us the
Funkenshuffle?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
