After takin' a swig o' grog, Tony Manco belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>
>> Miguel: http://pastebin.com/f4c3dce66
>
> Interesting!
More:
# <thenixedreport> Do you have any comments in regards to this article?
# <thenixedreport> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/
# <miguel> Is that Sam Vargese again?
# <miguel> I rather not read more junk from that "journalist"
# <miguel> Oh,I already read that piece of junk
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/
Also of note:
http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft
falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a
statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors
listed in the patent): here
(http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html)
Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those
components for free and for any purpose.
For people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, Mono's
strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with
ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using
a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes
the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of
code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that
would render the patent useless.
Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability,
but it would still provide the free software / open source software
community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for
developing Mono.
--
When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know who have gone
to a better world, I am moved to lead a different life.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
|
|
