Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In article <86iqk0ozmd.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_public@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipe
>> > rmail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html
>> >
>> > Jim Miller is one of the inventors listed on the patents in question.
>> >
>> I'm very sorry Tom, but that link proves jack shit.
>>
>> Tom says that in order to compy with ECMA, they provided a royalty-free
>> RAND license. Yet the official patent statement submitted by Microsoft
>> has dropped the royalty-free.
>>
>> Jim can say what he wants, but it is what the Microsoft lawyers submit
>> as an official license that counts.
>
> I suspect you are confusing the patent declaration submitted to ECMA
> with a patent license.
Well then, how about you finally put your money where your big mouth is
and present us with a legally binding patent license? A link to an
official document will suffice (and no, developers on a development
mailing list do *not* count).
Because so far, all *you* have produced is lots of whine. Want some
cheese to go with that?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
