Mono?!?

[Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ)]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury <max at mtew.isa-geek.net
> wrote:

> On 06/01/2012 12:40 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
>
> > You realize that Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement
> > to not assert patents on .NET implementations that comply with the
> > standard, right? Mono falls under that. I wouldn't worry about patents
> > when it comes to Mono. We're more likely to have problems on the Java
> > side of things than with Mono.
>
> No, I do NOT 'realize' Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable
> agreement ....
>
> I have heard that such a thing exists, but with the recent debacle by
> Oracle and
> tSCOg's treatment of 'irrevocable agreement"s, I do NOT trust them to
> not find a
> way to get around such a pronouncement.  In fact I expect that they
> could simply
> ignore any such promise if they found it convenient to do so and that
> they will do so
> eventually.  Further, there are enough weasel words in that
> pronouncement that I
> think they plan to get nasty anyway.
>
> I realize ANYBODY can sue ANYBODY, but I prefer to stay clear of tar
> pits like
> MONO when I can.
>
> (There is also an indication that .NET is a dead letter and MONO will
> become
> unnecessary.)
>

Oracle could sue because its legal agreement for patents requires that the
implementation is derived from Oracle's completely and must be under GPL.
Other independent implementations are not protected. Microsoft's protects
all implementations that comply with published standards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20120601/31fccf39/attachment.html>