Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
On 3/22/07, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately, MS is claiming undefined things as being proprietary. As
such, I intend to stay totally clear of implementations of "it's"
protocols. Including mono. I am considering jvm, however, as Sun has
now freed the java license (and was never very restrictive).
Do you have details or a reference? I would be interested in having a
look.
-Chuck
Sorry, they aren't *being* specific. It may well have nothing to do
with dot-net, it's just too vague to see what they're talking about. As
for a reference, look at the recent comments about "patents" and the
Novell deal. They're claiming something...but one can't determine
what. I live in the US, so I'm playing safe, and avoiding both Novell
and dotnet (including mono). All I know is it can't be more than about
17 years old, and it can't be something that they're barred from
claiming via estoppel. But I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure what that
is. Various comments and personalities have caused me to suspect that
it's something involving mono...but this is definitely not "clear and
convincing", it's just the best info I have. (Partially because Miguel
De Icaza was all in favor of the deal, and he's heavily involved in mono.)
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
