You might as well let us know what simulator you actually support here while you're at it. If it isn't OpenSimulator on .NET/Mono, that's cool.
Best Regards Teravus On 4/5/09, Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> ----- > > From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:44:08 -0700 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] [Opensim-dev] Mono considered harmful > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 > > Quoting Eugen Leitl ([email protected]): > > > IANAL, does below explanation by Adam hold water? > > You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's rubbish on two separate > grounds. > > Yes, C# is an ECMA standard. However: > > (1) It doesn't follow that ECMA International has any power to "forbid" > patent holders from suing anyone over anything, let alone patent > infringement. I mean, think about it: Does Adam think ECMA > International is Microsoft Corporation's daddy? That it owns 51% of the > issued and outstanding common stock? At worst, it might be possible for > ECMA International to be very deeply disappointed in Microsoft's > behaviour at some future point, decertify particular things, and > otherwise carry out mild actions that _are_ within its power. > > More important: > > (2) In any event, ECMA International does not even _profess_ to > disapprove of suing patent infringers. It merely has a "Code of Conduct > in Patent Matters" > (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm), setting > ECMA policy that the group will approve standards only if it has written > assurances from applicant that applicable patents will be licensed on a > "reasonable, non-discriminatory basis". (That term of art is typically > referred to as RAND terms.) > > Has Adam Frisby completely missed the last decade of standards warfare? > The proprietary camp has repeatedly attempted to get the World Wide Web > Consortium to start accepting "RAND" patent licensing, instead of > requiring that applicants certify that covering patents will be > _royalty-free_. This arm-twisting failed, because of diligent focussing > of attention from open source people. W3C has stuck to its guns and > insistend on royalty-free patent licensing. > > To spell it out: "Reasonable" means obligatory patent royalty payments. > Which means no open source implementations of those standards. > > And that is one reason why ECMA standards can be (and often are) issued > on terms hostile to open source, whereas W3C standards are reliable and > open-source-friendly. > > Sheesh. > > -- > Cheers, HÃggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers > Rick Moen Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; > [email protected] Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is > McQ! (4x80) Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. > _______________________________________________ > linux-elitists mailing list > [email protected] > http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
