On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 22:41, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > i don't think that would be enough for them. they would want to see some
> > more solid evidence.
>
> And is was said on the O'Reilly article, and echoed on this discussion
> (but nobody seems to be paying attention) we are doing
--- Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately for you, flames have a funny way of
> > burning down bridges, so I really doubt you will
> be
> > getting more information from _anyone_ here.
>
> I hope not, because I still want to use Mono, and I
> really hope that
> *someone* c
I'm sure everyone here is looking forward to the results of the formal
review. Will you post it to this list and update the FAQ once it's
done.
Thanks!
-Nick
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 14:41, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > i don't think that would be enough for them. they would want to see so
Ok, I thought we killed this particular issue a long time ago..
(grin)
Here is the take I get from Miguel and someone correct the perception if I
am incorrect
Your application makes use of the framework not the actual libraries
(unless you create a library that extends an existing one
Hello,
> i don't think that would be enough for them. they would want to see some
> more solid evidence.
And is was said on the O'Reilly article, and echoed on this discussion
(but nobody seems to be paying attention) we are doing a legal review.
The legal review is in progress, and there is not
Hello,
If you'r interested in deepder details about the copyright and patents
issue, you should try to go and get them. I'm very sure there are a lot
of places that can *explain* the terms. Really, or at least go ot the
ECMA site and read about what the patents are and how they work.
You should c
--- Shantanu Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sheesh!!
>
> I haven't seen a greater troll on this list than
> this one.
> Of course everybody acknowledges the contribution
> and position
> of Miguel. But I am sorry to notice that the post by
> Alex Combas
> seems to have nothing to do with the
As an interested observer, and in fact someone who's actually *using*
Mono and always considered the patent issue to be a red herring, and
actually *did* believe Miguel that everything was okay, this thread has
left me a lot more worried than when I started.
I read the FAQ and found it rather v
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 16:57, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> The C# and CLI patents are available under RAND and Royalty Free terms
> as pointed out in the FAQ (the link to Jim's post) which you said you
> read a few times (it seems and you still managed to not find this).
i've also read it i think twice.
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 21:23, Alex Combas wrote:
> *sigh*
>
> Dear Mr Troll,
ok, it the flames are already burning, this won't hurt more :)
>
> Not in any way to slight _your_ career in opensource
> development, which I am sure is more extensive than my
> own, but you have just flamed Miguel who
*sigh*
Dear Mr Troll,
Not in any way to slight _your_ career in opensource
development, which I am sure is more extensive than my
own, but you have just flamed Miguel who is someone
everyone here knows and respects for _his_ career in
opensource.
Miguel is also a _very_ respected community leade
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Hello,
My conceen is that RAND does not imply compatibility iwth the GPL or any
other open source license, and I am trying to find out ifth eMono
project is specifically licensed for the patents covering the ECMA
specification, of simply relying on public statments regar
OK...before I unsubscribe from this list - a couple of points:
- I came here interested in a technology with what I felt was a
legitimate concern and most (not all - Andy Satori for example was
particularly helpful) of what I have gotten back has been rude and
unhelpful.
- Your FAQ does NOT ad
Hello,
> My understanding is that any implementation of the ECMA specifications
> for the CLI, etc, is known to be covered by patents held by Microsoft.
> Such a submision is allowable under th eEMCA rules provided that the
> patents are licensable under "Reasonable and Non-discriminatory" (RAN
Hmm.
Actually, what I think it means is that the efforts to assuage the
fears of the users in this regard has not had the success we need. I'm
not intending to criticize the efforts to clarify this situation up to
this point at all - it seems that significant effort has been put into
understandin
Could you point me to some more information on the upcoming patent
review you mention? It may be that this will resolve my questions. In
the meantime, I have no immediate compelling need to use Mono, although
I do have the interest. While I may invest the time to learn about it, I
will most lik
Jonathan -
Many thanks for this answer. I suspected this to be the case, but wants
confirmation from someone more familiar with it.
Jonathan Pryor wrote:
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:19, Andy Lewis wrote:
First, regarding Mono licensing. It appears to be a mix of GPL, LGPL,
and X11 licenses. D
Actually Migel, I believe I started this round with this question, and
while I am not a lwyer, I do have a fundamental understanding of the
difference beween patents and copyrights. In addition, I have read, and
re-read the FAQ, and everything else I could find on this particular
topic before p
if i still don't understand this, please help me to understand it :)
I think what you need is what the upcoming Patent Review might provide.
For now you will probably just have to trust the Ximian monkeys who have
probably given this a bit more thought than you have and have access to
a few
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 20:35, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > does that mean thay you/mono-devel-team doesn't know the answer to my
> > (original) question?
>
> We have gone through this too many times, to the point that we have
> added this to the FAQ.
>
> It means you are just very late a
I agree with you 100% but "suits" want that kinda shit, I am just
relating what i am seeing/hearing with
multi-billion dollar companies I consult for in Canada, they get worried
about this shit, and
your rational below (I buy it), but the heads of IT's, well they need a
bit more to feel comforta
Hi,
> There is no right answer to this until it is tested in court. Much like
> SCO/IBM/Linux issue.
There is no SCO-IBM issue other than in Darl's head. Everyone and his
dog agrees there is no validity in it. http://www.groklaw.net for the
latest info.
> To be a safe user of Mono, (much like a
There is no right answer to this until it is tested in court. Much like
SCO/IBM/Linux issue.
I am getting into mono now because I know that worst case scenerio (just
like with SCO on Linux),
if MS squashed Mono, it would be redeveloped, probably quickly, i.e.
within months,
and then MS would fac
Hello,
> does that mean thay you/mono-devel-team doesn't know the answer to my
> (original) question?
We have gone through this too many times, to the point that we have
added this to the FAQ.
It means you are just very late asking that question, and most people
are bored to death with the subje
Hello,
> example:
>
> python.
>
> if i check the webpage, i know they are gpl-compatible, have a quite
> open development model and so on. i simply can be sure that if i use it,
> there will be no license problems.
>
> now:
>
> can you show me a webpage or link or whatever where Microsoft (as
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 20:00, Adam Williams wrote:
> > >
> > hmmm
> > i understand that mono seems to be safe because for now it seems that
> > mono helps microsoft to generate money, and also some
> > microsoft-developer/mono-inventor/programmer/whatever said that RAND in
> > this case means f
> >
> hmmm
> i understand that mono seems to be safe because for now it seems that
> mono helps microsoft to generate money, and also some
> microsoft-developer/mono-inventor/programmer/whatever said that RAND in
> this case means free (as in everything, be it beer or speech or
> whatever). am
I am not a lawyer, neither am i familiar with these or any patent
issues, and I don't care at all.
However, The real question you should be asking yourself seems to be:
"Why am I asking this here, and not on the wine mailing list"
Unlike wine, mono implements something that is being standardized
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 21:25, Andy Satori wrote:
>
hmmm
i understand that mono seems to be safe because for now it seems that
mono helps microsoft to generate money, and also some
microsoft-developer/mono-inventor/programmer/whatever said that RAND in
this case means free (as in everything,
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:19, Andy Lewis wrote:
> First, regarding Mono licensing. It appears to be a mix of GPL, LGPL,
> and X11 licenses. Does this combination allow me to develop commercial
> applications using mono and distribute them using the "free" licenses,
> provided that I am not distr
Hello,
One thing is that the patent stuff has been discussed many times, the
archives will tell you more than I can.
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:19 -0500, Andy Lewis wrote:
> Please forgive me as I am sure what I am asking has been discussed and
> debated at length, and I do not mean this as a tro
Please excuse me for my bluntness. The Microsoft Patent in this
instance is largely irrelevant, for the very reasons that you mention
as being reasons to worry.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, that Microsoft could do technically would
be as critically damaging to the already fragile, and crumbl
Please forgive me as I am sure what I am asking has been discussed and
debated at length, and I do not mean this as a troll or as flame bait,
but I do have some questions not clearly answered in the FAQ or other
places on the site regarding the intellectual property underlying Mono.
I ma a deve
33 matches
Mail list logo
