This topic has been moved to cf-community as the moderator requested. Please
re-read the email as I am concerned over cf security, speed, the need for cf
servers,etc... Any doc's url's etc... without chopping a newbie apart will
be appreciated.


Wayne

  _____  

From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: COLDFUSION has JUST been DISContinued!!!!

I suggest spending some time with Google before making absurd
positions. For example, the patents necessary to implement the
standards ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI) are available from Microsoft
"RAND + Royalty Free". Which shouldn't be surprising since all standard
organizations require RAND licenses to be available for patents
covering their standards. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense to create
a vendor neutral standard that was effectively controlled by a single
vendor due to patents.

-Matt

On Jun 10, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote:

> Dave Watts wrote:
>  >>*yawn*  here we go again -- dancing in semantics land with
>  >>Matt. Note my use of quotes (I guess not) -- in any event...
>  >
>  > The problem with your dancing lesson is that Matt is absolutely
> correct in
>  > his insistence on semantic accuracy in this case, because it
> matters. You're
>  > stepping on his toes!
>
>  A guy can't make a facetious comment on this list anymore without the
>  semantic police getting their toes crushed :)
>
>  Well if the semantics matter.... who owns the patent and/or trademark
>  for Java, C#??  Cos you see, if someone owns a patent/trademark on
>  something then that patent/trademark is the very definition of
>  proprietary in the dictionary.  It has little if anything to do with
>  standards; real, imagined or de-facto.
>
>  -- geoff
>  http://www.daemon.com.au/
>
  _____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to