subject:"Re\: http\:\/\/www.fsf.org\/news\/dont\-depend\-on\-mono"

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
  Is there any contingency plans in place,
  for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost?
  FesCo?
  Legal?
 
  Is there any searchable parameter,
  to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
 
 
  This is not the normal  mono post.
  I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is:
  Fedora and *All* our Users
  (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
 
 http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx

Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.

You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.

The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].

[1] = means you can't do it with GPL
[2] = means you can't do it with GPL3

If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or RAND-Z
patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it?

Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, and
they never fulfilled (even after insistence).

I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it.

You need to stop believing in Santa.

Rui

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
  Is there any contingency plans in place,
  for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost?
  FesCo?
  Legal?
 
  Is there any searchable parameter,
  to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
 
 
  This is not the normal  mono post.
  I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is:
  Fedora and *All* our Users
  (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)

 http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx

 Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.

 You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.

So?

 The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
 infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].

 [1] = means you can't do it with GPL

It explicitly grant this right.

 [2] = means you can't do it with GPL3

 If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or RAND-Z
 patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it?

 Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, and
 they never fulfilled (even after insistence).

 I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it.

 You need to stop believing in Santa.

We already had the OIN protection and this is additional safety.

But I am not a lawyer so I leave the judgment to them.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
  The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
  infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
 
  [1] = means you can't do it with GPL
 
 It explicitly grant this right.

What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the 
right.

And you have no right!

Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a
RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.

Who ever got these, could s/he please publish them? No one I know who has asked
ever got it from Microsoft, even under promises.

  [2] = means you can't do it with GPL3
 
  If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or 
  RAND-Z
  patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it?
 
  Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, 
  and
  they never fulfilled (even after insistence).
 
  I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it.
 
  You need to stop believing in Santa.
 
 We already had the OIN protection and this is additional safety.

You seem to fail to grasp the concept that without weapons there's no war.

You think that by having weapons you're defended? That's rich... it only means
you can probably fight back (depending on the infringement), not that you win or
are defended.

 But I am not a lawyer so I leave the judgment to them.

You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between
 a) having a right
or
 b) not being sued if you infringe

Rui

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Dodji Seketeli

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :

 What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the 
 right.
 
 And you have no right!

Just to try to understand your point.

1/You don't have the rights to do A.
2/ But you do A, you won't be sued.

Doesn't that make 1/ irrelevant in practice ?

- -- 
Dodji Seketeli
Red Hat, Inc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkpTIEAACgkQPejI7lrem2G7JgCaAhVcAFl5+XesvRHHpI4NEAqa
NS4AoJbTAKf60egjGS1/OcosyMnCnMRL
=dezR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
  http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
 
 Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
 
 You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
 
 The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
 infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].

I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either
of the above.  Please cite exactly which statement in the Community
Promise you take issue with.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Jonathan Underwood

2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
 On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
  http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx

 Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.

 You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.

 The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
 infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].

 I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either
 of the above.  Please cite exactly which statement in the Community
 Promise you take issue with.

 http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx


Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:

If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect
to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.

So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key
component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent
lawsuit against MS for something unrelated, MS could turn around and
revoke the promise not to sue Red Hat for distributing a C#/CLI
implementation, crippling the product that Red Hat now relies on. So I
doubt that RMS's concerns are much assuaged by the Community Promise.
But I'm just guessing. With similar reasoning it probably cripples the
OIN's ability to sue back as well.

J.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
Underwoodjonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
 2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
 On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
  http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx

 Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.

 You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.

 The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
 infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].

 I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either
 of the above.  Please cite exactly which statement in the Community
 Promise you take issue with.

 http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx


 Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:

 If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
 infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
 Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect
 to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.

 So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key
 component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent
 lawsuit against MS for something *unrelated*,

 against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification
I don't see why Red Hat would ever sue MS because of a C# / CLI patent.

Anything unrelated _IS_ unrelated.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:27 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:

 Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
 
 If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
 infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
 Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect
 to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.
 
 So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key
 component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent
 lawsuit against MS for something unrelated, MS could turn around and
 revoke the promise not to sue Red Hat for distributing a C#/CLI
 implementation, crippling the product that Red Hat now relies on.

So there's two things wrong here.  The first one is the turn around
statement.  The very first sentence starts with Microsoft irrevocably
promises.  Any assurance made by the Community Promise is forever.

The second is the retaliation model.  In the language of the Promise:
If you [sue for patent] against a Microsoft implementation of any
Covered Specification [...].  A Covered Specification is one that
they're covering with this promise.

So, if Frobnitz Inc. distributed Mono, and then filed suit against
Microsoft for infringing one of Frobnitz' patents in the Microsoft C#
implementation, they would lose the right to distribute Mono [1].
However, if Frobnitz distributes Mono, and then files suit against
Microsoft for a rendering technique patent used in Internet Explorer,
they would still be allowed to distribute Mono [2].

In other words, it's a MAD agreement.  You're not even agreeing that any
patents they may hold that read on the Covered Spec are _valid_.  You're
simply agreeing that neither of you will assert any patent claims
against the other, for the scope of the Covered Specs, iff you chose to
use/make/sell/distribute/etc an implementation of one of the Covered
specs.

Now this still might not be something you want to agree to.  For
example, if you hold patents that you think already read on MS's C#
implementation, you might not want to lose the ability to exercise them.
The question may also be made irrelevant by some third-party patent
claim that you think would read on a Covered Spec.

Finally, there is the detail that the Promise only extends to what they
call Microsoft Necessary Claims, which are patents necessary to
implement any required portion of the spec.  There's some wiggle room in
the word necessary; you might be able to implement a given feature
some other way, in which case the patent would presumably not be
covered.  There's also no assurance over patents involved for optional
functionality.

(Not a lawyer.  Not even a Microsoft fan.)

[1] - Specifically, they would lose any rights given to them by the
Community Promise.  They might still have the right to distribute
through some other legal mechanism.

[2] - Again, they would only still retain the right to distribute to the
extent that they are not infringing some other legal agreement between
them and Microsoft.

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
  The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
  infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
 
  [1] = means you can't do it with GPL

 It explicitly grant this right.

 What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the 
 right.

 And you have no right!

If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
you or you have the right to implement this

Where exactly is the difference?

I can redistribute the implementation as I wish because nobody will
sue me if I do so .. which means that I HAVE the right to do so.

 Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a
 RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.

Source?

 You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between
  a) having a right
 or
  b) not being sued if you infringe


So what? not being sued is the key here... (does not matter how they
phrase it, see above)

You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure
you need a lawyer to clarification this.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Julian Aloofi

Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
 On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
 Underwoodjonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
  2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
  On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
   http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
 
  Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more 
  marketing.
 
  You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
 
  The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
  infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
 
  I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either
  of the above.  Please cite exactly which statement in the Community
  Promise you take issue with.
 
  http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
 
 
  Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
 
  If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
  infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
  Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect
  to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.
 
  So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key
  component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent
  lawsuit against MS for something *unrelated*,
 
  against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification
 I don't see why Red Hat would ever sue MS because of a C# / CLI patent.
 
 Anything unrelated _IS_ unrelated.
Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI patents.
And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just
sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification.
Maybe that's less of a problem for Red Hat because they don't like
patents anyway and are not likely holding any XPS related patents, but
it could be a problem for the OIN.


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Julian
Aloofijulian.fedorali...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
 On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
 Underwoodjonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
  2009/7/7 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
  On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
   http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
 
  Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more 
  marketing.
 
  You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
 
  The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you 
  can
  infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
 
  I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either
  of the above.  Please cite exactly which statement in the Community
  Promise you take issue with.
 
  http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
 
 
  Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
 
  If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
  infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
  Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect
  to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.
 
  So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key
  component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent
  lawsuit against MS for something *unrelated*,

  against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification
 I don't see why Red Hat would ever sue MS because of a C# / CLI patent.

 Anything unrelated _IS_ unrelated.
 Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI 
 patents.
 And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just
 sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification.
 Maybe that's less of a problem for Red Hat because they don't like
 patents anyway and are not likely holding any XPS related patents, but
 it could be a problem for the OIN.

Yeah got this after reading Ajax's post.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Jesse Keating




On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:15, Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com wrote:


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :

What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so  
without the right.


And you have no right!


Just to try to understand your point.

1/You don't have the rights to do A.
2/ But you do A, you won't be sued.

Doesn't that make 1/ irrelevant in practice ?



No, it just means that the promise to not sue can be lifted at any  
time and leave every user vulnerable. If the code were licensed in  
such a way that the patent indemnification came with the license then  
when the license changes to remove the patent protection only users of  
the new versions are at risk. All users of the old versions are not at  
risk due to the license on those old versions. Licenses cannot be  
changed retroactively but promises outside the license can.


--
Jes

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:06 +0200, Julian Aloofi wrote:

 Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI 
 patents.
 And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just
 sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification.
 Maybe that's less of a problem for Red Hat because they don't like
 patents anyway and are not likely holding any XPS related patents, but
 it could be a problem for the OIN.

The relevant sentence to the above argument is:

If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to
any Covered Implementation made or used by you.

This may be ambiguously worded.  any Covered Implementation might mean
the one(s) corresponding to the Covered Specification you're bringing
suit against, or it might mean any Covered Implementation of yours at
all.

The FAQ on the same page seems to indicate that the corresponding
interpretation is intended:

As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise
against a specific person or company for a specific Covered
Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily
participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft
regarding Microsoft's implementation of the _same_ [emphasis mine]
Covered Specification. This type of suspension clause is common
industry practice.

But I'd definitely ask a lawyer for the real answer, and probably ask
Microsoft to clarify the language if I were to rely on it.

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Frank Murphy

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00014.html

Regards,

Frank

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
   The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you 
   can
   infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
  
   [1] = means you can't do it with GPL
 
  It explicitly grant this right.
 
  What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without 
  the right.
 
  And you have no right!
 
 If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
 you or you have the right to implement this
 
 Where exactly is the difference?

In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some
jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.

In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.

Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?

  Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a
  RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
 
 Source?

It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and the FAQ
instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.

  You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between
   a) having a right
  or
   b) not being sued if you infringe
 
 
 So what? not being sued is the key here... (does not matter how they
 phrase it, see above)
 
 You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure
 you need a lawyer to clarification this.

I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what
is in the mouth of marketing agents.

Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times
more than a marketing agent's tongue.

Rui

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
 Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
 
  What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without 
  the right.
  
  And you have no right!
 
 Just to try to understand your point.
 
 1/You don't have the rights to do A.
 2/ But you do A, you won't be sued.
 
 Doesn't that make 1/ irrelevant in practice ?

Only if:
  a) you like doing illegal stuff which might bite your ass later
  b) the only one suing you would be Microsoft (in some jurisdictions others 
may do so).

Rui

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
   On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you 
can
infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
   
[1] = means you can't do it with GPL
  
   It explicitly grant this right.
  
   What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without 
   the right.
  
   And you have no right!
  
  If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
  you or you have the right to implement this
  
  Where exactly is the difference?
 
 In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in 
 some
 jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.

At the risk of getting bogged down in details: My understanding is that,
in such countries, in order to have any standing in such a case, the
third party bringing the suit against you would have to have some claim
to a grievance against you as a result of your illegal action against
Microsoft.  I would be delighted to hear a scenario in which you think
this could arise.

Also, please do remember that it is _not_ in itself illegal to
distribute software that embodies someone else's patent.  It's only
illegal to do so without the owner's consent.  If this is _not_ the case
in some country, then everyone in that country needs to stop using the
Linux kernel right now, because - to pick a trivial example - RCU is
definitely patented.

I mean, basically you're asserting that - for whatever bizarro country
you're talking about - not only can you not waive your own property
rights, but other people can be sued for accepting your waiver at face
value.  Now, there do exist a handful of countries that haven't accepted
the Berne Convention, but they tend to be countries with an even weaker
notion of copyright...

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org 
 wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
   The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you 
   can
   infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
  
   [1] = means you can't do it with GPL
 
  It explicitly grant this right.
 
  What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without 
  the right.
 
  And you have no right!

 If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
 you or you have the right to implement this

 Where exactly is the difference?

 In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in 
 some
 jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.

 In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.

 Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?

In which jurisdictions can somebody sue me because I infringe a US
Patent of a different company?
And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which
holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can
implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent
that is covered by the CP.

  Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get 
  a
  RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.

 Source?

 It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and the 
 FAQ
 instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.

I did read the FAQ and I could not find what you are referring to so I
asked. But ok lets quote the FAQ:

--
Q: Why does Microsoft obtain patents that apply to specifications to
which the Community Promise apply? Is that something that others do
too?

A: Microsoft invests a significant amount of resources in research and
development efforts. Like any other company that commits such
resources to creating new technologies, Microsoft seeks to protect its
investment by obtaining patents on the resulting innovations. At a
minimum, patents have value in defending Microsoft with regard to
patent infringement claims made by others. Many patent owners use
their patents defensively to protect themselves against third-party
law suits when they make their patents available under reasonable and
non-discriminatory (RAND or RAND-Z) terms and conditions (including
promises like the CP).
--

(The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)

How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything.
They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with.
There is no you need a RAND or RAND-Z license to implement the
standards that are covered by this promise, no matter how you read
it.

  You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between
   a) having a right
  or
   b) not being sued if you infringe
 

 So what? not being sued is the key here... (does not matter how they
 phrase it, see above)

 You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure
 you need a lawyer to clarification this.

 I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what
 is in the mouth of marketing agents.

 Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times
 more than a marketing agent's tongue.

No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want.
I don't trust MS so it must have holes, while blindly trusting
anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do
not exits in the text.
Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.

In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any
lawyer would interprets it the way you do.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Simo Sorce

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
 On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
   On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
 The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but 
 you can
 infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].

 [1] = means you can't do it with GPL
   
It explicitly grant this right.
   
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so 
without the right.
   
And you have no right!
   
   If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
   you or you have the right to implement this
   
   Where exactly is the difference?
  
  In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in 
  some
  jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
 
 At the risk of getting bogged down in details: My understanding is that,
 in such countries, in order to have any standing in such a case, the
 third party bringing the suit against you would have to have some claim
 to a grievance against you as a result of your illegal action against
 Microsoft.  I would be delighted to hear a scenario in which you think
 this could arise.

Unless you are a lawyer that specialize in multiple countries laws I'd
avoid commenting one way or another. Of course what you say up to this
point is reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's actually true :-)

 Also, please do remember that it is _not_ in itself illegal to
 distribute software that embodies someone else's patent.  It's only
 illegal to do so without the owner's consent.  If this is _not_ the case
 in some country, then everyone in that country needs to stop using the
 Linux kernel right now, because - to pick a trivial example - RCU is
 definitely patented.
 
 I mean, basically you're asserting that - for whatever bizarro country
 you're talking about - not only can you not waive your own property
 rights, but other people can be sued for accepting your waiver at face
 value.  Now, there do exist a handful of countries that haven't accepted
 the Berne Convention, but they tend to be countries with an even weaker
 notion of copyright...

... which has nothing to do with patents, or property rights ...

SIGH!

People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
actually comment on the promise?

I guess some organization like the SFLC might be willing to comment if
there is enough demand (and maybe they are already working on that).

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Bill McGonigle

On 07/07/2009 04:24 AM, drago01 wrote:

 http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx

Were there any announcements about their libraries?  This sounds like
clarification about which parts of .NET they *don't* plan to sue people
over.  It would have been easy enough to add more to this announcement.

With being tied up with ECMA and the various well-publicized efforts to
get RAND licenses on them, these aren't the parts most people were
worried about.

I promise not to beat you up on any week day that's a Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday or Friday.

Call me paranoid, but to me this says Wednesday is Win.Forms.  I'd be
happy to be proven wrong by a subsequent press release - then Fedora
[project,users] only need worry about whether Microsoft should be
setting technical direction.

-Bill

-- 
Bill McGonigle, Owner   Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC  Home: 603.448.1668
http://www.bfccomputing.com/Cell: 603.252.2606
Twitter, etc.: bill_mcgonigle   Page: 603.442.1833
Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com
Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/
VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

(Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my 
e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)


Simo Sorce wrote:

People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
actually comment on the promise?

I guess some organization like the SFLC might be willing to comment if
there is enough demand (and maybe they are already working on that).


Um... really? You mean they haven't, already?

GIYF:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclientie=utf-8oe=utf-8q=sflc+microsoft+patent+promise

(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to 
the same OSP, and even so, given the opinion on how poorly OOXML is 
covered, I doubt M$ would do anything to make the Mono/C#/CLI situation 
appreciably better.)


Oh, and drago01:

I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].


I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they 
sure don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.


Next time, either check that 5 seconds of googling doesn't make you look 
like you don't know what you are talking about, or else point out why 
said googling does not invalidate your point :-).


--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

Note: this is my last email on this thread

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:55:15PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
   What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so 
   without the right.
  
   And you have no right!
 
  If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
  you or you have the right to implement this
 
  Where exactly is the difference?
 
  In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in 
  some
  jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
 
  In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.
 
  Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?
 
 In which jurisdictions can somebody sue me because I infringe a US
 Patent of a different company?

Who told you only US patents are involved?

 And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which
 holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can
 implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent
 that is covered by the CP.

Yes, you're possibly doing something illegal, in the US it's called
patent infringement.

They just promised (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to sue 
you.

   Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to 
   get a
   RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
 
  Source?
 
  It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and 
  the FAQ
  instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.
 
 I did read the FAQ and I could not find what you are referring to so I
 asked. But ok lets quote the FAQ:
 
 --
 Q: Why does Microsoft obtain patents that apply to specifications to
 which the Community Promise apply? Is that something that others do
 too?
 
 A: Microsoft invests a significant amount of resources in research and
 development efforts. Like any other company that commits such
 resources to creating new technologies, Microsoft seeks to protect its
 investment by obtaining patents on the resulting innovations. At a
 minimum, patents have value in defending Microsoft with regard to
 patent infringement claims made by others. Many patent owners use
 their patents defensively to protect themselves against third-party
 law suits when they make their patents available under reasonable and
 non-discriminatory (RAND or RAND-Z) terms and conditions (including
 promises like the CP).
 --
 
 (The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)
 
 How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything.

Two things:

 1) they told so in several TC that analysed MS-OOXML, and even *promised*
to bring these terms to the TCs. Guess what? The promise was worthless.

they *promised* to get these terms to some companies. Where are the
terms? Microsoft doesn't even answer anymore.

and

 2) Because, as the *promise* quite clearly tells you so:

No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall
be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion,
estoppel, or otherwise.

Since they don't give you a license (just promise not to sue) you haven't
got any right. The FAQ subtly reveals there's RAND or RAND-Z terms, and tries
to fool you into believing not suing == granting rights

In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.

 They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with.

You think filing software patents is correct? It may be legal in the US and
a few other countries, but while filing a few software patents in the US
may be viewed as a defense strategy in a software patent infected country,
filing them by the thousands, even in countries where they're invalid, but
you'll still have to pay possibly hundreds of thousands of Euros to prove
that.

  I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what
  is in the mouth of marketing agents.
 
  Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times
  more than a marketing agent's tongue.
 
 No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want.
 I don't trust MS so it must have holes, while blindly trusting
 anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do
 not exits in the text.

And I don't see the point of scorning someone by implying they blindly
mistrust Microsoft. It's not blind mistrust, the reality is filled with
enough fishy things to give the benefit of doubt. Proof is needed.

 Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.
 
 In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any
 lawyer would interprets it the way you do.

Funny enough we tried to get a lawyer team to analyse this problem in Portugal.

Microsoft, as president of the TC, chose the firm (a firm they have ties with,
how un-surpriseing), and you know what they did? They acknowledged our question,
decided to invent a new question, and then answered this new question.

You know what

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
(Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my
e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)

Simo Sorce wrote:

People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
actually comment on the promise?

I guess some organization like the SFLC might be willing to comment if
there is enough demand (and maybe they are already working on that).

Um... really? You mean they haven't, already?

GIYF:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclientie=utf-8oe=utf-8q=sflc+microsoft+patent+promise

(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the
same OSP, and even so, given the opinion on how poorly OOXML is covered, I
doubt M$ would do anything to make the Mono/C#/CLI situation appreciably
better.)

No its not the same Open Specification Promise != Community Promise

Oh, and drago01:

I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].

I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they sure
don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.

I stated serval times that I am not a laywer and therefore can be
wrong, than Riu stated that we don't need laywers because his point is
obivious (to him).
Besides my personal opinion to this is I don't give a damn about
software patents (and they are void here anyway).
But unfortunatly the US laws suck, and that won't change anytime soon.

Next time, either check that 5 seconds of googling doesn't make you look
like you don't know what you are talking about, or else point out why said
googling does not invalidate your point :-).

When providing links make sure that they cover the same topic ;)
Because than _you_ look that you have no idea what you are talking about.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

drago01 wrote:

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

(Thank you.)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclientie=utf-8oe=utf-8q=sflc+microsoft+patent+promise

No its not the same Open Specification Promise != Community Promise

...but there are certainly people weighing in on both.

Hmm, I thought I'd seen an actual statement from SFLC on the CP, but now
I can't find it again. Still most of what I saw is others that feel the
CP is no better than the OSP (some even said it is worse). Certainly
some of the same points apply.

Oh, and drago01:

I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].

I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they sure
don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.

I stated serval times that I am not a laywer and therefore can be
wrong, than Riu stated that we don't need laywers because his point is
obivious (to him).

Fair enough. The point was just that your argument is better if 5
seconds of google doesn't appear to refute it. It was just a friendly
suggest on 'how to make a better argument'.

But unfortunatly the US laws suck, and that won't change anytime soon.

Unfortunate, yes :-).

When providing links make sure that they cover the same topic ;)
Because than _you_ look that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Touché. (Though my point was partly the obvious google results.) Still,
you are right. How about these?

http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-microsofts-promises-for-ever.html
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/07/is-it-enough/

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:

 And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which
 holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can
 implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent
 that is covered by the CP.

 Yes, you're possibly doing something illegal, in the US it's called
 patent infringement.

 They just promised (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to sue 
 you.

So what about the patents owned by redhat?
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
It's also just promise.

You claim that this is a worthless statement, but others (including MS
here) claim that this is a legal binding document.
So we need a lawyer or better a court decision to clear this up.


 (The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)

 How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything.

 Two things:

  1) they told so in several TC that analysed MS-OOXML, and even *promised*
    to bring these terms to the TCs. Guess what? The promise was worthless.

Only because it is called promise in the sense we will bring this
terms it is not legaly binding.
This document is different.

    they *promised* to get these terms to some companies. Where are the
    terms? Microsoft doesn't even answer anymore.

See above.

 and

  2) Because, as the *promise* quite clearly tells you so:

        No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall
        be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion,
        estoppel, or otherwise.

Yes but we are talking about the things stated here.

 Since they don't give you a license (just promise not to sue) you haven't
 got any right. The FAQ subtly reveals there's RAND or RAND-Z terms, and tries
 to fool you into believing not suing == granting rights

 In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
 promise down the drain.

Same applies to Redhat.

 They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with.

 You think filing software patents is correct? It may be legal in the US and
 a few other countries, but while filing a few software patents in the US
 may be viewed as a defense strategy in a software patent infected country,
 filing them by the thousands, even in countries where they're invalid, but
 you'll still have to pay possibly hundreds of thousands of Euros to prove
 that.

Yes it is, even though I think that software patents are a stupid idea
and should go away, if the law allows you to fill patents it is broken
and needs fixing.
Not that companies that file patents are evil.
(Even RedHat owns and files softeware patents)

  I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what
  is in the mouth of marketing agents.
 
  Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times
  more than a marketing agent's tongue.

 No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want.
 I don't trust MS so it must have holes, while blindly trusting
 anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do
 not exits in the text.

 And I don't see the point of scorning someone by implying they blindly
 mistrust Microsoft. It's not blind mistrust, the reality is filled with
 enough fishy things to give the benefit of doubt. Proof is needed.

 someone by implying they blindly mistrust Microsoft

I never said that but the opposite while blindly trusting anybody is wrong.
Which implies do not trust anybody unless you have a reason.
But trying to come up with any unproven statements isn't right either.
And again whether this is worth anything has to be judged by a lawyer.

 Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.

 In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any
 lawyer would interprets it the way you do.

 Funny enough we tried to get a lawyer team to analyse this problem in 
 Portugal.

No you did not it was a _different_ (but similar) case.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono


Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.


...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it 
isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$ 
have got to be pretty high ;-).


More likely, M$ sells the patents to a puppet company that has made no 
such promise. Said company happily starts bringing lawsuits.


Hey, they've already got Myhrvold (Intellectual Ventures) to sell to, 
and OIN is useless against a tro^H NPE.


--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono


drago01 wrote:

So what about the patents owned by redhat?
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
It's also just promise.


True. However anything RH shipped as GPLv3 that uses a RH patent is no 
longer a mere promise, it's a legally binding patent license. Something 
that has yet to come out of M$.


(The same can be argued for GPLv2, just that v3 has a better license 
in this regard.)


...and I suspect you'd have more luck getting an actual license from RH 
if you asked for one.



In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.


Same applies to Redhat.


The question to ask here is how this applies when an actual license has 
been granted, as in the case of distributing GPLv3 software. (Especially 
as I don't see irrevocable in Section 11... or, indeed, anything about 
the term of the GPLv3 implicit patent license. Hmm, this is actually a 
good question at first glance.)


--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

2009-07-07 Thread Sam Varshavchik


Matthew Woehlke writes:


Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.


...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it 
isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$ 
have got to be pretty high ;-).


If you want legal advice, pay a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Microsoft's statement is what's generally called covenant not to sue. When 
someone buys a business, they buy all the business's assets and liabilities. 
A covenant not to sue is generally considered a liability, and the covenant 
not to sue does not get to repudiated just by the virtue of the company 
changing owners.


Having said all that -- I agree that MSFT's promise is not to be given much 
weight. If MSFT desired to sue someone, I'm sure they'd come up with some 
way to claim that their cause of action falls outside the scope of this 
covenant. They have plenty of money to pay lawyers to invent creative 
arguments, and it will be up to the defendants to prove that MSFT's covenant 
applies, in their defense. Even better, they'll just get sued for some other 
reason, like MSFT claiming that they're violating some patent in Windows, 
and it's just purely by accident, heavens to betsy, that they have a bunch 
of Mono-based products.


Nothing to see here, move along.



pgpOZtrszlIHV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono