On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 01:06:28PM +0100, Christoph Wilhelms wrote:
> > Surprise surprise...
> >
> > http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jsp?forum=61&thread=6843
>
> Does this surprise anybody ;)?
> M$ is the reason why I did not have intensively dealt with .NET - even it
> might be a good technology
Thank you Robert,
DRAFT2 is the best answer to M$ patenting policy!!!
Regards
Xavier
XP> -Message d'origine-
XP> De : Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
XP> Envoye : mercredi 12 fevrier 2003 14:37
XP> A : Jakarta General List
XP> Objet : Re: Microsoft att
No it does not mean we can't package things which use .NET. It means
practically nothing for us, perhaps validation that the other
VM/language is just as unfree and proprietary if not more so than ours.
Not sure I'd jump for joy at this though.
Christoph Wilhelms wrote:
Surprise surprise...
ht
The true question will be whether they plan to enfore the patents. Which, looking at
their track
record and anti-open source position, seems likely.
--- Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Surprise surprise...
>
> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jsp?forum=61&thread=6843
>
>
> Surprise surprise...
>
> http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jsp?forum=61&thread=6843
Does this surprise anybody ;)?
M$ is the reason why I did not have intensively dealt with .NET - even it
might be a good technology...
But what does that mean for us?
Do we have to unbundle the Ant .NET tasks (e
Surprise surprise...
http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jsp?forum=61&thread=6843
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
-
