2009/7/7 Adam Jackson ajax@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.as...
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.
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.