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

[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