[Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful

[Teravus Ovares]

You might as well let us know what simulator you actually support here
while you're at it.  If it isn't OpenSimulator on .NET/Mono, that's
cool.

Best Regards

Teravus

On 4/5/09, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----
>
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:44:08 -0700
> To: linux-elitists at zgp.org
> Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] [Opensim-dev] Mono considered harmful
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
>
> Quoting Eugen Leitl (eugen at leitl.org):
>
> > IANAL, does below explanation by Adam hold water?
>
> You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's rubbish on two separate
> grounds.
>
> Yes, C# is an ECMA standard.  However:
>
> (1) It doesn't follow that ECMA International has any power to "forbid"
> patent holders from suing anyone over anything, let alone patent
> infringement.  I mean, think about it:  Does Adam think ECMA
> International is Microsoft Corporation's daddy?  That it owns 51% of the
> issued and outstanding common stock?  At worst, it might be possible for
> ECMA International to be very deeply disappointed in Microsoft's
> behaviour at some future point, decertify particular things, and
> otherwise carry out mild actions that _are_ within its power.
>
> More important:
>
> (2) In any event, ECMA International does not even _profess_ to
> disapprove of suing patent infringers.  It merely has a "Code of Conduct
> in Patent Matters"
> (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm), setting
> ECMA policy that the group will approve standards only if it has written
> assurances from applicant that applicable patents will be licensed on a
> "reasonable, non-discriminatory basis".  (That term of art is typically
> referred to as RAND terms.)
>
> Has Adam Frisby completely missed the last decade of standards warfare?
> The proprietary camp has repeatedly attempted to get the World Wide Web
> Consortium to start accepting "RAND" patent licensing, instead of
> requiring that applicants certify that covering patents will be
> _royalty-free_.  This arm-twisting failed, because of diligent focussing
> of attention from open source people.  W3C has stuck to its guns and
> insistend on royalty-free patent licensing.
>
> To spell it out:  "Reasonable" means obligatory patent royalty payments.
> Which means no open source implementations of those standards.
>
> And that is one reason why ECMA standards can be (and often are) issued
> on terms hostile to open source, whereas W3C standards are reliable and
> open-source-friendly.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> --
> Cheers,              Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers
> Rick Moen            Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;
> rick at linuxmafia.com  Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is
> McQ!  (4x80)         Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.
> _______________________________________________
> linux-elitists mailing list
> linux-elitists at zgp.org
> http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>