Mono Position Statement

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:32 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:

> I think it's best to listen to a number of opinions and then consider
> how your going to deal with the problem. I do appreciate that liblame
> (mp3 decoding) isn't included because of patent threats _and_ because
                                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Acatel have been known to go on the war path with them, but we do seem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> to have one rule for media codecs and another rule for programmer
> options. Why not step on everyone's toes if we think we can just ignore
> parts of the law we don't like.
> 
I have underlined the key part of your sentence.

> On the other hand perhaps it's because there is a reasonable legal
> threat because no one can seem to find the RAND license from Microsoft
> 
Really?

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%
20PATENT/ECMA-334%20&%20335/2001ga-123%20&%202002ga-003.pdf

Also:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott at canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20090701/2c11805e/attachment.pgp