Mono Position Statement
Alex Launi
alex.launi at gmail.com
Wed Jul 1 17:28:23 BST 2009
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Martin Owens <doctormo at gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is that terrorism is not legal and the law is legal by
> definition (event patent law). Stamping one's foot and shouting that the
> world isn't fair won't make patents or the Rambus precedent go away.
>
This isn't as black and white as you're trying to make it sound. Patent law
is hazy at best.
> 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.
Not really comparable as the parts of the .NET stack that are dangerous are
parts that we don't use. This has been covered over and over and over. The
liblame patent is a *real* patent with *real* threat to users in countries
that respect such things, This is not the case with Mono. Not even a little
bit, because the parts of Mono that we're using *aren't* in immediate danger
of patent litigation. I say immediate danger because like all software,
they're in some kind of danger, but so is *every other* piece of software
running right now.
Can we please move on?
--
Alex Launi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20090701/fe22a389/attachment.htm
More information about the ubuntu-devel
mailing list