зеркало из https://github.com/mono/mail-archives.git
145 строки
6.6 KiB
HTML
145 строки
6.6 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
|
|
<HTML>
|
|
<HEAD>
|
|
<TITLE> [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</TITLE>
|
|
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
|
|
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:lupus%40ximian.com">
|
|
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
|
|
|
|
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016313.html">
|
|
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016337.html">
|
|
</HEAD>
|
|
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
|
|
<H1>[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</H1>
|
|
<B>Paolo Molaro
|
|
</B>
|
|
<A HREF="mailto:lupus%40ximian.com"
|
|
TITLE="[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?">lupus@ximian.com
|
|
</A><BR>
|
|
<I>Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:06:23 +0200</I>
|
|
<P><UL>
|
|
<LI> Previous message: <A HREF="016313.html">[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
|
|
US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</A></li>
|
|
<LI> Next message: <A HREF="016337.html">[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
|
|
US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</A></li>
|
|
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
|
|
<a href="date.html#16311">[ date ]</a>
|
|
<a href="thread.html#16311">[ thread ]</a>
|
|
<a href="subject.html#16311">[ subject ]</a>
|
|
<a href="author.html#16311">[ author ]</a>
|
|
</LI>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
<HR>
|
|
<!--beginarticle-->
|
|
<PRE>On 10/11/03 Miguel de Icaza wrote:
|
|
><i> > That's out of line and you should apologise. It was based on a careful
|
|
</I>><i> > analysis of the API's and other similar API's in the past (MFC of 10 years
|
|
</I>><i> > ago does everything that you listed as "massive departures").
|
|
</I>><i> >
|
|
</I>><i> > In any case, it has already been made clear in this thread that we are hedging
|
|
</I>><i> > our bets: we'll switch to Qt# or Gtk# in a heartbeat should Microsoft
|
|
</I>><i> > disagree with our analysis. What? We can't have it both ways?
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i> Nobody said that. All I am saying is that Norbert's position on
|
|
</I>><i> `everything is tainted except ECMA and Windows.Forms' is wrong. Either
|
|
</I>><i> everything above ECMA might be tainted or none of it is. Thats what you
|
|
</I>><i> cant have both ways.
|
|
</I>
|
|
Me, speaking as a free software developer.
|
|
|
|
There's more. Code based on ECMA is safe _only_ from the possible MS
|
|
patents. Like any other piece of software, it is not safe against patent
|
|
claims by other companies (and I guess Sun, IBM, HP, Intel have more
|
|
patents in the area than MS will ever have), unless they are bound by
|
|
other ECMA rules.
|
|
So, saying that S.W.Forms is not possibly tainted by patents is
|
|
misleading. Even if a review has been done, it doesn't matter one bit:
|
|
we (mono developers) believe it is not patentable anyway. But we're not,
|
|
unfortunately, the people that decide that, it is the US patent office.
|
|
|
|
Obviously the issue is not limited to SWF or, indeed, to implementing
|
|
the .net framework with free software: the issue is software patents
|
|
and there are a number of ways mono is going to deal with them.
|
|
|
|
First, for example, in a proactive manner by fighting the introduction of sw
|
|
patents in Europe: I know many mono developers participated in the recent
|
|
push at the european parliament to limit software patentability. We also
|
|
obscured the mono home page to support the effort. We plan to do the
|
|
same if any such initiative is pursued by the US citizens. We hope the
|
|
dotgnu people will do the same in the future as well.
|
|
|
|
Second, as detailed in our FAQ, we plan to:
|
|
(1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique
|
|
that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not
|
|
possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by
|
|
those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent
|
|
useless.
|
|
|
|
We welcome any help from DotGNU in these activities and our efforts, as
|
|
you know, are already available for DotGNU to use, since we publish our
|
|
code with a license that permits that.
|
|
I also want to reiterate that, since the issue is not limited to the
|
|
.net framework, but to any software implementation, we will collaborate
|
|
with all the true efforts to limit sw patentability as we have done in the
|
|
past.
|
|
|
|
Rhys, Norbert, it's not clear from your mails what kind of collabaration you're
|
|
looking for. For example: would you want the large mono developer
|
|
community to do API reviews and patent searches as you've done for SWF?
|
|
I think that would be a massive waste of time and resources until an
|
|
actual patent is granted and someone tries to extort^Wclaim money for
|
|
it. Linus Torvalds says it better:
|
|
|
|
I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible
|
|
waste of time and (b) I don't want to know.
|
|
|
|
The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
|
|
you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly
|
|
infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you
|
|
just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.
|
|
|
|
(Well, except we won't fisically hit anyone:-)
|
|
I'd like better if programmers spent their time designing, documenting
|
|
and implementing code than wasting time on patent searches: it is
|
|
dangerous both for their health and for their possibility to contribute
|
|
untainted code.
|
|
On the other hand, if you want to attract non-technical people to the
|
|
effort, I think the best way is to join existing anti-patents efforts in
|
|
the US, Europe or wherever you live, for example, see
|
|
<A HREF="http://swpat.ffii.org/.">http://swpat.ffii.org/.</A>
|
|
|
|
If you have other forms of collaboration in mind, please elaborate:
|
|
we're certainly going to consider any effort that is legal, effective
|
|
and based on facts.
|
|
|
|
lupus
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
<A HREF="mailto:lupus@debian.org">lupus@debian.org</A> debian/rules
|
|
<A HREF="mailto:lupus@ximian.com">lupus@ximian.com</A> Monkeys do it better
|
|
|
|
</PRE>
|
|
<!--endarticle-->
|
|
<HR>
|
|
<P><UL>
|
|
<!--threads-->
|
|
<LI> Previous message: <A HREF="016313.html">[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
|
|
US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</A></li>
|
|
<LI> Next message: <A HREF="016337.html">[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
|
|
US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</A></li>
|
|
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
|
|
<a href="date.html#16311">[ date ]</a>
|
|
<a href="thread.html#16311">[ thread ]</a>
|
|
<a href="subject.html#16311">[ subject ]</a>
|
|
<a href="author.html#16311">[ author ]</a>
|
|
</LI>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
</body></html>
|