зеркало из https://github.com/mono/mail-archives.git
183 строки
8.6 KiB
HTML
183 строки
8.6 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:2a5gjx302%40sneakemail.com">
|
|
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
|
|
|
|
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016314.html">
|
|
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016378.html">
|
|
</HEAD>
|
|
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
|
|
<H1>[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives
|
|
to the US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</H1>
|
|
<B>Jonathan Gilbert
|
|
</B>
|
|
<A HREF="mailto:2a5gjx302%40sneakemail.com"
|
|
TITLE="[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives
|
|
to the US-patent-endangered APIs?">2a5gjx302@sneakemail.com
|
|
</A><BR>
|
|
<I>Mon, 13 Oct 2003 02:12:00</I>
|
|
<P><UL>
|
|
<LI> Previous message: <A HREF="016314.html">[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
|
|
US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</A></li>
|
|
<LI> Next message: <A HREF="016378.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#16318">[ date ]</a>
|
|
<a href="thread.html#16318">[ thread ]</a>
|
|
<a href="subject.html#16318">[ subject ]</a>
|
|
<a href="author.html#16318">[ author ]</a>
|
|
</LI>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
<HR>
|
|
<!--beginarticle-->
|
|
<PRE>Okay, this whole thing is just silly. I don't want to be seen as taking
|
|
sides, but allow me to paraphrase this with whatever objectivity I can,
|
|
based on what I've read (in some cases only lightly skimmed) from the list:
|
|
|
|
<Norbert> It is possible to demonstrate that Windows.Forms is just a thin
|
|
wrapper of old work.
|
|
<Miguel> Well, maybe, though I disagree. Where is the evidence for this?
|
|
Note that making the claim publicly without evidence could be said to be
|
|
downright deceitful...
|
|
<Rhys> YOU CALL US DECEITFUL?! What manner of rudeness is this?! I demand
|
|
that you apologize immediately!
|
|
<Miguel> Well, uh, can you show us any documentation that supports your claim?
|
|
<Rhys> YOU ARE ASKING ME TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT WE ARE DECEITFUL?! I am
|
|
HIGHLY offended!
|
|
<Miguel> The fact of the matter is that we have to share information for
|
|
this to proceed. It cannot be based on word of mouth alone.
|
|
<Rhys> Surely Novell is not going to just release all legal research done
|
|
in this area! Why should we do this for you, after you have called us
|
|
deceitful?!
|
|
<Miguel> I never did call you deceitful. However, you DID claim that
|
|
System.Windows.Forms is unpatentable, and while I'm sure you can back up
|
|
your claim, this cannot proceed publicly until this information is shared.
|
|
<Rhys> I wish I could give you documentation, but in fact I didn't make
|
|
any. I read over the API many times and convinced myself that
|
|
System.Windows.Forms is MFC in disguise, but I did not videotape myself
|
|
doing this. I STILL HAVEN'T RECEIVED MY APOLOGY! We have decided we aren't
|
|
going to help you.
|
|
|
|
If it seems that Rhys is acting childishly, it is because that's how it
|
|
seems to me. Legal collaboration should be done with an intellectual
|
|
approach. Such petty issues as repeatedly demanding an apology for a
|
|
POSSIBLE implication of one of Miguel's statements do not seem to be
|
|
appropriate behaviour for someone who wishes to make an impenetrable legal
|
|
argument to patent lawyers, and it certainly doesn't befit an adult
|
|
discussion on a mailing list such as this.
|
|
|
|
I have no wish to receive flame, but if you are truly willing to "let
|
|
bygones be bygones", then Rhys, please let your (incorrect, as far as I can
|
|
tell) intepretation of Miguel's statement be bygone, along with the ensuing
|
|
apparent necessity for an apology. Miguel was not saying that you were
|
|
acting deceitfully; rather, he was saying that continuing on and making a
|
|
public claim (more public than the mailing list, say) that such
|
|
documentation exists when it does not would be not only deceitful but
|
|
legally insecure.
|
|
|
|
And this one is just my opinion (and possibly my limited understanding of
|
|
the issue), but why would beneficial legal information be withheld as
|
|
proprietary information when its release would be beneficial both for the
|
|
community and for the project's well-being? If Mono succeeds in the
|
|
business world, it could very well become a future icon of Novell. Today,
|
|
we know Novell for NetWare and its directory services, but perhaps 10 years
|
|
from now, Novell will be known as "the company behind Mono", and legal
|
|
research indicating that the parts of .NET used by Mono are unpatentable
|
|
would most surely be a boost to this project. It would also allow the open
|
|
source approach to be applied to the legal research; supposing there were
|
|
any errors, surely they would be found and, if possible, corrected, well
|
|
before that legal research would be used in a courtroom to defend Mono's
|
|
very existence.
|
|
|
|
I'll admit that the tone of this e-mail is a rant, but I believe the
|
|
message is important: Miguel has been trying to promote active and open
|
|
cooperation, with effective bidirectional flow of information, and Rhys,
|
|
you have been primarily focusing on getting an apology for the inferred
|
|
accusation of deceit. Don't let a personal issue stop a group/business
|
|
collaboration. Both Mono and DotGNU are excellent projects, and many people
|
|
are putting a huge amount of work into them; don't sacrifice that work to
|
|
an indignation and a misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
Just another couple of pennies,
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Gilbert
|
|
|
|
At 12:37 PM 12/10/2003 +1000, you wrote:
|
|
><i>On Sunday 12 October 2003 12:11 pm, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>>><i> > And I suppose you would just turn over internal Ximian/Novell legal
|
|
</I>>><i> > advice and developer discussions should I ask for it? Nice try to avoid
|
|
</I>>><i> > the apology.
|
|
</I>>><i>
|
|
</I>>><i> Rhys, I am not the one making claims that `Windows.Forms has no patent
|
|
</I>>><i> violations', you are the one who claimed that you had done a careful
|
|
</I>>><i> study.
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>The result of which I provided in my last message. What I didn't provide
|
|
</I>was
|
|
><i>the days and days of looking through the API convincing ourselves that it
|
|
</I>was
|
|
><i>just MFC in a different sheep's clothing. Sorry, but I don't have a time
|
|
</I>><i>machine to go back in time and video myself looking at documentation.
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>>><i> What I said is reflected on our FAQ: we dont believe that *any* of it is
|
|
</I>>><i> patentable.
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>And I agree. Norbert wants us to be more cautious in areas for which
|
|
</I>there is
|
|
><i>no clear existing API's that we can point at and say "it's just a change in
|
|
</I>><i>material". If it was up to me, I would say "who cares about patents".
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>We've hedged our bets on the GUI toolkits. Now it is time to hedge our bets
|
|
</I>><i>on other parts of the system. There is nothing deceptive about that. It is
|
|
</I>><i>prudent policy in the current legal environment.
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>>><i> For us to cooperate in this delicate matter, I must trust you, and so
|
|
</I>>><i> far you are not giving me any sense of security.
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>If you won't accept us at our word, then we've already lost the trust.
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>You can consider the offer of collaboration withdrawn. Call us when you
|
|
</I>have
|
|
><i>something to offer other than a replay of the last hundred flame wars.
|
|
</I>We're
|
|
><i>willing to let bygones be bygones. When are you going to do that?
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>Cheers,
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>Rhys.
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>_______________________________________________
|
|
</I>><i>Mono-list maillist - <A HREF="mailto:Mono-list@lists.ximian.com">Mono-list@lists.ximian.com</A>
|
|
</I>><i><A HREF="http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list">http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list</A>
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>><i>
|
|
</I>
|
|
</PRE>
|
|
<!--endarticle-->
|
|
<HR>
|
|
<P><UL>
|
|
<!--threads-->
|
|
<LI> Previous message: <A HREF="016314.html">[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
|
|
US-patent-endangered APIs?
|
|
</A></li>
|
|
<LI> Next message: <A HREF="016378.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#16318">[ date ]</a>
|
|
<a href="thread.html#16318">[ thread ]</a>
|
|
<a href="subject.html#16318">[ subject ]</a>
|
|
<a href="author.html#16318">[ author ]</a>
|
|
</LI>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
</body></html>
|