http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

[drago01]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
> (Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my
> e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)
>
> Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
>> People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
>> actually comment on the promise?
>>
>> I guess some organization like the SFLC might be willing to comment if
>> there is enough demand (and maybe they are already working on that).
>
> Um... really? You mean they haven't, already?
>
> GIYF:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=sflc+microsoft+patent+promise
>
> (Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the
> same OSP, and even so, given the opinion on how poorly OOXML is covered, I
> doubt M$ would do anything to make the Mono/C#/CLI situation appreciably
> better.)

No its not the same "Open Specification Promise" != "Community Promise"

> Oh, and drago01:
>>
>> I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].
>
> I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they sure
> don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.

I stated serval times that I am not a laywer and therefore can be
wrong, than Riu stated that we don't need laywers because his point is
obivious (to him).
Besides my personal opinion to this is "I don't give a damn about
software patents" (and they are void here anyway).
But unfortunatly the US laws suck, and that won't change anytime soon.

> Next time, either check that 5 seconds of googling doesn't make you look
> like you don't know what you are talking about, or else point out why said
> googling does not invalidate your point :-).

When providing links make sure that they cover the same topic ;)
Because than _you_ look that you have no idea what you are talking about.