Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?

[Seth Johnson]

Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> 
> If you did such a careful study with your lawyer, would you mind
> publishing it so others can review it?  I assume you also did a careful
> study of every other API not included in ECMA, because it seems they are
> tained.  I would also like to see that one, it will be useful material
> to have.


It could just be that the lawyer said be safe by doing anything risky out of
the US.

Rhys and Norbert might be wrong about where to draw that line.  But I see
two different things here: 1) the question of drawing the line in an
incorrect place; and 2) the question of whether there might be different
stances toward patent-encumbered code affecting the discourse here.


> I disagree with your conclusion, you pointed out a careful study, I want
> to see the careful study to convince myself.  You are bringing a serious
> issue to the table to discuss, and I want nothing less than seriousness
> in this discussion.  And a visual-inspection-and-this-is-my-hunch is not
> a solid foundation to start from.


This is a matter of what principles guide Rhys's and Norbert's approaches. 
Alternatively, they might simply be wrong.  In that case, if I thought so
I'd just advise them that they might be taking too much of a chance.  Or if
I thought that patents were not a threat if I took a certain stance
regarding them, I might also just tell them that I personally find the
project uninteresting because of my stance.


> And I suspect that you guys have not done the study, and this is all
> hunch-based.


I think that the principles of any project that has fundamental
disagreements with the dispensation of justice in a particular country, will
usually appear conjectural to some observers.


Seth

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://www.boson2x.org/article.php3?id_article=21

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.