[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Re: the .NET API patent issue
From: |
Rhys Weatherley |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Re: the .NET API patent issue |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:26:30 +1000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.3 |
On Friday 10 October 2003 08:48 pm, Marcus wrote:
> So US citizens are not welcome to assist to Pnet?
Certainly they are. There are plenty of things that are outside the scope of
patents or potential patents. All of ECMA, for a start. The non-Winforms
GUI toolkits (Qt#, Gtk#, Xsharp, etc). The C compiler and its support
routines. JVM backends. And much, much, more.
I feel that it is best that DotGNU take a two-pronged approach to patent
avoidance.
The first prong is to build all of the MS API's, using stock-standard,
non-tricky algorithms. This is needed for compatibility and for migrating
Windows programmers away from dependence upon Microsoft's .NET
implementation.
During this, all major features will be marked up with #if's in the code. The
#if's are primarily for stripping the size of the system down for embedded
platforms. But they are also useful should Microsoft take issue with some
feature - the #if's will tell us exactly what code to remove upon reception
of a cease-and-desist.
The second prong is to develop completely different ways of doing similar
things. e.g. DGEE instead of ASP.NET, MACS instead of Passport, Qt#/Gtk#
instead of Winforms, etc. Any core functionality that DotGNU requires should
be rooted in ECMA-only API's (e.g. Xsharp works just fine in ECMA_COMPAT mode
because it avoids non-ECMA API's).
Norbert's message primarily refers to the second prong, but some people seem
to think that we should cease the first prong. We shouldn't. Absent a cease
and desist letter, we should keep moving along, making contingency plans but
otherwise not letting Microsoft scare us.
Cheers,
Rhys.