Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:28 UTC, submitted by irbis
Mono Project "Does GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's backflip over the Novell-Microsoft deal a few days ago mean that he has finally been convinced that he is on a one-way path to nowhere? Has he realised that his own project, Mono, is actually putting GNOME on a development track that can leave it open to patent claims one day? And has he realised that creating Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, (with which the company hopes to trump Adobe's Flash) is not going to advance the cause of free software one iota?"
Thread beginning with comment 304817
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Myths About ECMA 'Safety'
by segedunum on Thu 13th Mar 2008 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Myths About ECMA 'Safety'"
Member since:

Read our FAQ, you clearly did not do it.

You can't keep hiding behind the FAQ Miguel. Nowhere on the FAQ does it answer what was written. It merely perpetuates the myth that the ECMA implemented stuff is safe. It isn't the more you read.

Microsoft licenses the ECMA core under RAND-Z (Z stands for "Zero cost").

I'm sorry, I have to take a double-take there. Did you read what was written? Microsoft only licenses the ECMA core stuff because the ECMA requires them to if they want this to continue being a set of ECMA standards.


1. Microsoft does not have to license the core material under RAND terms forever. They can change this whenever they like. Most likely is that Microsoft will stop contributing to the ECMA core stuff, but they can cause a lot more damage and scaremongering if they feel like it.

2. The ECMA is powerless to stop Microsoft having patented material within their standards, or acquiring them later.

3. The ECMA is powerless to stop Microsoft revoking the RAND terms, other than cancelling the standards altogether.

4. The ECMA has no legal power at all to hold Microsoft to these RAND terms.

They're legitimate concerns which I think others have raised, but I haven't seen them follow through on.

Why do you think Microsoft licenses Rotor and various other things under strictly academic style licenses? They aren't going to let this go, and that's what they see anything that implements the ECMA core as - an academic project that helps them. Nothing more. In short, you just built your town on a piece of land with an awful lot of mine workings underneath. It might go tomorrow, next week or next year - but it will go.

Edited 2008-03-13 01:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3