3 ms·

I read somewhere that Microsoft's structured the patents/licenses in the .NET ecosystem in such a way as to make that kind of lawsuit unlikely. Can anyone comme

• jongalloway2 11y ago
  There are patent pledges and promises not to assert patents: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications Portions of .NET are under ECMA and ISO standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Infrastructure#Standardization_and_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Infrastructure... I think the most important part is that the new cross-platform .NET core framework, CLR, and compiler (Roslyn) are under permissive open source licenses (MIT for fx and clr, Apache 2 for Roslyn). You can see licenses and patent pledges here: https://github.com/dotnet/ https://github.com/dotnet/ Disclaimers: 1. Microsoft employee until they notice I'm hanging out on hacker news instead of replying to e-mails and "fix the glitch". 2. Not that smart and definitely not a lawyer.
  • fimoreth 11y ago
    > 1. Microsoft employee until they notice I'm hanging out on hacker news instead of replying to e-mails and "fix the glitch". Shh, they might find us.
    • mseri 11y ago
      Sounds like a fun job! Do you want to hire me? ;)
• carussell 11y ago
  Not true, at least not for the CLR and the framework itself. The crux of the Oracle v Google suit is basically, "It's Java, but it's not Java Java." If you take a look at the MS patent promise, the way it's authored specifically allows for the very same kind of suit. https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT
  • carussell 11y ago
    Somebody didn't like this comment. Please explain.