[Mono-list] Re: C# class library
Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:22:17 +0200
we will of course have to check with our lawyers on this
matter, but let me first double-check to make sure that I
understand you correctly. Do I understand you correctly that
If we consider it to be an unacceptable legal risk to rely on
code that has been created by following a procedure like it is
outlined in that "How to Reverse Engineer and still be Legal"
article, then we should not rely on the Mono C# class library.
> X-From_: email@example.com Fri Aug 17 18:04:12 2001
> X-Envelope-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> X-Real-To: <email@example.com>
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> From: Miguel de Icaza <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: 17 Aug 2001 12:00:30 -0400
> > The C# class library is a key component for DotGNU and we cannot
> > afford to take the risk of relying on Mono's class library
> > unless we have very good reasons to believe that there are no
> > risks of the kind that some court might decide that we have to
> > stop using it. We really need to have evidence that this
> > library has been properly cleanroomed, otherwise we cannot rely
> > on it.
> I am not sure you understand exactly what cleanroom implementation
> Please read:
> Regarding DotGNU, I would suggest that you ask yourself `does our
> current code match the criteria in that mail?' and then ask yourself
> `Do we have a written record of our code being a clean room
> implementation?' and then ask yourself `Have we talked to our lawyers
> to understand the problem?'.