On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 02:11:54PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> El mié, 13-08-2008 a las 13:48 +0200, Robert Millan escribió:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 01:36:44PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> > > It might be unnecessarily complex, yes. What about a C#-delegate-like
> > > approach? e.g.:
> > >
> > > function myhook() {
> > > save_env
> > > }
> >
> > While in the process of designing interfaces, finding inspiration in patent
> > encumbered technologies is one of the last things I would recommend.
> While parts of the .NET class library most certainly contain patented
> code, the C# language itself is part of an ECMA specification, and thus
> the delegate _syntax_ (not the actual implementation) would be safe to
> use... Or so I think - patents make my mind spin T_T
Being part of ECMA isn't any garantee of not being patent encumbered. ECMA
will happily bless any specification you give them, even if it contains
technical flaws, provided it's accompanied by enough money (OOXML is a good
example of this).
Last I checked, Microsoft had different patent policies for parts inside
the spec than for parts outside of it, but they're both written in complex
wording with lots of requisites that makes it very difficult to be sure the
code will be free for every user.
Since there isn't any real benefit for us in using their technology as a
reference, I believe it's much better to avoid the problem altogether by
not doing so.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
