Texas LinuxFest 2011 call for papers now open

[Lutger Blijdestijn]

Daniel Gibson wrote:

...
> 
> You can never be sure with patents, as someone else in another thread
> already pointed out: it's virtually impossible to write a piece of
> software that doesn't infringe patents.

Yes, it's like bugs: you can tell when you found one, but never know your 
software is free of it. (well, that is almost true)

> Of course, the situation is worse with Java (as seen in Oracle suing
> Google for using a Java-derivate in Android) and Mono (you never know if
> Microsoft will tolerate this forever. Even if they promised not to sue for
> current .net related patents, you never know about patents applying to
> features in future versions of .net).
> With D at least people still would have to find patents that are infringed
> - and even then the case isn't as clear as with Java/mono, where it's
> obvious that the Java/.net related patents are infringed.
> 
> So yes, the point that D may cause less trouble than Java/.net can be
> made, but you probably shouldn't claim that D doesn't infringe any
> patents, because you can't possibly know (nobody can, there are just too
> many software patents to check, even for big companies).
> 

Technically that is right, but I find it a bit of an understatement because 
every non trival software project has potential issues. With .NET and Java 
you *know* you have patent issues, with D any potential patent issue is a 
tragic mistake that still has to be proven to exist. Those are not on the 
same scale, so I wouldn't use the term 'less trouble' You also have 
ownership to take into account, I would rather trust Walter Bright not using 
submarine patent traps than MS or Oracle :)