[ut3] hey

[Slavik Goltser]

are you suggesting that steam held up ut3?

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ryan Barton <debian.moment at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 4, 2010 1:08 PM, "Daniel Eckl" <daniel.eckl at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> I'm still puzzled about why somebody would think .NET could be
> involved. If you want to run .NET code on Linux, you have to go for
> mono anyway. Well of course, one might think that Microsoft then could
> argue that mono is infringing some of their patents, and that's why
> the port is not possible, but that's rather doubtable, because in this
> case MS could have killed mono for good long time ago. Okay, dunno
> what deals Miguel de Icaza or Novell might have with Microsoft, but I
> can't imagine that there are hidden unbelievable secrets.
>
> Patents more often are in techniques like physics engine (havok,
> physix, etc) or voice middleware (vivox, voiceage) or such. If the
> patent owner refuses to do the port and refuses to give
> permission/docs to you to port it yourself, then you're busted, no
> matter how good you can develop.
>
> 2010/9/4 Валерий <jazzvoid at gmail.com>:
>
> > I don't really understand what features of .NET could be removed from
> server > and hardcoded in cl...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ut3 mailing list
> ut3 at icculus.org
> http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/ut3
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/ut3/attachments/20100905/9d5f44a1/attachment.htm>