Re: [SyncEvolution] future direction for SyncEvolution (was: Re: OpenSync: fragmentation is harmful)

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 09:39 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: I don't find it particularly interesting. It merely states explicitly, what is implicit in most cases. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in that code which is patentable. It's all really trivial stuff, and anyone attempting to file or enforce a patent on it would be liable for criminal prosecution for fraud. So although I've heard vague rumours about patents, if they *do* exist they must be on the server side, or something that this code doesn't do. It isn't a full implementation of 100% of the ActiveSync spec, after all. We don't need that. As an engineer, it would be unwise for me to actively *seek* such problems, as you know. -- dwmw2