Re: [SyncEvolution] future direction for SyncEvolution (was: Re: OpenSync: fragmentation is harmful)
Hello,
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:24 , David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 09:39 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> The patent disclaimer is interesting:
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.
I just had a talk with someone who did a (closed source) implementation of ActiveSync, and
learnt that while OS iplementations of ActiveSync are possible, it is totally closed and
subject to considerable license fees towards Microsoft for the server side.
Lukas