Silverlight 1 is a Javascript based - version 2 will support the.NET CLR.
If all you want to do is play videos with cool effects, then Silverlight 1 will do it for you, but for anything else you are probably better of waiting for version 2.
Jason clearly states he is not a lawer. Then isn't he provided with legal advise? All it takes is a legal department he can call and ask them to explain to Jamie (and/or his legal representive) what it is Microsoft thinks they are in violation of, and hear the counter argument.
If the counter arguments are good, Microsoft's lawer would know they would loose in court and say "you are right, sorry for the inconvinience. Please be adviced we will most likely change the license agreement to specifically disallow this for future releases as it was never our intention this should have been allowed in the first place".
If the Microsoft lawyer can counter the counter arguments, then Jamie (and/or legal advise) could simply say "you are right, sorry for the inconvinience, the feature will be removed".
If they do not agree, then they will go to court as this is the obvious place for resolving something like this if the parts can't agree.
But apparently Jason only has access to "layer attack dogs" who are unable to help resolve issues and respond to anything with C&D letters. I am just happy I am not Jason, it must really suck to work for a company who can't provide even basic legal advice to it's employees dealing with outside contacts.
There is abselutely no problem sticking to your silver bullet....
Instead of choosing the right tool for the task, choose the right task for the tool.
This also ensures you don't waste your time with web development as there is no tool that is right for web development, just tools that suck slightly less than the others.:)
Slashdot Mirror
And that is how we ended up with the FTP over VOIP protocol.
Silverlight 1 is a Javascript based - version 2 will support the .NET CLR.
If all you want to do is play videos with cool effects, then Silverlight 1 will do it for you, but for anything else you are probably better of waiting for version 2.
Jason clearly states he is not a lawer. Then isn't he provided with legal advise? All it takes is a legal department he can call and ask them to explain to Jamie (and/or his legal representive) what it is Microsoft thinks they are in violation of, and hear the counter argument.
If the counter arguments are good, Microsoft's lawer would know they would loose in court and say "you are right, sorry for the inconvinience. Please be adviced we will most likely change the license agreement to specifically disallow this for future releases as it was never our intention this should have been allowed in the first place".
If the Microsoft lawyer can counter the counter arguments, then Jamie (and/or legal advise) could simply say "you are right, sorry for the inconvinience, the feature will be removed".
If they do not agree, then they will go to court as this is the obvious place for resolving something like this if the parts can't agree.
But apparently Jason only has access to "layer attack dogs" who are unable to help resolve issues and respond to anything with C&D letters. I am just happy I am not Jason, it must really suck to work for a company who can't provide even basic legal advice to it's employees dealing with outside contacts.
Well, they know the drill... after all, it was done to them with AJAX.
There is abselutely no problem sticking to your silver bullet.... Instead of choosing the right tool for the task, choose the right task for the tool. This also ensures you don't waste your time with web development as there is no tool that is right for web development, just tools that suck slightly less than the others. :)