Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 22:58 UTC, submitted by Alex Forster
Permalink for comment 436750
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-04
it should be avoided at all costs, out of fear that someday Microsoft would sue those that implemented and/or deployed that particular alternative implementation of .NET. This, despite the fact that Microsoft had submitted C# and the core of .NET to a standards body (ECMA, I think), and eventually signed a public legal committment to not sue over Mono.
But others warned that Java was as patent-encumbered as .NET, and that there was nothing preventing Sun from suing implementers of alternative JVMs (or quasi-JVMs) that might infringed on Java's patents. But the OSS folks dismissed those warnings, saying that Sun had earned their trust (unlike Microsoft), and so they could trust Sun to never sue over infringement of Java's patents.
So I just have to laugh at this turn of events.
The OSS community trusted Sun not to sue and distrusted Micrsoft not to sue. The OSS community made the wrong call, likely out of their hatred of Microsoft.
Edited 2010-08-14 01:13 UTC