Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Nov 2010 19:53 UTC
Permalink for comment 450827
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 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
The code of all of Mono is free software ... but there is no patent grant associated with its license.
The technology of most of .NET is a standard (e.g. CLI and C#) is able to be implemented by anyone, and it comes under Microsoft's open Specification Promise. These parts of Mono are not an issue.
However, there are indeed parts of .NET, which are implemented in Mono, which do NOT fall under Microsoft's open Specification Promise. These parts are Microsoft proprietary technology. These parts of Mono are an issue.
Releasing the code for implementations of these parts under a free software license does not mean that they are free software. Microsoft has made no promise whatsoever not to sue over these non-Windows implemntations of its proprietary technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asp.net
Type Web application framework
License Proprietary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADO.NET
Type Software framework
License MS-EULA, BCL under Microsoft Reference License
Microsoft Reference License is a non-open-source, non-free license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reference_License#Non-Open_S...
These are all plain, simple, verifiable facts. There is no smear campaign here.
Edited 2010-11-23 00:20 UTC