Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st May 2012 21:59 UTC
Permalink for comment 516671
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-02-02
Either way, why not just apply for a license from Microsoft just to know they are covered? I can just about promise that they are considering it and talking with Microsoft about the terms.
The problem with that decision is Visual Studio and C# are already a really good development platform for Windows Phone and having Android on C# would translate to a huge influx of Windows Phone applications and developers.
If Microsoft were smart they would be knocking on Google's door with "we promise not to sue you for using C#" papers because they would instantly become relevant in the mobile space again and many others in the industry might follow the Java to C# transition in the process.
The problem is software patents are incompatible with open source. Google wants to produce and open source operating system. Microsoft and Apple hates open source so they use software patents to drive open source out of the marketplace.