Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Nov 2006 21:56 UTC
Mono Project Some interesting bits of his blog entry in which De Icaza replies to emails he has received concerning the Novell-Microsoft deal: "I do not know of any patents which Mono infringes. (...) Although I did not take part of the actual negotiations, and was only told about this deal less than a week before the announcement, I had been calling for a long time for a collaboration between Microsoft and Open Source and Microsoft and Novell. (...) Similar deals have been done in the past, in 1997 Microsoft signed a similar deal with Apple, and Apple used that agreement and the incoming monies to turn the company around. Sun signed a similar agreement with Microsoft in 2004, which at the time I realized enabled Sun to ship Mono on Solaris (which we already supported at that time)."
Thread beginning with comment 178941
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Get a Life
Member since:
2006-01-01

Mono certainly does not predate the efforts to create free implementations of the JVM and class libraries. The "languages" in .NET are not "GPL," not that that makes a great deal of sense anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 3

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Mono certainly does not predate the efforts to create free implementations of the JVM and class libraries. The "languages" in .NET are not "GPL," not that that makes a great deal of sense anyway.

Since your complete answer didn't made any sense at all, I feel the need to respond.
1. Mono development was serious from the start. Look at where it gotten in so short time. While Java stack predates Mono for a long time, development wasn't going anywhere. It only became serious in last year or two. Or how do you explain, mono got ahead of free Java so quickly? I was waiting for free Java to get usable for a long time.
2. I said "language or platform". Mono is a platform. And every language has to have compiler.

Reply Parent Score: 1