Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 13:35 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Thread beginning with comment 386044
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Call It Like You See It
by Ed W. Cogburn on Fri 25th Sep 2009 09:50
in reply to "RE[2]: Call It Like You See It"
Mono is an open implementation of MS's spec. They didn't ASK permission, they just did it.
The GP's wording is misleading.
Samba is an open implementation of a CLOSED interface. They didn't bother to ask, because they knew what the answer would be (no).
Mono (except for Winforms) is an open implementation of an OPEN standard (ECMA). They didn't need to ask, because MS can't stop anyone from implementing an ECMA standard.
As Mono will always be 2 steps behind .NET, I'm sure MS doesn't even care about the Winforms implementation, not only because nearly everyone using Winforms is really targeting Windows anyway, and because Mono's Winforms support will always be the part that is furthest behind .NET, and finally because Mono's existence also gives them political cover (see judge, look at Mono, we do play nice with those FOSS guys).
So if that makes Samba ok, it makes Mono ok as well.
Samba was never OK with MS, after all, they used legal action to try and stop Samba development later. So no, these are 2 completely different situations.





Member since:
2006-09-26
Great answer except one more thing. Samba is an open implementation of MS's spec. They didn't ASK permission, they just did it. It was cleanly reverse engineered and "legal"...
Great answer except one more thing. Mono is an open implementation of MS's spec. They didn't ASK permission, they just did it. It is cleanly reverse engineered and "legal"...
So if that makes Samba ok, it makes Mono ok as well.