Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Nov 2010 19:53 UTC
Novell and Ximian We were well aware that Novell had put itself on the market, coyly winking at passers-by, displaying its... Assets. VMware was a contender, but things have played out entirely different: Novell has been bought by Attachmate Corp., with a Microsoft-led consortium buying unspecified intellectual property from Novell.
Thread beginning with comment 450892
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: rms was right- as usual
by segedunum on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 14:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: rms was right- as usual"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

The 'key parts of .NET' of which you speak are probably the winforms elements and other things that aren't part of the C# standard.

The 'C# standards' you speak of (which is probably the ECMA CLI specifications) are not exempt from being patented. If they are patented, now or in the future, the ECMA simply washes its hands of the standard.

In addition, the CLI specifications within the CLI give you pretty much nothing that allows you to get a practical and workable CLI implementation. Mono had to reverse engineer a certain amount.

Reply Parent Score: 3

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

"The 'key parts of .NET' of which you speak are probably the winforms elements and other things that aren't part of the C# standard.

The 'C# standards' you speak of (which is probably the ECMA CLI specifications) are not exempt from being patented. If they are patented, now or in the future, the ECMA simply washes its hands of the standard.

In addition, the CLI specifications within the CLI give you pretty much nothing that allows you to get a practical and workable CLI implementation. Mono had to reverse engineer a certain amount.
"
I know these things.
I said these things.
Why are you correcting me when I agree with you?
what in "You can be compliant or compatible" confused you?

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I said these things.

No you didn't.

Why are you correcting me when I agree with you?

You're trying to make distinctions between the ECMA standard (which you mistakenly call the C# standard) and the rest of '.Net' which isn't in there when there is really no such distinction of safety. It is *not* exempt from patent claims as you imply:

Those _are_ free software, but they're not exempt from patent suits, because they're not part of the C# standard.


what in "You can be compliant or compatible" confused you?

I think you confused yourself. The purpose of the ECMA specification is that if you're compliant then you are compatible and you are covered and that's what people misunderstand every time about this.

Reply Parent Score: 2