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 450899
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: rms was right- as usual
by TheGZeus on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: rms was right- as usual"
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

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

O_o
Dude, I never said Mono was safe. It's not.

You're inferring a meaning I didn't say.

How do you spell 'assume'?

ECMA is just a standards body, dude. It's not a standard in-and-of itself.
C# is a programming language. It has an ECMA standard. So does ECMAScript.

You're being angry at me for things I didn't say, and _trying_ to twist my words.
You don't understand the things about which you are talking enough to even undesrtand what I said.

He was claiming that the portions beyond the standard which Microsoft uses and have been re-implemented in Mono are proprietary. They're not. They're patented, and not covered by the patent protection 'promise'.
"compliant or compatible"
Compliant is sticking to nothing but the ECMA C# standard, which does not include winforms et al.
Compatible is what Mono is trying to achieve, which means implementing those libraries, which are patented.

These are simply facts. I never stated anything about "this is safe" or "these codebases have been separated".

I'm conveying information, not stating any opinion.

Edited 2010-11-23 21:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19


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.

The winforms library et al which has been re-implemented by Mono is not part of the standard.
Without those libraries you are not 100% compatible with .NET.
Those libraries are patented.
The patent protection promise does not cover anything but the C# standard.

You can be compliant (only the C# spec)
You can be compatible (include the extensions)
You cannot be both.
If you are compatible, you are not under protection from a patent suit.

This is basic logic.

Reply Parent Score: 2