OSNews

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

You contradict yourself.

Mono includes C# and CLI, which are compliant with ECMA standards, and which are covered by the Microsoft Community Promise. Fine ... for those parts ONLY.

There are, however, inseperable parts of Mono other than the ECMA parts, which are NOT covered by the Microsoft Community Promise. These parts are covered by Microsoft patents. Up to this point, we agree. However, what you miss is the fact that Microsoft requires that anyone who wants to run the non-ECMA parts of Mono must have a license from Microsoft to do so. That makes those parts proprietary.

Since the proprietary parts of Mono are inseperable from the non-proprietary parts, there is no way to legally run Mono without having a license from Microsoft.

These are straightforward facts. Ask any Microsoft lawyer.

Since one needs a paid-for license to run it, Mono is proprietary.

Period. QED.

You are completely and utterly contradicting yourself and tying yourself in knots.

I didn't say that you had said that Mono was safe, but you were clearly implying the distinction that so many make between the ECMA 'standard' parts and the additional extensions and therefore stating a position whether you like it or not.

It's a standards body that has currently required Microsoft and anyone else to freely license any patents pertaining to the ECMA standards in question, so yes, right now it is very important.


Why do you keep referring to an ECMA 'C# standard'? What you are referring to are the CLR and CLI specifications, ECMA 335 and 336 I think, which are not protected by anything but a flimsy RAND agreement right now. Why do you think that not including Winforms in an implementation somehow makes things safe? It doesn't - and whether you say so or not that is clearly what you are implying. In addition Mono has reverse engineered more than what is in ECMA 335 and 336 to get a working CLR because they have to.


No I'm not. What you're coming out with is total gibberish. Are you incapable of reading these things? You say you're agreeing with them and then outright trying to contradict them later and then trying to say you're not stating a position on anything.


They are not facts, and it's been explained to you why none of what you have written is accurate - and then you claim you agree with me and then try and contradict things again.

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.

It doesn't matter. Not implementing them does not make anything you produce not patented.


There is no such thing as a 'C# standard'. There are standards referring to the CLR and CLI. The C# specification itself is not important here.

The patent protection promise protects no one but paying customers which puts it in the same boat. The ECMA RAND agreement that is holding things together can be destabilised and pulled at any time.


How can you be protected from a patent 'suit'? Filing a suit is filing a lawsuit, and you're not protected by a lawsuit so that logic is of the tangerine trees kind.

Unfortunately, you've failed to understand why this distinction that you keep making between supposed patentable and non-patentable parts just doesn't exist - and yet you keep trying to restate it for some reason.