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 450917
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: rms was right- as usual
by TheGZeus on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: rms was right- as usual"
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

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

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

The patent protection promise does not cover anything but the C# standard.

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.

If you are compatible, you are not under protection from a patent suit. This is basic logic.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

from != by

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: rms was right- as usual
by flynn on Wed 24th Nov 2010 02:33 in reply to "RE[8]: rms was right- as usual"
flynn Member since:
2009-03-19

There is no such thing as a 'C# standard'.

Yes, there is.

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.h...

From the page:
This International Standard specifies the form and establishes the interpretation of programs written in the C# programming language.
It specifies:
The representation of C# programs;
The syntax and constraints of the C# language;
The semantic rules for interpreting C# programs;
The restrictions and limits imposed by a conforming implementation of C#.

Reply Parent Score: 2