Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:00 UTC
Legal "Former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz took the stand here today as a witness for the defense, and disputed Oracle's claim that Java APIs were proprietary code from Sun. Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun. 'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software, 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people... We wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'" Whoopsie for Oracle.
Thread beginning with comment 515984
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Re:
by moondevil on Fri 27th Apr 2012 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

C# is both an ECMA (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270:2006).

Good try though.


Really?

Please provide me the EMCA standard number for .NET 3.0 and .NET 4.0 CLR, along with C# 3.0 and C# 4.0.

I can wait, because you see, those standards are not updated since .NET 2.0.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Re:
by BluenoseJake on Fri 27th Apr 2012 18:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Re:"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Uh, c# is the language, the .net framework is just an set of libraries. They are related, but not the same thing. The language can be implemented separately from the .net runtime.

Oh, and you can stop waiting.

I responded to the parent who suggested only using standardized programming languages, and gave a list of those he felt were not. c# was on that list, and I explained that it was and ISO and EMCA standard. C# IS A STANDARD, even if the standard has not been updated, and even if you feel the need to nitpick.

Edited 2012-04-27 18:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Re:
by moondevil on Fri 27th Apr 2012 21:32 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

C# IS A STANDARD, even if the standard has not been updated, and even if you feel the need to nitpick.


I stand corrected, C# v1.0 and v2.0 are standardized, nothing beyond that.

Legally, you are only allowed to implement up to C# v2.0,
there is no legal protection beyond that version, other than Microsoft stating in some web site that they will play nice with the open source community.

Plus .NET and C# are intertwined, for certain language features, you do require a specific CLR version. It is not as you could target CLR v1.0 with C# v4.0, for example.

So what is the point to use a language, which legally is frozen in time?

Edited 2012-04-27 21:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2