4 ms·

You may be right about the Community Promise. There are dissenting views, though (http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-msc

• kenjackson 16y ago
  Their argument against the CP is a tough one to swallow. Which is basically that MS needs to effectively give rights to its whole patent portfolio if you implement one of these standards (unless they are talking less broadly that MS should specifically look at the Mono implementation, and give the promise to those patents which Mono uses "today"). The problem is, what if I decide that I'm going to do C# that lives in a Virtual Machine with real time interaction using the XBox Live protocol. At that point can I say, "I'm just doing the standard, but in a different environment, I need to be covered?" I think MS's position seems fine. You have a promise for all patents necessary to implement the standard. If you have questions, I'd just contact them directly. But unlike Java/Oracle they would have three things they'd have to deal with, (1) Did you actually infringe and (2) Is what you've done not necessary for the specification. (3) And of course they put the promise at jeopardy if they do so. Oracle never had to consider the last two. That makes it a lot easier for them to sue.
  • rbanffy 16y ago
    > You have a promise for all patents necessary to implement the standard And that's the whole point. The standard is the bare minimum one needs to make an implementation comparable to the .NET stack. Unless I am terribly mistaken, Mono is nowhere near fully covered.