Okay, I think I was confusing Mono with Moonlight, which as I see it is not covered by that document. (And Silverlight is an increasingly important piece of the

Okay, I think I was confusing Mono with Moonlight, which as I see it is not covered by that document. (And Silverlight is an increasingly important piece of the .NET pie.) Also, given Microsoft's business model and track record, it seems unlikely that .NET is going to hit a steady stable state any time soon, unlike Java which may be stuck at 6 indefinitely. The consequence of this is that Microsoft can break everything, including their promises, anytime they want by bumping the version number and removing the license for the new version. Would it be a good business decision for them? Probably not. But I think this move from Oracle shows that it is a very real possibility, if Microsoft decides they should be taking cues from Oracle (which given Oracle's track record makes a lot of sense, even if this move seems bonkers.)