On 2007-12-14, [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>
>> Perhaps keep it as an option, but maybe not included by default?
>> Software patents do not apply outside of Nafta and Australia, so
>> there's no particular issue for the rest of us.
>
> Other than the fact that .NET is utterly superfluous, supports part of
> Microsoft's quest for continued domination, poisons the Free Software
> community with Microsoft's broken development paradigm, dilutes Free
> Software development resources by encouraging developers to waste time
> bug-fixing Windows clients, divides the Free Software community into
> partisan groups who waste time arguing about patents rather than
> working, diverts development away from Java (just as it was designed to
> do, as a slap in the face to Sun for their MS litigation, and a means of
> "controlling" virtual machine technology, discouraging fully compatible
> cross-platform development), and may (at some time in the future) help
> to support Microsoft's claims of "IP infringement" in GNU/Linux (since
> not *all* parties who develop with Mono can know *exactly* what is or is
> not covered by the ECMA RAND "guarantee" - such as it is).
>
> But apart from that it's fine.
Any part that is defined in the ECMA standard is covered by the RAND
"guarentee". Anything that isn't defined in the standard isn't...
Hence, the partitioning of Mono.
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
