Re: web development question

Rob Thorpe wrote:
Mr. Arnold4 wrote:

Rob Thorpe wrote:

Mr. Arnold4 wrote:

Rob Thorpe wrote:

Mr. Arnold4 wrote:

Rob Thorpe wrote:

Mr. Arnold4 wrote:

soalvajavab1@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

I suggest you show
some kind of proof yourself about your points, other than, this lip service.


As an example...
There is a project to implement .NET on Linux called Mono. On it's
website it mentions that Microsoft have patents on critical parts:-
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Patents

Microsoft have agreed to allow others to use the patents with no
charge. But they could revoke that permission at any time.


I know about Mono and I don't see any revoke about Mono using .NET.


I don't understand that sentence.


MS
doesn't own .NET. The only element the MS owns is VB.NET. MS has not
agreed to anything other than what the ISO and ECMA has put to MS and
its partners about making .NET available to anyone that chooses to use
.NET, which is based on RAND terms for the standardization of .NET.


Agreeing to RAND terms does not mean very much. Microsoft are free to
charge whatever they wish for use of the patents. There is no clear
definition of what the "reasonable" in RAND means. Also, they could
pull out of the standards group.

Anything can happen on this Earth, but until that happens, it just speculation on your part.


Lastly, RAND terms do not help projects like Mono which are aimed to be
Open Source software. Since if the license involves a charge the
software cannot be open-source anymore. At present this isn't a
problem because the amount MS are charging is zero.

Again, what makes you some kind of an authority on this. It's just your view points and opinions, that don't hold any weight.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Infrastructure#Standardization_and_Licensing

Your point about Mono is very weak to say the least about it.


This is only _one_ of the problems. MS have licensed these patent
because it is part of the basic C# & CLI. There are many libs in .NET
that are not part of the standard, such as Windows Forms. The Mono
project has made versions of those too, but no-one knows the legal
status of them.

Yeah, that's right no one knows, not even you.


It is a very common tactic to make a technology "freely" available for
a time, and to later make it proprietery.

This is another excuse, that's not going to hold with me.


In the world of memory RAMBUS inc hid their patents from other groups
standardising memory. Then once DDR memory was standardised they
revealed the patents they had in tthe area and demanded royalties. A
branch of the Australian government have done a similar thing with
Wireless LAN technology recently.

One size doesn't fit all.


Recently Steve Balmer said:
"anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an
undisclosed balance *** liability"
He was referring to Linux distributions, which contain many programs
that closely immitate Windows ones. Mono is the one that most closely
immitates MS code and the one most likely to have problems.


Yeah, sure you're right, and again, nothing against you, but you're no authority on anything, which was the point in the place. All you are is an authority in is your little world, with a worthless existence on this Earth. That's it man and nothing else.

You want to voice your view points and opinions, then so be it. That's on you. But they don't carry any weight with me.

On this particular subject of .NET, you're just providing lip service, which is not going hold with me.




.