On Sep 8, 2013 11:49 PM, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" < [email protected]> wrote: > > On 08/09/13 23:21, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> From an ethical viewpoint, I think most of it is FUD that still >> lingers from back when there was confusion over what Microsoft was >> going to do C# (there was for a long time fear that it would drive all >> free C# implementations underground). But all that mist has been >> cleared for a while, and I don't believe this represents the overall >> view of users/developers - except for those who are still stuck in >> 2008 mindset. > > > I think there was a legit fear that if C# got a sufficient foothold in the Linux ecosystem, it'd provide a means for Microsoft to take everyone down via patent lawsuits. It's still theoretically a risk, but I think strategically Microsoft seems to have reconsidered that approach. >
Both the C# specification ( http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm ) and the common language infrastructure (CLI) ( http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm ) have been standardised for some time now, so that aspect is safe from Microsoft. It is worth noting that not all C# modules are covered by CLI - such as the cryptography library. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
