Pryor'; 'Jonathan Stowe'
Cc: 'RoBiK'; 'Mono-List'
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Ask Microsoft: Mono support
I will add to this that Amanda's use of the word attempt is obviously
meant to communicate that Mono is not as complete or solid as the MS .NET
framework. Of course an MS rep will say something like
I think that you are missing the most important words in your final
assertion, I have rephrased it into what I think is the more realistic
phrasing.
Microsoft is happy that the Mono project gets more people to learn
and use .Net. We can point to it if anybody complains that .Net isn't
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 09:04, RoBiK wrote:
Just found an article regarding comment from microsoft on mono...
http://searchvb.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid8_gci1019210,00.h
tml
Mono is an attempt by Novell to reverse engineer parts of
Microsoft's .NET Framework.
On 10/27/04 RoBiK wrote:
Just found an article regarding comment from microsoft on mono...
http://searchvb.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid8_gci1019210,00.h
tml
The question Does MS support Mono is not going to get any meaningful answer.
Do people expect to be able to call MS
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 05:13, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 09:04, RoBiK wrote:
http://searchvb.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid8_gci1019210,00.h
tml
Mono is an attempt by Novell to reverse engineer parts of
Microsoft's .NET Framework.
A
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 11:23, Jonathan Pryor wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 05:13, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 09:04, RoBiK wrote:
http://searchvb.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid8_gci1019210,00.h
tml
Mono is an attempt by Novell to reverse
I don't consider viewing an assembly's publicly exposed methods/fields etc.
to be reverse engineering
If you decompile though and copy/paste code parts etc. then it is reverse
engineering and could potentially cause problems similar to the Linux-SCO
stuff
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 06:45, George Birbilis wrote:
I don't consider viewing an assembly's publicly exposed methods/fields etc.
to be reverse engineering
If you decompile though and copy/paste code parts etc. then it is reverse
engineering and could potentially cause problems similar to the
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 06:48, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
snip/
Yes this all true but (and possibly only in my reading) the attempt by
Novell phrase appears to be trying to give it an entirely negative
connotation.
I suppose that does have a slightly negative connotation. More galling
to me is that
Writing test programs and observing behavior is a form of reverse
engineering. Period. Fortunately reverse engineering is perfectly
legal, legally protected, and necessary for competition.
well, we can agree on somewhat disagreeing on what reverse engineering is
indeed though, if your aim is to
: RoBiK; Mono-List
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Ask Microsoft: Mono support
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 06:48, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
snip/
Yes this all true but (and possibly only in my reading) the attempt by
Novell phrase appears to be trying to give it an entirely negative
connotation.
I suppose
-List
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Ask Microsoft: Mono support
I don't consider viewing an assembly's publicly exposed methods/fields etc.
to be reverse engineering
If you decompile though and copy/paste code parts etc. then it is reverse
engineering and could potentially cause problems similar
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carl Olsen
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:15 AM
To: 'Jonathan Pryor'; 'Jonathan Stowe'
Cc: 'RoBiK'; 'Mono-List'
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Ask Microsoft: Mono support
I didn't find Microsoft's position to be negative at all. I agree
] On Behalf Of Dan Maltes
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:47 AM
To: 'Carl Olsen'; 'Jonathan Pryor'; 'Jonathan Stowe'
Cc: 'RoBiK'; 'Mono-List'
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Ask Microsoft: Mono support
I agree, Amanda Morgan actually says in the second paragraph: Frankly, Mono
is just one example
Am not sure how American FTC says about it, but Japanese Fair Trade
Committee publicly reports that such license that tries to prohibit
reverse engineering is likely to be regarded as unfair practice
which is illegal in our antitrast law (no precedent as yet though).
(Of course RE is regarded as
Paolo Molaro writes: Compatibility and interoperability are nice side effects of us
choosing the CLI ECMA specs as a foundation, but, while, important, they aren't our
primary interest, which is to write and use a good development platform on our
preferred operating systems.
Of course that's
They can pull the rug out? What could be the damages?
El mi, 27-10-2004 a las 15:49, Ed Burnette escribi:
Paolo Molaro writes: Compatibility and interoperability are nice side effects of us choosing the CLI ECMA specs as a foundation, but, while, important, they aren't our primary interest,
Hello,
Nobody is mentioning the part where Ms. Morgan says: Microsoft [has
not] licensed anything to Novell/Ximian. I read the position
That is correct, we have not licensed the code from them. If we were to
license their code, we would not be likely to have an open source
implementation.
27, 2004 4:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Ask Microsoft: Mono support
Paolo Molaro writes: Compatibility and interoperability are nice side
effects of us choosing the CLI ECMA specs as a foundation, but, while,
important, they aren't our primary interest, which is to write
On 10/27/04 Ed Burnette wrote:
Paolo Molaro writes: Compatibility and interoperability are nice side
effects of us choosing the CLI ECMA specs as a foundation, but, while,
important, they aren't our primary interest, which is to write and use
a good development platform on our preferred
20 matches
Mail list logo
