Hi, interesting discussion you started there. :-) - Which OSS license would you like to see?
- Can you elaborate on how the community and Microsoft would benefit from a more permissive .NET license? - In what way would Microsoft benefit from a .NET branded Linux port? You mention it would help .NET adoption in those environments, but to what end? - Why does Mono not already fill this gap? Is it functional? If it's truly just the lack of a big name behind it, then what are the real reasons for a requirement like that? Longevity concerns? Support concerns? There may be ways to satisfy those. On Sep 6, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Clancy <n...@achren.org> wrote: > That's not open source, that's readable source, you can't fork it or use it, > nor merge it with mono & have an official .net framework for linux etc. My > thoughts are, if we did have this there'd be more appetite/scope to implement > in .net in corporates and environments where linux and/or java rule. Where I > work mono isn't an option as there's no other companies of our size using it > to the scale we use java, but if a Microsoft backed .net made it to linux it > may be an option (and I'm sure if ms open sourced it mono would do most of > the work to merge, ms would just need to stamp approval) >
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
