Ben Finney wrote:
It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
(Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
“.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict
the freedom of software recipients.
Yes, precisely.
In my view, Mono encourages .NET; and that's bad. Idea patents and
particularly idea patents covering mathematics ( every known piece of
software ever written can be described by lambda algebra ) are not truly
patentable... which is why some of us are vigorously fighting software
patents (as well at the corporations who wield them).
Software must be free (as in freedom). Encouraging interoperability with
known agendas against freedom is inconsistent with the fundamental
proposal. C# was an effort to lock-in commercial developers into the
.NET framework (and it almost damn-well worked!).
At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer
science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of
wasteful litigation and head-ache. The FSF (my preference) and the OSI
have helped move the entire community away from lock-in and litigation
and toward a 21st century of true innovation and exploration the science
and art of software engineering.
kind regards,
m harris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
