As to the sworn statement, you would need to put that question to a lawyer. I can't help you there.
But if you ever need something derived or integrated...
Well, that's nice, but it's kind of immaterial. I don't doubt that what you're saying is true, mine, but it really isn't any reason to just take their word for it and trust Microsoft not to be a dick the first chance they get.What we have is the text on http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifi...e/default.aspx - it's almost word for word the language that Oracle uses for ODF. It's the sale language that covers their possible patent claims over RFC 2821, 3207, 4616, 2246, 2251, 2256, 2617, and 2529, to name a tiny subset of the covered specifications under either the Microsoft Community Promise or Open Specification Promise.
Take it or leave it. It's more than we had a few years ago, it's more than we have for most of the specifications we implement..
And I don't use Oracle's shit if I can help it, either.
Oh grow the fuck up. If you can't have a conversation without resorting to sniping attacks on a 3rd party you're not yet an adult. I don't give a damn what you think of RealNC. Focus. (Chastising rant over)At least you can be honest about that, which is more than others in this thread, such as RealNC, can manage.
Not quite. There is an implicit assumption that because this is from Microsoft, there is no reason to assume it does NOT have a patent bomb in it somewhere. They have a history of shady crap like this (and don't get me started on their "You violate our patents, but we're not telling you which ones until you pay through the nose and sign an NDA.")How does one prove that Python or Vala are patent free? There's just an implicit assumption that implementing this one thing by Microsoft means it must violate patents, and if you're not implementing anything by anyone who isn't Microsoft then it's impossible for it to infringe on Microsoft patents. As if the very existence of a patent promise is proof of danger.
That's quite correct. But if you live in a flood zone which is inundated quite regularly every time there's a storm, then it is likely that storm clouds on the horizon would cause you some concern, no?I have flood insurance, this doesn't mean my house is underwater.
I've got to be honest and tell you that most of this is above my pay grade. I have no idea what's in Mono, how it's built, packaged, shipped, or even what its code looks like. However, its origin throws a red flag - if ever a company has earned mistrust, it's Microsoft. However, if what you're telling me is true (and I've no reason to doubt you at this time), then I'm of the mind that wholesale rejection as a knee-jerk reaction might be premature. But is it not prudent to ask "why should we believe this is safe to use considering the well-earned reputation of its source? What have you fuckers hidden?"Mono's runtime is under LGPLv2. Mono's class library is under MIT. Various other libraries bundled in Mono's source are under their own licenses, such as Apache 2.0, Ms-PL, GPLv2. It doesn't change anything unless Microsoft contributed code under the (L)GPL to something they later make patent claims over, for the reasons TheBlackCat mentioned.