On Sep 8, 2013 11:49 PM, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> 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';