[Fsf-friends] Re: DotNet

[Sandip Bhattacharya]

Joe Steeve wrote:
> DotNET)., and soon realized the folly. Arguments on many GLUG/LUG
> mailing lists on the same subject has always been on the topic
> "DotNET being a open standard., why forbid it". 

I would like to add some information about dotNet here, which I feel should 
explain the background before people start hardening their views about 
dotNet without understanding the real issues here.

About C#
------------
C# is an open standard - It is an ECMA and ISO specification, more 
standardized than even Java. So there is no problem in talking about C#, in 
my opinion.

About dotNet
---------------
*However*, it is in the implementation where the problem lies. dotNet 
comprises of the CLR(similar to Java JVM). Mono project provides a Free 
cross-platform runtime engine unlike the Microsoft implementation which is 
"free" (as in a "free" download licenced under a typical M$ EULA), runs 
only on Windows, and probably has several patents on the implementation 
just like the Sun Java VM.

Another problem is the libraries. A typical dotNet package has a C# 
compiler(compilers for other languages are optional, e.g mono ships with  a 
VB# compiler too), a core library assembly(like Java class libraries), an 
XML library(Mono ships with an MIT licenced library), a GUI library(Mono 
comes with a cross platform Gtk port called Gtk#, Windows forms - mono 
packages one which works with Wine), a Web app library(Mono comes with XSP 
which is free, and ASP.Net which works with mod_mono).

My point is that if Java has gained acceptance, dotNet can also get 
*qualified* acceptance. Mono deliberately packages two separate app stack - 
a Mono specific one (Gtk#, XSP, etc) and a Microsoft one (ASP.Net, Windows 
Forms), primarily because even if the latter someday comes under threat, 
the core dotNet and mono-specific implementation (class libraries, C#, 
Gtk#, Gecko#, etc.) will always remain free.

The point of contention which has been between the Mono project and the FSF 
was probably about the windows compatibility stack. Miguel wanted the 
windows compatibility stack to provide a migration path to Linux, while FSF 
folks didnt want any possibly patent encumbered or proprietary part to be 
developed and called Free.

The bottomline is that, *in my opinion*,  there should not be any problem 
in talking about C#, dotNet, Mono with regards to FSF sponsored events, as 
long as the discussion/talks/workshops stick to:
1. Mono
2. standard class libraries
3. Mono specific libraries like Gtk#, Gecko#, etc.
4. XML class library from xml-rpc.net (MIT licence)

What does NOT qualify:
1. ASP.Net implementation - mono or whatever
2. Windows forms - mono or whatever
3. Any other proprietary/closed libraries - microsoft/mono whatever.
4. VB#



- Sandip

-- 
Sandip Bhattacharya    *    Puroga Technologies   *     sandip@puroga.com
Work: http://www.puroga.com        *         Home: http://www.sandipb.net

PGP/GPG Signature: 51A4 6C57 4BC6 8C82 6A65 AE78 B1A1 2280 A129 0FF3