<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_0434236</id>
	<title>Microsoft Puts C# and the CLI Under "Community Promise"</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246968360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FishWithAHammer writes <i>"Peter Galli of Microsoft posted a blog entry on Port25 today, regarding the explicit placement of <a href="http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx?">C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (the ECMA standard that underpins .NET) under their Community Promise</a>: 'It is important to note that, under the Community Promise, anyone can freely implement these specifications with their technology, code, and solutions. You do not need to sign a license agreement, or otherwise communicate to Microsoft how you will implement the specifications. ... Under the Community Promise, Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including open-source licensing models such as the LGPL or GPL.'"</i>

Adds reader anshulajain: "Understandably, <a href="http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html">Miguel De Icaza is jumping with joy</a>."</htmltext>
<tokenext>FishWithAHammer writes " Peter Galli of Microsoft posted a blog entry on Port25 today , regarding the explicit placement of C # and the Common Language Infrastructure ( the ECMA standard that underpins .NET ) under their Community Promise : 'It is important to note that , under the Community Promise , anyone can freely implement these specifications with their technology , code , and solutions .
You do not need to sign a license agreement , or otherwise communicate to Microsoft how you will implement the specifications .
... Under the Community Promise , Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who makes , uses , sells , offers for sale , imports , or distributes any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model , including open-source licensing models such as the LGPL or GPL .
' " Adds reader anshulajain : " Understandably , Miguel De Icaza is jumping with joy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FishWithAHammer writes "Peter Galli of Microsoft posted a blog entry on Port25 today, regarding the explicit placement of C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (the ECMA standard that underpins .NET) under their Community Promise: 'It is important to note that, under the Community Promise, anyone can freely implement these specifications with their technology, code, and solutions.
You do not need to sign a license agreement, or otherwise communicate to Microsoft how you will implement the specifications.
... Under the Community Promise, Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including open-source licensing models such as the LGPL or GPL.
'"

Adds reader anshulajain: "Understandably, Miguel De Icaza is jumping with joy.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606465</id>
	<title>Nothing New, Doesn't Help Mono</title>
	<author>CritterNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1246973940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing new and nothing we didn't already know.  It still says nothing about ASP.NET, Windows Forms and all the other parts of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET that are not part of the ECMA standard.  Mono implements many, many things outside the ECMA standard, so anybody but Novell who distributes or otherwise uses Mono is at risk of patent shenanigans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing new and nothing we did n't already know .
It still says nothing about ASP.NET , Windows Forms and all the other parts of .NET that are not part of the ECMA standard .
Mono implements many , many things outside the ECMA standard , so anybody but Novell who distributes or otherwise uses Mono is at risk of patent shenanigans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing new and nothing we didn't already know.
It still says nothing about ASP.NET, Windows Forms and all the other parts of .NET that are not part of the ECMA standard.
Mono implements many, many things outside the ECMA standard, so anybody but Novell who distributes or otherwise uses Mono is at risk of patent shenanigans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606825</id>
	<title>UMMMMMMMM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a trap!!!!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a trap ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a trap!!!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606937</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds promising...</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1246976820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It sounds promising, and it may end up meaning Stallman was wrong all along</p></div><p>You've got the causality exactly wrong. If it wasn't for Stallman and other FOSS people making a lot of noise about this recently, it wouldn't have happened. (Note that I'm not saying Stallman himself is to be thanked for this, it's the general noise about the topic, which he was a part of.)
<br> <br>
There are always two levels to statements such as those Stallman etc. made about Mono. On the first level, they are meant to be taken at face value - their arguments are either valid or not, in and of themselves. On the second level, they are intended to cause an effect of some form, such as motivating certain people to do certain things. In this case, the second level was meant to motivate Microsoft to make the first level (the direct arguments against using Mono) invalid. That appears to have worked (well, once Microsoft formally announces this, presumably soon, but all we have so far is a blog post).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds promising , and it may end up meaning Stallman was wrong all alongYou 've got the causality exactly wrong .
If it was n't for Stallman and other FOSS people making a lot of noise about this recently , it would n't have happened .
( Note that I 'm not saying Stallman himself is to be thanked for this , it 's the general noise about the topic , which he was a part of .
) There are always two levels to statements such as those Stallman etc .
made about Mono .
On the first level , they are meant to be taken at face value - their arguments are either valid or not , in and of themselves .
On the second level , they are intended to cause an effect of some form , such as motivating certain people to do certain things .
In this case , the second level was meant to motivate Microsoft to make the first level ( the direct arguments against using Mono ) invalid .
That appears to have worked ( well , once Microsoft formally announces this , presumably soon , but all we have so far is a blog post ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds promising, and it may end up meaning Stallman was wrong all alongYou've got the causality exactly wrong.
If it wasn't for Stallman and other FOSS people making a lot of noise about this recently, it wouldn't have happened.
(Note that I'm not saying Stallman himself is to be thanked for this, it's the general noise about the topic, which he was a part of.
)
 
There are always two levels to statements such as those Stallman etc.
made about Mono.
On the first level, they are meant to be taken at face value - their arguments are either valid or not, in and of themselves.
On the second level, they are intended to cause an effect of some form, such as motivating certain people to do certain things.
In this case, the second level was meant to motivate Microsoft to make the first level (the direct arguments against using Mono) invalid.
That appears to have worked (well, once Microsoft formally announces this, presumably soon, but all we have so far is a blog post).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607005</id>
	<title>Re:why so happy?</title>
	<author>Plug</author>
	<datestamp>1246977180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the guy at Boycott Novell didn't believe him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the guy at Boycott Novell did n't believe him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the guy at Boycott Novell didn't believe him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have very strong reservations against C#, not for the language itself but because it has this name of being a "dot-net language". Everywhere C# is promoted, dot-net is mentioned in the same breath. This is a real issue because if I know anything about Microsoft, it is that they like to keep targets moving. This means dot-net will evolve so quickly that there will only be one complete implementation: Microsofts own one. Combine that with the (wrong) assumption in the heads of many developers that dot-net will always be available, and you get a great recipe for a hell called lock-in. With C++, there is no vendor with this amount of power, and that's the way I like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have very strong reservations against C # , not for the language itself but because it has this name of being a " dot-net language " .
Everywhere C # is promoted , dot-net is mentioned in the same breath .
This is a real issue because if I know anything about Microsoft , it is that they like to keep targets moving .
This means dot-net will evolve so quickly that there will only be one complete implementation : Microsofts own one .
Combine that with the ( wrong ) assumption in the heads of many developers that dot-net will always be available , and you get a great recipe for a hell called lock-in .
With C + + , there is no vendor with this amount of power , and that 's the way I like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have very strong reservations against C#, not for the language itself but because it has this name of being a "dot-net language".
Everywhere C# is promoted, dot-net is mentioned in the same breath.
This is a real issue because if I know anything about Microsoft, it is that they like to keep targets moving.
This means dot-net will evolve so quickly that there will only be one complete implementation: Microsofts own one.
Combine that with the (wrong) assumption in the heads of many developers that dot-net will always be available, and you get a great recipe for a hell called lock-in.
With C++, there is no vendor with this amount of power, and that's the way I like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606801</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1246976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is that it's a <em>really well disguised</em> trap?

</p><p>Note that what <em>Microsoft</em> is stopped from doing has no bearing on what they can <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Investor-outlines-SCO-Microsoft-link/2100-7344\_3-6124125.html" title="cnet.com">fund other companies to do on their behalf</a> [cnet.com].

</p><p>There's no legal basis for any third party to sue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET implementers, you say?  Well, gosh darn, I guess there's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040319041857760" title="groklaw.net">no way that Microsoft could fund them to file a bullshit case that drags on for year after year after year, tying up court time, costing the defendants millions in fees, and eating away at the hearts of souls of good men like a cancer</a> [groklaw.net].  Is there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that it 's a really well disguised trap ?
Note that what Microsoft is stopped from doing has no bearing on what they can fund other companies to do on their behalf [ cnet.com ] .
There 's no legal basis for any third party to sue .NET implementers , you say ?
Well , gosh darn , I guess there 's no way that Microsoft could fund them to file a bullshit case that drags on for year after year after year , tying up court time , costing the defendants millions in fees , and eating away at the hearts of souls of good men like a cancer [ groklaw.net ] .
Is there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that it's a really well disguised trap?
Note that what Microsoft is stopped from doing has no bearing on what they can fund other companies to do on their behalf [cnet.com].
There's no legal basis for any third party to sue .NET implementers, you say?
Well, gosh darn, I guess there's no way that Microsoft could fund them to file a bullshit case that drags on for year after year after year, tying up court time, costing the defendants millions in fees, and eating away at the hearts of souls of good men like a cancer [groklaw.net].
Is there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616203</id>
	<title>Be wary of Microsoft</title>
	<author>keneng</author>
	<datestamp>1246973520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can say "I promise to be open-source friendly." until they are blue in the face.  It won't change my perspective that in the long-term, Microsoft's only aim is to undercut any of the advances GNU/Linux has made in reducing their "Operating System" product market share and "Applications" product market share and Microsoft is especially focused in regaining the revenue stream from U.S. gov contracts.  Linux is making huge advances in that gov contract market share these days.  Recently when discussing Linux versus Windows with some windows users over supper, the argument the applications are free in Linux was brought up.  The gentleman I was talking to gave the the on-the-level answer to me:  "Well Windows and all the Windows applications are free for me, too!" Then he started laughing.  I'll tell you when I used MS products, I paid for them.  This man doesn't understand that he is taking away the ability for future generations to learn from experience of "looking under-the-hood" and seeing how everything works in the windows operating system and all of the applications he uses.  He doesn't understand Microsoft's long-term strategy is to reduce the importance of open-source in order to regain the government tax dollars that fuelled them in the first place.</p><p>It's important to continue gaining the momentum of open-source without confusion/dependence on Microsoft source-code.  From what I understand Microsoft only promise to not sue anyone for using c#/cli, but as soon as someone starts using other MS stuff, I'm sure hook/line&amp;sinker MS will take those people to court.  This in turn will take away all of the momentum open-source will have gained if people thought using MS code was ok.  WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.  USING MICROSOFT SPECS AND CODE FOR ANYTHING IN OPEN-SOURCE LINUX LAND IS NOT OK.   MICROSOFT IS UP TO SOMETHING.  BE WARY OF MICROSOFT.   For as long as Microsoft is in business, individual digital freedoms will be at risk of being compromised in order for corporations to be given the upper hand in terms of DRM(Digital Rights Management).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can say " I promise to be open-source friendly .
" until they are blue in the face .
It wo n't change my perspective that in the long-term , Microsoft 's only aim is to undercut any of the advances GNU/Linux has made in reducing their " Operating System " product market share and " Applications " product market share and Microsoft is especially focused in regaining the revenue stream from U.S. gov contracts .
Linux is making huge advances in that gov contract market share these days .
Recently when discussing Linux versus Windows with some windows users over supper , the argument the applications are free in Linux was brought up .
The gentleman I was talking to gave the the on-the-level answer to me : " Well Windows and all the Windows applications are free for me , too !
" Then he started laughing .
I 'll tell you when I used MS products , I paid for them .
This man does n't understand that he is taking away the ability for future generations to learn from experience of " looking under-the-hood " and seeing how everything works in the windows operating system and all of the applications he uses .
He does n't understand Microsoft 's long-term strategy is to reduce the importance of open-source in order to regain the government tax dollars that fuelled them in the first place.It 's important to continue gaining the momentum of open-source without confusion/dependence on Microsoft source-code .
From what I understand Microsoft only promise to not sue anyone for using c # /cli , but as soon as someone starts using other MS stuff , I 'm sure hook/line&amp;sinker MS will take those people to court .
This in turn will take away all of the momentum open-source will have gained if people thought using MS code was ok. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE .
USING MICROSOFT SPECS AND CODE FOR ANYTHING IN OPEN-SOURCE LINUX LAND IS NOT OK. MICROSOFT IS UP TO SOMETHING .
BE WARY OF MICROSOFT .
For as long as Microsoft is in business , individual digital freedoms will be at risk of being compromised in order for corporations to be given the upper hand in terms of DRM ( Digital Rights Management ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can say "I promise to be open-source friendly.
" until they are blue in the face.
It won't change my perspective that in the long-term, Microsoft's only aim is to undercut any of the advances GNU/Linux has made in reducing their "Operating System" product market share and "Applications" product market share and Microsoft is especially focused in regaining the revenue stream from U.S. gov contracts.
Linux is making huge advances in that gov contract market share these days.
Recently when discussing Linux versus Windows with some windows users over supper, the argument the applications are free in Linux was brought up.
The gentleman I was talking to gave the the on-the-level answer to me:  "Well Windows and all the Windows applications are free for me, too!
" Then he started laughing.
I'll tell you when I used MS products, I paid for them.
This man doesn't understand that he is taking away the ability for future generations to learn from experience of "looking under-the-hood" and seeing how everything works in the windows operating system and all of the applications he uses.
He doesn't understand Microsoft's long-term strategy is to reduce the importance of open-source in order to regain the government tax dollars that fuelled them in the first place.It's important to continue gaining the momentum of open-source without confusion/dependence on Microsoft source-code.
From what I understand Microsoft only promise to not sue anyone for using c#/cli, but as soon as someone starts using other MS stuff, I'm sure hook/line&amp;sinker MS will take those people to court.
This in turn will take away all of the momentum open-source will have gained if people thought using MS code was ok.  WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
USING MICROSOFT SPECS AND CODE FOR ANYTHING IN OPEN-SOURCE LINUX LAND IS NOT OK.   MICROSOFT IS UP TO SOMETHING.
BE WARY OF MICROSOFT.
For as long as Microsoft is in business, individual digital freedoms will be at risk of being compromised in order for corporations to be given the upper hand in terms of DRM(Digital Rights Management).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606377</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it always is with convicted antitrust abuser Microsoft, the devil is in the details. Be sure to spread the particulars of those details far and wide!</p><p>Focus on the exceptions to their Community Promise, as those will almost certainly be where the useful features are. They're not about to give away their goods at this point, people. Dream on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As it always is with convicted antitrust abuser Microsoft , the devil is in the details .
Be sure to spread the particulars of those details far and wide ! Focus on the exceptions to their Community Promise , as those will almost certainly be where the useful features are .
They 're not about to give away their goods at this point , people .
Dream on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it always is with convicted antitrust abuser Microsoft, the devil is in the details.
Be sure to spread the particulars of those details far and wide!Focus on the exceptions to their Community Promise, as those will almost certainly be where the useful features are.
They're not about to give away their goods at this point, people.
Dream on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607055</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> On Linux its generally done with GTK#.</p></div></blockquote><p>But it should be doen with Qt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On Linux its generally done with GTK # .But it should be doen with Qt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> On Linux its generally done with GTK#.But it should be doen with Qt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610137</id>
	<title>Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know the word estoppel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246989300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once we separate the jargon and the self congratulatory guff you put in to big up your legal eagle skills, it boils down to, they made a promise and you're telling us that we can consider it to be a... er, a promise - which is pretty much what we understood before you opened you gaping gob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we separate the jargon and the self congratulatory guff you put in to big up your legal eagle skills , it boils down to , they made a promise and you 're telling us that we can consider it to be a... er , a promise - which is pretty much what we understood before you opened you gaping gob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we separate the jargon and the self congratulatory guff you put in to big up your legal eagle skills, it boils down to, they made a promise and you're telling us that we can consider it to be a... er, a promise - which is pretty much what we understood before you opened you gaping gob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608051</id>
	<title>But of course...</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1246981140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't meant to be helping Microsoft's competitors, such as Linux. Quite the opposite - it's meant to be helping Microsoft.</p><p>Proprietary lock-in the key to Microsoft's business model, whether we're talking about Office document formats, proprietary Internet Explorer extensions and incompatabilities or C#/CLI.</p><p>In this case it seems Microsoft accrues multiple benefits from open source developers who can't resist the free candy being offered:</p><p>1) It helps spread adoption of Microsoft's proprietary standards</p><p>2) It stops open source developers from pushing and developing alternative open source standards</p><p>3) It sets anyone (Mono) reimplementing these standards up for the future rug-pull when they change and/or extend the standard in the future, which will be done according to the needs of Microsofts business model</p><p>There's a reason the document format for Microsoft's office applications often changes from release to release, and it's not simply because new features are added. This is to force people to upgrade - which is the basis of Microsoft's business model. You can be sure that C#/CLI will be managed in the same way - don't expect Microsoft to keep these standards static now that they have "kindly" encouraged you to adopt/reimplement them. Quite the contrary, once there is significant open-source reliant upon them, then they have more incentive than ever to churn them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't meant to be helping Microsoft 's competitors , such as Linux .
Quite the opposite - it 's meant to be helping Microsoft.Proprietary lock-in the key to Microsoft 's business model , whether we 're talking about Office document formats , proprietary Internet Explorer extensions and incompatabilities or C # /CLI.In this case it seems Microsoft accrues multiple benefits from open source developers who ca n't resist the free candy being offered : 1 ) It helps spread adoption of Microsoft 's proprietary standards2 ) It stops open source developers from pushing and developing alternative open source standards3 ) It sets anyone ( Mono ) reimplementing these standards up for the future rug-pull when they change and/or extend the standard in the future , which will be done according to the needs of Microsofts business modelThere 's a reason the document format for Microsoft 's office applications often changes from release to release , and it 's not simply because new features are added .
This is to force people to upgrade - which is the basis of Microsoft 's business model .
You can be sure that C # /CLI will be managed in the same way - do n't expect Microsoft to keep these standards static now that they have " kindly " encouraged you to adopt/reimplement them .
Quite the contrary , once there is significant open-source reliant upon them , then they have more incentive than ever to churn them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't meant to be helping Microsoft's competitors, such as Linux.
Quite the opposite - it's meant to be helping Microsoft.Proprietary lock-in the key to Microsoft's business model, whether we're talking about Office document formats, proprietary Internet Explorer extensions and incompatabilities or C#/CLI.In this case it seems Microsoft accrues multiple benefits from open source developers who can't resist the free candy being offered:1) It helps spread adoption of Microsoft's proprietary standards2) It stops open source developers from pushing and developing alternative open source standards3) It sets anyone (Mono) reimplementing these standards up for the future rug-pull when they change and/or extend the standard in the future, which will be done according to the needs of Microsofts business modelThere's a reason the document format for Microsoft's office applications often changes from release to release, and it's not simply because new features are added.
This is to force people to upgrade - which is the basis of Microsoft's business model.
You can be sure that C#/CLI will be managed in the same way - don't expect Microsoft to keep these standards static now that they have "kindly" encouraged you to adopt/reimplement them.
Quite the contrary, once there is significant open-source reliant upon them, then they have more incentive than ever to churn them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610855</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1246992180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this announcement fall under the Embrace phase, or the Extend phase?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this announcement fall under the Embrace phase , or the Extend phase ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this announcement fall under the Embrace phase, or the Extend phase?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610159</id>
	<title>Re:why so happy?</title>
	<author>Trillan</author>
	<datestamp>1246989480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite right. You can probably assume he knew this was coming. It isn't like this happened overnight because Microsoft's feelings were hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite right .
You can probably assume he knew this was coming .
It is n't like this happened overnight because Microsoft 's feelings were hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite right.
You can probably assume he knew this was coming.
It isn't like this happened overnight because Microsoft's feelings were hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610249</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246989840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering your entire "question" is basically slamming it, I doubt you'll care what people answer.</p><p>But for the record, yes, it is *that* good.</p><p>The controversy is all over political crap, not the quality of the language or runtime. If you want to write software, and don't care about political crap, there's virtually nothing out there better than C# and the CLI right now.</p></div><p>How does, for example, Scala and the JVM compare to C# and the CLI?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering your entire " question " is basically slamming it , I doubt you 'll care what people answer.But for the record , yes , it is * that * good.The controversy is all over political crap , not the quality of the language or runtime .
If you want to write software , and do n't care about political crap , there 's virtually nothing out there better than C # and the CLI right now.How does , for example , Scala and the JVM compare to C # and the CLI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering your entire "question" is basically slamming it, I doubt you'll care what people answer.But for the record, yes, it is *that* good.The controversy is all over political crap, not the quality of the language or runtime.
If you want to write software, and don't care about political crap, there's virtually nothing out there better than C# and the CLI right now.How does, for example, Scala and the JVM compare to C# and the CLI?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28617519</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1246985520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if I know anything about Microsoft, it is that they like to keep targets moving.</i></p><p>Who cares about what Microsoft does? Mono will always be around in one form or another because it's open source. I develop in Mono because to me, C# is the ideal C-style language, not because compatibility with Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platform is important. I don't give a flying fuck about developing anything for Windows. This is a moot point anyway, because there is nothing stopping me from developing cross platform Mono apps for Windows using the ECMA libraries plus GTK for the GUI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if I know anything about Microsoft , it is that they like to keep targets moving.Who cares about what Microsoft does ?
Mono will always be around in one form or another because it 's open source .
I develop in Mono because to me , C # is the ideal C-style language , not because compatibility with Windows .NET platform is important .
I do n't give a flying fuck about developing anything for Windows .
This is a moot point anyway , because there is nothing stopping me from developing cross platform Mono apps for Windows using the ECMA libraries plus GTK for the GUI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if I know anything about Microsoft, it is that they like to keep targets moving.Who cares about what Microsoft does?
Mono will always be around in one form or another because it's open source.
I develop in Mono because to me, C# is the ideal C-style language, not because compatibility with Windows .NET platform is important.
I don't give a flying fuck about developing anything for Windows.
This is a moot point anyway, because there is nothing stopping me from developing cross platform Mono apps for Windows using the ECMA libraries plus GTK for the GUI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606273</id>
	<title>promise doesn't extent downstream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 'community promise' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications !</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'community promise ' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'community promise' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783</id>
	<title>Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1246975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, first off it's excellent news if MS are doing this.  It would be nice if they did the same for the parts of Mono /<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET that are outside ECMA.</p><p>As far as motivation for this goes, they're a business for whom pure co-operation seems to have dubious benefits.  I assume that they believe that in this case more people using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is good for them and that they can compete well on the quality of the implementation and debugging tools (probably true if only because they'll have a head start on new features).</p><p>But the question I'm really curious about: CLI / C# / Mono seems to have generated a massive amount of controversy and therefore a lot of noise.  Some fairly popular new apps have been written using it.  The whole situation seems to suggest that, whilst using the technology was generally considered to have many downsides, it must have pretty large benefits too: it's not just being suggested as a compatibility library but as a foundation for some pretty cool new stuff.  So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is this <i>really</i> the case?  Is it <i>that</i> good that you'd want to write your note taking app in it (Tomboy) even though it's possible to write it in another language (i.e. Gnote)?  Are the development tools that much better?</p><p>Or is it the case that a few "killer apps" happened to be written in C# as demonstrations of its abilities - even though another language would have done the job - and those apps are sufficiently desirable that Mono is getting pushed hard so that everyone can have these killer apps by default?</p><p>Personally, although I've not programmed in C#, I'm familiar with a variety of languages and implementation strategies.  Different languages are certainly good for different things and more modern languages are typically less painful to work with.  C# sounds quite nice.  But what I'm wondering is: is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong, or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it?  Obviously some (much!) of the noise generated is simply due to concerns over leveraging MS technology.  But I do wonder how good the technology must be to justify <i>this</i> much noise and controversy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , first off it 's excellent news if MS are doing this .
It would be nice if they did the same for the parts of Mono / .NET that are outside ECMA.As far as motivation for this goes , they 're a business for whom pure co-operation seems to have dubious benefits .
I assume that they believe that in this case more people using .NET is good for them and that they can compete well on the quality of the implementation and debugging tools ( probably true if only because they 'll have a head start on new features ) .But the question I 'm really curious about : CLI / C # / Mono seems to have generated a massive amount of controversy and therefore a lot of noise .
Some fairly popular new apps have been written using it .
The whole situation seems to suggest that , whilst using the technology was generally considered to have many downsides , it must have pretty large benefits too : it 's not just being suggested as a compatibility library but as a foundation for some pretty cool new stuff .
So ... is this really the case ?
Is it that good that you 'd want to write your note taking app in it ( Tomboy ) even though it 's possible to write it in another language ( i.e .
Gnote ) ? Are the development tools that much better ? Or is it the case that a few " killer apps " happened to be written in C # as demonstrations of its abilities - even though another language would have done the job - and those apps are sufficiently desirable that Mono is getting pushed hard so that everyone can have these killer apps by default ? Personally , although I 've not programmed in C # , I 'm familiar with a variety of languages and implementation strategies .
Different languages are certainly good for different things and more modern languages are typically less painful to work with .
C # sounds quite nice .
But what I 'm wondering is : is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong , or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it ?
Obviously some ( much !
) of the noise generated is simply due to concerns over leveraging MS technology .
But I do wonder how good the technology must be to justify this much noise and controversy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, first off it's excellent news if MS are doing this.
It would be nice if they did the same for the parts of Mono / .NET that are outside ECMA.As far as motivation for this goes, they're a business for whom pure co-operation seems to have dubious benefits.
I assume that they believe that in this case more people using .NET is good for them and that they can compete well on the quality of the implementation and debugging tools (probably true if only because they'll have a head start on new features).But the question I'm really curious about: CLI / C# / Mono seems to have generated a massive amount of controversy and therefore a lot of noise.
Some fairly popular new apps have been written using it.
The whole situation seems to suggest that, whilst using the technology was generally considered to have many downsides, it must have pretty large benefits too: it's not just being suggested as a compatibility library but as a foundation for some pretty cool new stuff.
So ... is this really the case?
Is it that good that you'd want to write your note taking app in it (Tomboy) even though it's possible to write it in another language (i.e.
Gnote)?  Are the development tools that much better?Or is it the case that a few "killer apps" happened to be written in C# as demonstrations of its abilities - even though another language would have done the job - and those apps are sufficiently desirable that Mono is getting pushed hard so that everyone can have these killer apps by default?Personally, although I've not programmed in C#, I'm familiar with a variety of languages and implementation strategies.
Different languages are certainly good for different things and more modern languages are typically less painful to work with.
C# sounds quite nice.
But what I'm wondering is: is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong, or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it?
Obviously some (much!
) of the noise generated is simply due to concerns over leveraging MS technology.
But I do wonder how good the technology must be to justify this much noise and controversy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607983</id>
	<title>Re:Promise?</title>
	<author>Mr. Picklesworth</author>
	<datestamp>1246980840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promise" title="thefreedictionary.com">It looks like you need a dictionary.</a> [thefreedictionary.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like you need a dictionary .
[ thefreedictionary.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like you need a dictionary.
[thefreedictionary.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612807</id>
	<title>Re:why so happy?</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1246999500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you've never been happy when you were asserting something was true, and then something came along to make your claim even stronger? Someone's happiness at this event has no bearing on their previous assertions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 've never been happy when you were asserting something was true , and then something came along to make your claim even stronger ?
Someone 's happiness at this event has no bearing on their previous assertions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you've never been happy when you were asserting something was true, and then something came along to make your claim even stronger?
Someone's happiness at this event has no bearing on their previous assertions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607581</id>
	<title>Promise?</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1246979400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Promises from a convicted mono-polist?</p><p>As others have already said: Thanks, but NO thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Promises from a convicted mono-polist ? As others have already said : Thanks , but NO thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Promises from a convicted mono-polist?As others have already said: Thanks, but NO thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606473</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, you're completely mistaken, C# initially feels like Java, but when you seriously start using it you realise that it is much much much more - a much more serious programming language than java will ever be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , you 're completely mistaken , C # initially feels like Java , but when you seriously start using it you realise that it is much much much more - a much more serious programming language than java will ever be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, you're completely mistaken, C# initially feels like Java, but when you seriously start using it you realise that it is much much much more - a much more serious programming language than java will ever be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611307</id>
	<title>Is Mono really worth it?</title>
	<author>itomato</author>
	<datestamp>1246993800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why engineer and implement this stuff at all, if there's so much stink swirling around? Is anything based on or leveraged from C# <b>really</b> worth all the hassle and in-fighting?</p><p>Does Mono address the biggest issues with (pick your slant here) software development, FOSS/Linux acceptance, or provide the Holy Grail of application implementation?</p><p>Are there not bigger challenges and better ways to get there than by riding on the coat tails of an organization of such questionable repute (when looking at business, programmatic, protective and innovative methodologies) as Microsoft?</p><p>The whole Novell/Mono/Tomboy/Ububtu drama is spreading everything more thinly and creating bitter factions - developers, users, distributions, observers.</p><p>My question is, honestly, is it <i>really</i> worth it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why engineer and implement this stuff at all , if there 's so much stink swirling around ?
Is anything based on or leveraged from C # really worth all the hassle and in-fighting ? Does Mono address the biggest issues with ( pick your slant here ) software development , FOSS/Linux acceptance , or provide the Holy Grail of application implementation ? Are there not bigger challenges and better ways to get there than by riding on the coat tails of an organization of such questionable repute ( when looking at business , programmatic , protective and innovative methodologies ) as Microsoft ? The whole Novell/Mono/Tomboy/Ububtu drama is spreading everything more thinly and creating bitter factions - developers , users , distributions , observers.My question is , honestly , is it really worth it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why engineer and implement this stuff at all, if there's so much stink swirling around?
Is anything based on or leveraged from C# really worth all the hassle and in-fighting?Does Mono address the biggest issues with (pick your slant here) software development, FOSS/Linux acceptance, or provide the Holy Grail of application implementation?Are there not bigger challenges and better ways to get there than by riding on the coat tails of an organization of such questionable repute (when looking at business, programmatic, protective and innovative methodologies) as Microsoft?The whole Novell/Mono/Tomboy/Ububtu drama is spreading everything more thinly and creating bitter factions - developers, users, distributions, observers.My question is, honestly, is it really worth it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607613</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>hoggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used both for serious commercial development and I personally prefer C# to Java. If it means anything, I consider myself pretty impartial, as Java and C# are just two of the dozen or so languages I've worked in and I consider neither to be the most interesting.</p><p>C# and Java are only really similar in the way that you would expect two garbage-collected, object-oriented, C-derived languages to be similar. People who say C# is 95\% the same as Java are missing the point: it's the small differences that make one language nicer to use as a developer.</p><p>Your mileage may vary. You should give both a go and make up your own mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used both for serious commercial development and I personally prefer C # to Java .
If it means anything , I consider myself pretty impartial , as Java and C # are just two of the dozen or so languages I 've worked in and I consider neither to be the most interesting.C # and Java are only really similar in the way that you would expect two garbage-collected , object-oriented , C-derived languages to be similar .
People who say C # is 95 \ % the same as Java are missing the point : it 's the small differences that make one language nicer to use as a developer.Your mileage may vary .
You should give both a go and make up your own mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used both for serious commercial development and I personally prefer C# to Java.
If it means anything, I consider myself pretty impartial, as Java and C# are just two of the dozen or so languages I've worked in and I consider neither to be the most interesting.C# and Java are only really similar in the way that you would expect two garbage-collected, object-oriented, C-derived languages to be similar.
People who say C# is 95\% the same as Java are missing the point: it's the small differences that make one language nicer to use as a developer.Your mileage may vary.
You should give both a go and make up your own mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606313</id>
	<title>No more FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246972980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good, now maybe the anti-Mono FUDites will shut up and play nicely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good , now maybe the anti-Mono FUDites will shut up and play nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good, now maybe the anti-Mono FUDites will shut up and play nicely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612379</id>
	<title>Re:...and this means?</title>
	<author>ZachPruckowski</author>
	<datestamp>1246997880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a promise from Microsoft not to sue over any patents which cover the portions of dotNet/C# that are EMCA standards.  If your C# app depends only on those components, then you can safely port it to Mono without worrying about patent risk.  My understanding is that the Novell-Microsoft license deals covered not just Mono, but the entire SLES stack, so if you have one of those, it's still "protecting" you from "patent risk" in other SUSE components, and thus still as valid and useful as it was yesterday.  I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a promise from Microsoft not to sue over any patents which cover the portions of dotNet/C # that are EMCA standards .
If your C # app depends only on those components , then you can safely port it to Mono without worrying about patent risk .
My understanding is that the Novell-Microsoft license deals covered not just Mono , but the entire SLES stack , so if you have one of those , it 's still " protecting " you from " patent risk " in other SUSE components , and thus still as valid and useful as it was yesterday .
I am not a lawyer , and this is not legal advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a promise from Microsoft not to sue over any patents which cover the portions of dotNet/C# that are EMCA standards.
If your C# app depends only on those components, then you can safely port it to Mono without worrying about patent risk.
My understanding is that the Novell-Microsoft license deals covered not just Mono, but the entire SLES stack, so if you have one of those, it's still "protecting" you from "patent risk" in other SUSE components, and thus still as valid and useful as it was yesterday.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608115</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1246981440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what I'm wondering is: is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong, or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it?</p></div><p>Neither, really.  MS is clearly pushing C#/CLI very hard as the primary Windows development infrastructure -- so if you care about Windows, you probably need to care about them.  Miguel is obsessed with duplicating everything MS does, so the Gnome project has put a lot of effort into cloning C#/CLI, but they don't really seem to have gained much traction in the FOSS world.  I suspect that besides the patent fear, FOSS has <em>much</em> more solid alternatives than MS users do, and a far more diverse development culture; the general feel of bloat and "one giant do-all blob" that you get from CLI/C# may not be to many peoples' tastes.
</p><p>Combine those factors with a general mistrust stemming from MS's hard-won reputation for turning around and stabbing its partners in the back, and things don't seem nearly so rosy for Mono on FOSS as they do for C#/CLI on windows...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what I 'm wondering is : is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong , or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it ? Neither , really .
MS is clearly pushing C # /CLI very hard as the primary Windows development infrastructure -- so if you care about Windows , you probably need to care about them .
Miguel is obsessed with duplicating everything MS does , so the Gnome project has put a lot of effort into cloning C # /CLI , but they do n't really seem to have gained much traction in the FOSS world .
I suspect that besides the patent fear , FOSS has much more solid alternatives than MS users do , and a far more diverse development culture ; the general feel of bloat and " one giant do-all blob " that you get from CLI/C # may not be to many peoples ' tastes .
Combine those factors with a general mistrust stemming from MS 's hard-won reputation for turning around and stabbing its partners in the back , and things do n't seem nearly so rosy for Mono on FOSS as they do for C # /CLI on windows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what I'm wondering is: is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong, or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it?Neither, really.
MS is clearly pushing C#/CLI very hard as the primary Windows development infrastructure -- so if you care about Windows, you probably need to care about them.
Miguel is obsessed with duplicating everything MS does, so the Gnome project has put a lot of effort into cloning C#/CLI, but they don't really seem to have gained much traction in the FOSS world.
I suspect that besides the patent fear, FOSS has much more solid alternatives than MS users do, and a far more diverse development culture; the general feel of bloat and "one giant do-all blob" that you get from CLI/C# may not be to many peoples' tastes.
Combine those factors with a general mistrust stemming from MS's hard-won reputation for turning around and stabbing its partners in the back, and things don't seem nearly so rosy for Mono on FOSS as they do for C#/CLI on windows...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608443</id>
	<title>Re:Bidirectional promise not to sue?</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1246982700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, when you think of it that way, the GPL functions in the exact same way.  Any changes or innovations you make must be returned to the community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , when you think of it that way , the GPL functions in the exact same way .
Any changes or innovations you make must be returned to the community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, when you think of it that way, the GPL functions in the exact same way.
Any changes or innovations you make must be returned to the community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610077</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1246989120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  Mono is no long in question about infringing on Microsoft licensing anymore?  Bah, Then I'm not using Mono anymore then!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Mono is no long in question about infringing on Microsoft licensing anymore ?
Bah , Then I 'm not using Mono anymore then !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Mono is no long in question about infringing on Microsoft licensing anymore?
Bah, Then I'm not using Mono anymore then!
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610345</id>
	<title>If Miguel had existed instead fo Stallman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Richard Stallman had never existed and instead Miguel had taken his place, there would have been no gcc, no Emacs (Ok, maybe that would have been an improvement), no FSF, no GPL, no Linux. Miguel would have gone back to university so that he could get the green card to work for Microsoft (more openly) and Slashdot would not have been built. All the open source applications, if they existed at all would have been written to run on Windows with the predictable result that they somehow would never have been quite compatible with the OS they were running on. The cost of Microsoft applications would now be more expensive through lack of competition. Gates would still be CEO and Ballmer would never have danced the monkey dance. Microsoft Word would be mandatory and Open Office would not exist.</p><p>Miguel and his fellow Mono proponents are trying their hardest to make Linux and other open source products dependent on Microsoft technologies in a game where Linux is guaranteed to always be playing catchup. It benefits them as vice presidents and developers in the company which signed the deal with Microsoft but it doesn't benefit the Linux community as a whole.</p><p>I don't agree with everything that Stallman says, but I at least, can trust that what he says is what he thinks. I wouldn't trust Miguel as far as I could throw him - which, I concede, owing to the insubstantial nature of his frame, might be further than expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Richard Stallman had never existed and instead Miguel had taken his place , there would have been no gcc , no Emacs ( Ok , maybe that would have been an improvement ) , no FSF , no GPL , no Linux .
Miguel would have gone back to university so that he could get the green card to work for Microsoft ( more openly ) and Slashdot would not have been built .
All the open source applications , if they existed at all would have been written to run on Windows with the predictable result that they somehow would never have been quite compatible with the OS they were running on .
The cost of Microsoft applications would now be more expensive through lack of competition .
Gates would still be CEO and Ballmer would never have danced the monkey dance .
Microsoft Word would be mandatory and Open Office would not exist.Miguel and his fellow Mono proponents are trying their hardest to make Linux and other open source products dependent on Microsoft technologies in a game where Linux is guaranteed to always be playing catchup .
It benefits them as vice presidents and developers in the company which signed the deal with Microsoft but it does n't benefit the Linux community as a whole.I do n't agree with everything that Stallman says , but I at least , can trust that what he says is what he thinks .
I would n't trust Miguel as far as I could throw him - which , I concede , owing to the insubstantial nature of his frame , might be further than expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Richard Stallman had never existed and instead Miguel had taken his place, there would have been no gcc, no Emacs (Ok, maybe that would have been an improvement), no FSF, no GPL, no Linux.
Miguel would have gone back to university so that he could get the green card to work for Microsoft (more openly) and Slashdot would not have been built.
All the open source applications, if they existed at all would have been written to run on Windows with the predictable result that they somehow would never have been quite compatible with the OS they were running on.
The cost of Microsoft applications would now be more expensive through lack of competition.
Gates would still be CEO and Ballmer would never have danced the monkey dance.
Microsoft Word would be mandatory and Open Office would not exist.Miguel and his fellow Mono proponents are trying their hardest to make Linux and other open source products dependent on Microsoft technologies in a game where Linux is guaranteed to always be playing catchup.
It benefits them as vice presidents and developers in the company which signed the deal with Microsoft but it doesn't benefit the Linux community as a whole.I don't agree with everything that Stallman says, but I at least, can trust that what he says is what he thinks.
I wouldn't trust Miguel as far as I could throw him - which, I concede, owing to the insubstantial nature of his frame, might be further than expected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607919</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>Mr. Picklesworth</author>
	<datestamp>1246980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people always tout Java as a safer, more free alternative?</p><p>First of all, Java and Mono are quite different in what kind of cross platform they are (Java being of the one-size-fits-all type which is horrifying for desktop apps end users use, reasonable for other types).</p><p>More importantly, Sun does NOT have a clean track record with free software, so stop pretending they do. I have never collected examples, but I see a story on this topic at least once every couple weeks. <a href="http://blogs.gnome.org/mneptok/2009/07/06/sun-is-gpl-fud-a-standard-business-practice/" title="gnome.org">Here's one</a> [gnome.org] where they use the GPL license as a weapon with MySQL. There are others more closely tied to Java, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people always tout Java as a safer , more free alternative ? First of all , Java and Mono are quite different in what kind of cross platform they are ( Java being of the one-size-fits-all type which is horrifying for desktop apps end users use , reasonable for other types ) .More importantly , Sun does NOT have a clean track record with free software , so stop pretending they do .
I have never collected examples , but I see a story on this topic at least once every couple weeks .
Here 's one [ gnome.org ] where they use the GPL license as a weapon with MySQL .
There are others more closely tied to Java , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people always tout Java as a safer, more free alternative?First of all, Java and Mono are quite different in what kind of cross platform they are (Java being of the one-size-fits-all type which is horrifying for desktop apps end users use, reasonable for other types).More importantly, Sun does NOT have a clean track record with free software, so stop pretending they do.
I have never collected examples, but I see a story on this topic at least once every couple weeks.
Here's one [gnome.org] where they use the GPL license as a weapon with MySQL.
There are others more closely tied to Java, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616487</id>
	<title>Until ...</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1246975680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>company policy changes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>company policy changes ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>company policy changes ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606355</id>
	<title>This makes no real difference!</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1246973220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's why:</p><p>There is no mention of <a href="http://docs.msdnaa.net.nyud.net/ark\_new/Webfiles/WhitePapers/Babel01/bab06.pdf" title="nyud.net"> other components </a> [nyud.net] the extend<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET!</p><p>From the document...</p><p>"...We introduce instructions <b>newdata</b>, <b>lddata</b>, <b>stdata</b>, <b>castdata</b>, <b>isdata</b> and<br><b>switchdata</b> to create and manipulate classunion values..." (emphasis mine).</p><p>In fact, this announcement is not much different compared to the one 7 years ago!</p><p>Watch out folks. Microsoft's classic Embrace, Extend, Extinguish paradigm is very possible here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's why : There is no mention of other components [ nyud.net ] the extend .NET ! From the document... " ...We introduce instructions newdata , lddata , stdata , castdata , isdata andswitchdata to create and manipulate classunion values... " ( emphasis mine ) .In fact , this announcement is not much different compared to the one 7 years ago ! Watch out folks .
Microsoft 's classic Embrace , Extend , Extinguish paradigm is very possible here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's why:There is no mention of  other components  [nyud.net] the extend .NET!From the document..."...We introduce instructions newdata, lddata, stdata, castdata, isdata andswitchdata to create and manipulate classunion values..." (emphasis mine).In fact, this announcement is not much different compared to the one 7 years ago!Watch out folks.
Microsoft's classic Embrace, Extend, Extinguish paradigm is very possible here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614881</id>
	<title>Re:FYI, this IS legally binding</title>
	<author>Nick Ives</author>
	<datestamp>1246964760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the point is they can't sue you. The legal term is "Promissory Estoppel" and given the terms of the Community Promise this means Microsoft can't ever sue you for doing stuff under the relevant ECMA specifications.</p><p>Of course, this still isn't GPL compatible because of the insistence that any implementation remains compatible with the specification. Mono /<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET still remains a threat to free software. All Microsoft are doing here is permitting free re-implementations of <i>their</i> platform, they are denying the right of the community to extend their platform in other directions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the point is they ca n't sue you .
The legal term is " Promissory Estoppel " and given the terms of the Community Promise this means Microsoft ca n't ever sue you for doing stuff under the relevant ECMA specifications.Of course , this still is n't GPL compatible because of the insistence that any implementation remains compatible with the specification .
Mono / .NET still remains a threat to free software .
All Microsoft are doing here is permitting free re-implementations of their platform , they are denying the right of the community to extend their platform in other directions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the point is they can't sue you.
The legal term is "Promissory Estoppel" and given the terms of the Community Promise this means Microsoft can't ever sue you for doing stuff under the relevant ECMA specifications.Of course, this still isn't GPL compatible because of the insistence that any implementation remains compatible with the specification.
Mono / .NET still remains a threat to free software.
All Microsoft are doing here is permitting free re-implementations of their platform, they are denying the right of the community to extend their platform in other directions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608311</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1246982160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nowadays there's a case to be argued that Mono is 'the' C# and CLR implementation which runs everywhere (Linux, Playstation 3, iPhone, Windows, etc) and can be easily adapted to your needs, while Microsoft's implementation is a reasonable alternative for people who are stuck on Windows.  Kind of like how gcc is the standard C and C++ compiler, even though most Windows native programs are still built with proprietary compilers.  This is overstating the case a bit - Mono isn't there yet, and new developments in the C# language still come out of Redmond - but Mono is certainly a strong enough competitor to stop C# being synonymous with Microsoft's implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowadays there 's a case to be argued that Mono is 'the ' C # and CLR implementation which runs everywhere ( Linux , Playstation 3 , iPhone , Windows , etc ) and can be easily adapted to your needs , while Microsoft 's implementation is a reasonable alternative for people who are stuck on Windows .
Kind of like how gcc is the standard C and C + + compiler , even though most Windows native programs are still built with proprietary compilers .
This is overstating the case a bit - Mono is n't there yet , and new developments in the C # language still come out of Redmond - but Mono is certainly a strong enough competitor to stop C # being synonymous with Microsoft 's implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowadays there's a case to be argued that Mono is 'the' C# and CLR implementation which runs everywhere (Linux, Playstation 3, iPhone, Windows, etc) and can be easily adapted to your needs, while Microsoft's implementation is a reasonable alternative for people who are stuck on Windows.
Kind of like how gcc is the standard C and C++ compiler, even though most Windows native programs are still built with proprietary compilers.
This is overstating the case a bit - Mono isn't there yet, and new developments in the C# language still come out of Redmond - but Mono is certainly a strong enough competitor to stop C# being synonymous with Microsoft's implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614591</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1246963560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net technologies.</p></div></blockquote><p>Note, however, that promissory estoppel is generally not an absolute bar to asserting the underlying rights, its simply an equitable bar that a court may apply to limit attempts to assert the underlying rights to the extent necessary to prevent injustice, where there is good faith detrimental reliance on the promise.</p><p>Particularly, if Microsoft chose to clearly publicly renounce the "Community Promise", in general or with regard to a particular piece of software, any <i>subsequent</i> reliance on it would probably not provide a basis for asserting estoppel unless the relying party could prove that it was unaware of the renunciation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c # and .net technologies.Note , however , that promissory estoppel is generally not an absolute bar to asserting the underlying rights , its simply an equitable bar that a court may apply to limit attempts to assert the underlying rights to the extent necessary to prevent injustice , where there is good faith detrimental reliance on the promise.Particularly , if Microsoft chose to clearly publicly renounce the " Community Promise " , in general or with regard to a particular piece of software , any subsequent reliance on it would probably not provide a basis for asserting estoppel unless the relying party could prove that it was unaware of the renunciation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c# and .net technologies.Note, however, that promissory estoppel is generally not an absolute bar to asserting the underlying rights, its simply an equitable bar that a court may apply to limit attempts to assert the underlying rights to the extent necessary to prevent injustice, where there is good faith detrimental reliance on the promise.Particularly, if Microsoft chose to clearly publicly renounce the "Community Promise", in general or with regard to a particular piece of software, any subsequent reliance on it would probably not provide a basis for asserting estoppel unless the relying party could prove that it was unaware of the renunciation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616143</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>msaavedra</author>
	<datestamp>1246973100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think pygtk is great. In fact, as I write this I'm taking a break from the cross-platform application I maintain as one of my job duties.</p><p>However, some people don't like python as much as you and I. For instance, they may prefer not to use a dynamically-typed language or need something with better performance. Also, I don't see why pygtk would be any more cross-platform than C# using the gtk bindings. At least in theory, both should work on many platforms, and look identical (since they would both use gtk widgets).</p><p>I've been deeply skeptical of Mono since it's inception, because of the patent issues hanging over it, so I see the latest happenings here as a positive thing. I'm not likely to abandon python any time soon, but more choice is a good thing for those of us who like using Free software but still need things to run under Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think pygtk is great .
In fact , as I write this I 'm taking a break from the cross-platform application I maintain as one of my job duties.However , some people do n't like python as much as you and I. For instance , they may prefer not to use a dynamically-typed language or need something with better performance .
Also , I do n't see why pygtk would be any more cross-platform than C # using the gtk bindings .
At least in theory , both should work on many platforms , and look identical ( since they would both use gtk widgets ) .I 've been deeply skeptical of Mono since it 's inception , because of the patent issues hanging over it , so I see the latest happenings here as a positive thing .
I 'm not likely to abandon python any time soon , but more choice is a good thing for those of us who like using Free software but still need things to run under Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think pygtk is great.
In fact, as I write this I'm taking a break from the cross-platform application I maintain as one of my job duties.However, some people don't like python as much as you and I. For instance, they may prefer not to use a dynamically-typed language or need something with better performance.
Also, I don't see why pygtk would be any more cross-platform than C# using the gtk bindings.
At least in theory, both should work on many platforms, and look identical (since they would both use gtk widgets).I've been deeply skeptical of Mono since it's inception, because of the patent issues hanging over it, so I see the latest happenings here as a positive thing.
I'm not likely to abandon python any time soon, but more choice is a good thing for those of us who like using Free software but still need things to run under Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609183</id>
	<title>Re:FYI, this IS legally binding</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1246985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, in a year or two, when Microsoft breaks their promise, I can sue them?  Great!  That will work fine.  Let me just sue Microsoft and win.  I have enough problems with local suppliers breaking contracts and getting away with it scot-free, I'm sure suing a Fortune 5 company will be a cinch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in a year or two , when Microsoft breaks their promise , I can sue them ?
Great ! That will work fine .
Let me just sue Microsoft and win .
I have enough problems with local suppliers breaking contracts and getting away with it scot-free , I 'm sure suing a Fortune 5 company will be a cinch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in a year or two, when Microsoft breaks their promise, I can sue them?
Great!  That will work fine.
Let me just sue Microsoft and win.
I have enough problems with local suppliers breaking contracts and getting away with it scot-free, I'm sure suing a Fortune 5 company will be a cinch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608291</id>
	<title>Re:FYI, this IS legally binding</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1246982100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction to #3, Only ASP.NET MVC is open-sourced, not the much more popular ASP.NET.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction to # 3 , Only ASP.NET MVC is open-sourced , not the much more popular ASP.NET .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction to #3, Only ASP.NET MVC is open-sourced, not the much more popular ASP.NET.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771</id>
	<title>Java or Mono or Both?</title>
	<author>mrpacmanjel</author>
	<datestamp>1246975860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been following Mono for a while but I am currently still using Java.</p><p>The question is which do I commit to?</p><p>The way I understand it is:</p><p>Java has less "patent liability" than Mono.<br>All of Java is under an open license including "essential" libraries (e.g. data access, gui).<br>Only the "core" (including the framework libraries?) of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net are covered by the Communtiy Promise but not some of the supporting libraries (e.g. ado.net, winforms).</p><p>I know that these<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?</p><p>If this is the case then I would imagine that Java would be the preferred choice IF you had to chose one.</p><p>What are the overheads of both the Java and Mono virtual machines running at the same time? Would we be better getting behind just one environment and using that.</p><p>For what it's worth I really like and prefer Mono - especially Banshee (is there an equivalent for Java?) and I want to develop for it but the Community Promise only covers the ECMA part of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net. Without the other libraries I fear Mono is hamstrung.</p><p>At least with Java I know where I stand, all the libraries are included and the functionality is already there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been following Mono for a while but I am currently still using Java.The question is which do I commit to ? The way I understand it is : Java has less " patent liability " than Mono.All of Java is under an open license including " essential " libraries ( e.g .
data access , gui ) .Only the " core " ( including the framework libraries ?
) of .net are covered by the Communtiy Promise but not some of the supporting libraries ( e.g .
ado.net , winforms ) .I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain " patent-threat " free ? If this is the case then I would imagine that Java would be the preferred choice IF you had to chose one.What are the overheads of both the Java and Mono virtual machines running at the same time ?
Would we be better getting behind just one environment and using that.For what it 's worth I really like and prefer Mono - especially Banshee ( is there an equivalent for Java ?
) and I want to develop for it but the Community Promise only covers the ECMA part of .net .
Without the other libraries I fear Mono is hamstrung.At least with Java I know where I stand , all the libraries are included and the functionality is already there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been following Mono for a while but I am currently still using Java.The question is which do I commit to?The way I understand it is:Java has less "patent liability" than Mono.All of Java is under an open license including "essential" libraries (e.g.
data access, gui).Only the "core" (including the framework libraries?
) of .net are covered by the Communtiy Promise but not some of the supporting libraries (e.g.
ado.net, winforms).I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?If this is the case then I would imagine that Java would be the preferred choice IF you had to chose one.What are the overheads of both the Java and Mono virtual machines running at the same time?
Would we be better getting behind just one environment and using that.For what it's worth I really like and prefer Mono - especially Banshee (is there an equivalent for Java?
) and I want to develop for it but the Community Promise only covers the ECMA part of .net.
Without the other libraries I fear Mono is hamstrung.At least with Java I know where I stand, all the libraries are included and the functionality is already there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606461</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1246973940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java. Even though, we when you're worked with both, it's immediately obvious how similar they are.</p><p>Same with the CLR vs JVM, same thing, different name. I guess it's probably a credit to Microsoft's advertising that lower rung programmers think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is some kind of revolutionary technology and not a crippled clone of Java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C # programmers , they 'll go on about how different C # is from Java .
Even though , we when you 're worked with both , it 's immediately obvious how similar they are.Same with the CLR vs JVM , same thing , different name .
I guess it 's probably a credit to Microsoft 's advertising that lower rung programmers think .NET is some kind of revolutionary technology and not a crippled clone of Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.
Even though, we when you're worked with both, it's immediately obvious how similar they are.Same with the CLR vs JVM, same thing, different name.
I guess it's probably a credit to Microsoft's advertising that lower rung programmers think .NET is some kind of revolutionary technology and not a crippled clone of Java.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215</id>
	<title>This shows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft love us and want us to be happy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft love us and want us to be happy : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft love us and want us to be happy :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28633841</id>
	<title>The MS wording is nearly identical to RH one</title>
	<author>guerby</author>
	<datestamp>1247135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Red Hat also has patents and the wording of the promise is nearly identical to the one of MS, I'm quoting RH:</p><p><a href="http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent\_policy.html" title="redhat.com">http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent\_policy.html</a> [redhat.com]</p><p>"""<br>Our Promise with Respect to Software Patents We Hold<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Our Promise:</p><p>Subject to any qualifications or limitations stated herein, to the extent any party exercises a Patent Right with respect to Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claim of any patent held by Red Hat, Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise ("Our Promise"). Our Promise does not extend to any software which is not Open Source/Free Software, and any party exercising a Patent Right with respect to non-Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claims of any patent held by Red Hat must obtain a license for the exercise of such rights from Red Hat. Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit). No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.</p><p>Each party relying on Our Promise acknowledges that Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat's patents are enforceable or that the exercise of rights under Red Hat's patents does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Red Hat disclaims any liability to any party relying on Our Promise for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the Patent Rights permitted by Our Promise hereunder, each relying party hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any.<br>"""</p><p>They promise not to sue you just like Microsoft. I guess it's perfectly standard legalese then if two companies as far away as MS and RH use the same wording.</p><p>Now the RH promise is limited to software with a limited set of licence (they can add to it) while MS one is limited to some implementations of a standard.</p><p>I'd say that if a patent troll buys MS we're safe, but if a patent troll buy RH and the FSF needs to publish GPL 3.1 or 4.0 we're screwed since RH promise does not cover future licence.</p><p>IANAL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Red Hat also has patents and the wording of the promise is nearly identical to the one of MS , I 'm quoting RH : http : //www.redhat.com/legal/patent \ _policy.html [ redhat.com ] " " " Our Promise with Respect to Software Patents We Hold ...Our Promise : Subject to any qualifications or limitations stated herein , to the extent any party exercises a Patent Right with respect to Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claim of any patent held by Red Hat , Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise ( " Our Promise " ) .
Our Promise does not extend to any software which is not Open Source/Free Software , and any party exercising a Patent Right with respect to non-Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claims of any patent held by Red Hat must obtain a license for the exercise of such rights from Red Hat .
Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software ( including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit ) .
No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.Each party relying on Our Promise acknowledges that Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat 's patents are enforceable or that the exercise of rights under Red Hat 's patents does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity .
Red Hat disclaims any liability to any party relying on Our Promise for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise .
As a condition to exercising the Patent Rights permitted by Our Promise hereunder , each relying party hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed , if any .
" " " They promise not to sue you just like Microsoft .
I guess it 's perfectly standard legalese then if two companies as far away as MS and RH use the same wording.Now the RH promise is limited to software with a limited set of licence ( they can add to it ) while MS one is limited to some implementations of a standard.I 'd say that if a patent troll buys MS we 're safe , but if a patent troll buy RH and the FSF needs to publish GPL 3.1 or 4.0 we 're screwed since RH promise does not cover future licence.IANAL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Red Hat also has patents and the wording of the promise is nearly identical to the one of MS, I'm quoting RH:http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent\_policy.html [redhat.com]"""Our Promise with Respect to Software Patents We Hold ...Our Promise:Subject to any qualifications or limitations stated herein, to the extent any party exercises a Patent Right with respect to Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claim of any patent held by Red Hat, Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise ("Our Promise").
Our Promise does not extend to any software which is not Open Source/Free Software, and any party exercising a Patent Right with respect to non-Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claims of any patent held by Red Hat must obtain a license for the exercise of such rights from Red Hat.
Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit).
No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.Each party relying on Our Promise acknowledges that Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat's patents are enforceable or that the exercise of rights under Red Hat's patents does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity.
Red Hat disclaims any liability to any party relying on Our Promise for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise.
As a condition to exercising the Patent Rights permitted by Our Promise hereunder, each relying party hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any.
"""They promise not to sue you just like Microsoft.
I guess it's perfectly standard legalese then if two companies as far away as MS and RH use the same wording.Now the RH promise is limited to software with a limited set of licence (they can add to it) while MS one is limited to some implementations of a standard.I'd say that if a patent troll buys MS we're safe, but if a patent troll buy RH and the FSF needs to publish GPL 3.1 or 4.0 we're screwed since RH promise does not cover future licence.IANAL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606229</id>
	<title>4 chan....</title>
	<author>pHus10n</author>
	<datestamp>1246972440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been reading 4chan too much lately, apparently.  I almost accidentally my whole Coke when I read the tags for this.  CP != Community Promise on most boards...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading 4chan too much lately , apparently .
I almost accidentally my whole Coke when I read the tags for this .
CP ! = Community Promise on most boards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading 4chan too much lately, apparently.
I almost accidentally my whole Coke when I read the tags for this.
CP != Community Promise on most boards...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606429</id>
	<title>Necessary Claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Necessary Claims are the patents which can be proven to a court to be infringed by any compliant implementation of the specification.</p><p>Given the incoherent mishmash of vaguely-specific documentation underlying the myriad layers of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, it is my considered opinion that this promise is completely and utterly useless. Microsoft needs only to show that your violation lies outside the subset of technologies covered, or that a possible implementation does not infringe their patents. Then your innocently-assumed protection vanishes, to be replaced by a drawn-out legal battle... Or, more likely, another company which happens to possess similar patents randomly decides to sue you.</p><p>At best, this signals yet another small step by Microsoft toward actually competing. More likely, it is a continuation of their cynical gamesmanship, intended only to serve as a continued basis for hindering innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Necessary Claims are the patents which can be proven to a court to be infringed by any compliant implementation of the specification.Given the incoherent mishmash of vaguely-specific documentation underlying the myriad layers of .Net , it is my considered opinion that this promise is completely and utterly useless .
Microsoft needs only to show that your violation lies outside the subset of technologies covered , or that a possible implementation does not infringe their patents .
Then your innocently-assumed protection vanishes , to be replaced by a drawn-out legal battle... Or , more likely , another company which happens to possess similar patents randomly decides to sue you.At best , this signals yet another small step by Microsoft toward actually competing .
More likely , it is a continuation of their cynical gamesmanship , intended only to serve as a continued basis for hindering innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Necessary Claims are the patents which can be proven to a court to be infringed by any compliant implementation of the specification.Given the incoherent mishmash of vaguely-specific documentation underlying the myriad layers of .Net, it is my considered opinion that this promise is completely and utterly useless.
Microsoft needs only to show that your violation lies outside the subset of technologies covered, or that a possible implementation does not infringe their patents.
Then your innocently-assumed protection vanishes, to be replaced by a drawn-out legal battle... Or, more likely, another company which happens to possess similar patents randomly decides to sue you.At best, this signals yet another small step by Microsoft toward actually competing.
More likely, it is a continuation of their cynical gamesmanship, intended only to serve as a continued basis for hindering innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606529</id>
	<title>Its a trick, get an axe!</title>
	<author>halfdan the black</author>
	<datestamp>1246974480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in the wise words of Ash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>in the wise words of Ash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the wise words of Ash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607599</id>
	<title>Re:FYI, this IS legally binding</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1246979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Miguel is <em>finally</em> admitting there is potentially dodgy code in Mono? After all the invective he threw at people concerned about patents, I think it would behoove him to apologise, now that he is doing exactly what he was being criticised for <em>not</em> doing before.</p><p>Given Miguel's online temper tantrums and obvious unwillingness to concede being wrong, I hope you don't mind if I don't hold my breath.</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Miguel is finally admitting there is potentially dodgy code in Mono ?
After all the invective he threw at people concerned about patents , I think it would behoove him to apologise , now that he is doing exactly what he was being criticised for not doing before.Given Miguel 's online temper tantrums and obvious unwillingness to concede being wrong , I hope you do n't mind if I do n't hold my breath .
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Miguel is finally admitting there is potentially dodgy code in Mono?
After all the invective he threw at people concerned about patents, I think it would behoove him to apologise, now that he is doing exactly what he was being criticised for not doing before.Given Miguel's online temper tantrums and obvious unwillingness to concede being wrong, I hope you don't mind if I don't hold my breath.
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612643</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1246998900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for your reply!  It's really nice to see a summary of why C# users are so enthusiastic!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Simply put, C# is Java with true generics, RAII, full-featured lambdas with short syntax and ability to mutate captured variables, operator overloading, and opt-in low-level operations complete with pointer arithmetic and unions. (This is still a simplification, but it's close enough).</p><p>If you are a Java coder who understands what the above means, and it makes you go "wow gimme!", then welcome to the club (though you may also want to consider Scala in this case).</p></div><p>OK, I'm not a Java programmer these days but have worked with it in the past.  Most of that *still* makes me go "wow, gimme!".  Combined with the ability to run alongside other languages sanely on the CLI that is actually pretty awesome.</p><p>Sounds closer to the power I get with Python whilst still offering me the potential for efficient JIT and arguably better structuring / type-checking at development-time (though I have used tools that help with this issue in Python).</p><p>I'd be a bit skeptical when coding my own stuff over using parts that aren't ECMA / Community Promise protected but I can see that using GTK or QT bindings to such a language must be awesome.  I might give it a go<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for your reply !
It 's really nice to see a summary of why C # users are so enthusiastic ! Simply put , C # is Java with true generics , RAII , full-featured lambdas with short syntax and ability to mutate captured variables , operator overloading , and opt-in low-level operations complete with pointer arithmetic and unions .
( This is still a simplification , but it 's close enough ) .If you are a Java coder who understands what the above means , and it makes you go " wow gim me !
" , then welcome to the club ( though you may also want to consider Scala in this case ) .OK , I 'm not a Java programmer these days but have worked with it in the past .
Most of that * still * makes me go " wow , gim me ! " .
Combined with the ability to run alongside other languages sanely on the CLI that is actually pretty awesome.Sounds closer to the power I get with Python whilst still offering me the potential for efficient JIT and arguably better structuring / type-checking at development-time ( though I have used tools that help with this issue in Python ) .I 'd be a bit skeptical when coding my own stuff over using parts that are n't ECMA / Community Promise protected but I can see that using GTK or QT bindings to such a language must be awesome .
I might give it a go .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for your reply!
It's really nice to see a summary of why C# users are so enthusiastic!Simply put, C# is Java with true generics, RAII, full-featured lambdas with short syntax and ability to mutate captured variables, operator overloading, and opt-in low-level operations complete with pointer arithmetic and unions.
(This is still a simplification, but it's close enough).If you are a Java coder who understands what the above means, and it makes you go "wow gimme!
", then welcome to the club (though you may also want to consider Scala in this case).OK, I'm not a Java programmer these days but have worked with it in the past.
Most of that *still* makes me go "wow, gimme!".
Combined with the ability to run alongside other languages sanely on the CLI that is actually pretty awesome.Sounds closer to the power I get with Python whilst still offering me the potential for efficient JIT and arguably better structuring / type-checking at development-time (though I have used tools that help with this issue in Python).I'd be a bit skeptical when coding my own stuff over using parts that aren't ECMA / Community Promise protected but I can see that using GTK or QT bindings to such a language must be awesome.
I might give it a go ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163</id>
	<title>No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246972080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So after reading the article, the source seems to be Peter Galli's blog:<p><div class="quote"><p>"The Community Promise is an excellent vehicle and, in this situation, ensures the best balance of interoperability and flexibility for developers," Scott Guthrie,  the Corporate Vice President for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net Developer Platform, told me July 6.</p></div><p>Ok, I <i>certainly</i> hope he received more than just that before he began proclaiming to the world that Microsoft is doing such a thing.  <br> <br>

The optimist in me is excited.  The skeptical in me is dubious, confused and does not trust blogs.  It's not listed on Microsoft's list of products under the Community Promise so I'm going to refrain from breaking out the champagne until all the facts are finalized.  <br> <br>

Anyone else got a better source for this than a loosely affiliated blog that bills itself as "Communication from the Open Source Community at Microsoft" ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So after reading the article , the source seems to be Peter Galli 's blog : " The Community Promise is an excellent vehicle and , in this situation , ensures the best balance of interoperability and flexibility for developers , " Scott Guthrie , the Corporate Vice President for the .Net Developer Platform , told me July 6.Ok , I certainly hope he received more than just that before he began proclaiming to the world that Microsoft is doing such a thing .
The optimist in me is excited .
The skeptical in me is dubious , confused and does not trust blogs .
It 's not listed on Microsoft 's list of products under the Community Promise so I 'm going to refrain from breaking out the champagne until all the facts are finalized .
Anyone else got a better source for this than a loosely affiliated blog that bills itself as " Communication from the Open Source Community at Microsoft " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So after reading the article, the source seems to be Peter Galli's blog:"The Community Promise is an excellent vehicle and, in this situation, ensures the best balance of interoperability and flexibility for developers," Scott Guthrie,  the Corporate Vice President for the .Net Developer Platform, told me July 6.Ok, I certainly hope he received more than just that before he began proclaiming to the world that Microsoft is doing such a thing.
The optimist in me is excited.
The skeptical in me is dubious, confused and does not trust blogs.
It's not listed on Microsoft's list of products under the Community Promise so I'm going to refrain from breaking out the champagne until all the facts are finalized.
Anyone else got a better source for this than a loosely affiliated blog that bills itself as "Communication from the Open Source Community at Microsoft" ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611107</id>
	<title>Re:why so happy?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246993140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would Miguel De Icaza be so happy if his previous assertions that there is nothing to worry about mean anything?</p></div><p>Maybe because more people will actually listen to him now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Miguel De Icaza be so happy if his previous assertions that there is nothing to worry about mean anything ? Maybe because more people will actually listen to him now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Miguel De Icaza be so happy if his previous assertions that there is nothing to worry about mean anything?Maybe because more people will actually listen to him now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606505</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1246974300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you install libgdi+, Winforms works just find on FreeBSD.</p><p>As for looks that's a matter of taste, I never minded how Windows looks, but Gnome never really suited me. With libgdi+, winforms tend to look a lot like plain old Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you install libgdi + , Winforms works just find on FreeBSD.As for looks that 's a matter of taste , I never minded how Windows looks , but Gnome never really suited me .
With libgdi + , winforms tend to look a lot like plain old Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you install libgdi+, Winforms works just find on FreeBSD.As for looks that's a matter of taste, I never minded how Windows looks, but Gnome never really suited me.
With libgdi+, winforms tend to look a lot like plain old Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610617</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing New, Doesn't Help Mono</title>
	<author>Daishiman</author>
	<datestamp>1246991280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times does it have to be mentioned? FOSS applications use exclusively what's under the safe stack +  GTK# and other components not shipped in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.</p><p>At any rate, that sort of attitude is borderline paranoid. Some sections of Microsoft ARE out to get Linux and FOSS, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is not one of them. It is in their interest that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET be an ubiquitous platform. We actually do them a favor by promoting a platform where they are the primary vendor, since they're the ones most capable of profiting from that.</p><p>Besides, the case they have against noncompliant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET APIs is far weaker than what they have against SAMBA and users and consumers of many other Microsoft protocols. If they were to start a direct patent war (which probably going to happen in, well, never) there are much easier and controversial targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times does it have to be mentioned ?
FOSS applications use exclusively what 's under the safe stack + GTK # and other components not shipped in .NET.At any rate , that sort of attitude is borderline paranoid .
Some sections of Microsoft ARE out to get Linux and FOSS , but .NET is not one of them .
It is in their interest that .NET be an ubiquitous platform .
We actually do them a favor by promoting a platform where they are the primary vendor , since they 're the ones most capable of profiting from that.Besides , the case they have against noncompliant .NET APIs is far weaker than what they have against SAMBA and users and consumers of many other Microsoft protocols .
If they were to start a direct patent war ( which probably going to happen in , well , never ) there are much easier and controversial targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times does it have to be mentioned?
FOSS applications use exclusively what's under the safe stack +  GTK# and other components not shipped in .NET.At any rate, that sort of attitude is borderline paranoid.
Some sections of Microsoft ARE out to get Linux and FOSS, but .NET is not one of them.
It is in their interest that .NET be an ubiquitous platform.
We actually do them a favor by promoting a platform where they are the primary vendor, since they're the ones most capable of profiting from that.Besides, the case they have against noncompliant .NET APIs is far weaker than what they have against SAMBA and users and consumers of many other Microsoft protocols.
If they were to start a direct patent war (which probably going to happen in, well, never) there are much easier and controversial targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28643273</id>
	<title>Any word from Stallman?</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1247138100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow cool. Did Stallman publish a response to this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow cool .
Did Stallman publish a response to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow cool.
Did Stallman publish a response to this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353</id>
	<title>Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1246973220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>C# == Microsoft Java <a href="http://www.javacamp.org/javavscsharp/" title="javacamp.org" rel="nofollow">Compare</a> [javacamp.org]
<p>
Why do people think C# is some new amazing language? Clearly MS took Java and gave it a MS framework.</p><p>

If you would just use java you probably wouldn't have this fear of MS trying to undermine the OSS movement. When a multi-billion dollar company other than google tries to "help" OSS, you can only be suspicious.</p><p>

<a href="http://www.javacamp.org/javavscsharp/getStarted.html" title="javacamp.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.javacamp.org/javavscsharp/getStarted.html</a> [javacamp.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # = = Microsoft Java Compare [ javacamp.org ] Why do people think C # is some new amazing language ?
Clearly MS took Java and gave it a MS framework .
If you would just use java you probably would n't have this fear of MS trying to undermine the OSS movement .
When a multi-billion dollar company other than google tries to " help " OSS , you can only be suspicious .
http : //www.javacamp.org/javavscsharp/getStarted.html [ javacamp.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# == Microsoft Java Compare [javacamp.org]

Why do people think C# is some new amazing language?
Clearly MS took Java and gave it a MS framework.
If you would just use java you probably wouldn't have this fear of MS trying to undermine the OSS movement.
When a multi-billion dollar company other than google tries to "help" OSS, you can only be suspicious.
http://www.javacamp.org/javavscsharp/getStarted.html [javacamp.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608061</id>
	<title>personal promise only</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1246981200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the language is quite weak, and could be stronger if they wanted. Quoting from <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>This is a <b> personal promise</b> directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that <b>no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors</b>, or otherwise in connection with this promise.</p></div></blockquote><p>Using <i>you</i> is suspiscious to me. There are lots of legal entities to which <i>you</i> doesn't apply.</p><p>Then there is a huge caveat</p><blockquote><div><p>If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.</p></div></blockquote><p>I read this to mean as long as you don't bother us, you can use this-and-that. Notice the word <b>used</b> at the end. The FAQ says</p><blockquote><div><p>This type of  "suspension" clause is common industry practice</p></div></blockquote><p>However, it never ever appears in "open-source-licenses" that I know of.</p><p>Stephan</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the language is quite weak , and could be stronger if they wanted .
Quoting from http : //www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx [ microsoft.com ] : This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you , and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers , distributors , or otherwise in connection with this promise.Using you is suspiscious to me .
There are lots of legal entities to which you does n't apply.Then there is a huge caveatIf you file , maintain , or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification , then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.I read this to mean as long as you do n't bother us , you can use this-and-that .
Notice the word used at the end .
The FAQ saysThis type of " suspension " clause is common industry practiceHowever , it never ever appears in " open-source-licenses " that I know of.Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the language is quite weak, and could be stronger if they wanted.
Quoting from http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx [microsoft.com]:This is a  personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise.Using you is suspiscious to me.
There are lots of legal entities to which you doesn't apply.Then there is a huge caveatIf you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.I read this to mean as long as you don't bother us, you can use this-and-that.
Notice the word used at the end.
The FAQ saysThis type of  "suspension" clause is common industry practiceHowever, it never ever appears in "open-source-licenses" that I know of.Stephan
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611269</id>
	<title>Re:Promissory estoppel ftw</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1246993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The promise includes the term "irrevocable".  If Microsoft were to revoke it, it's not that they have resumed their original position, it's that they have never honored the promise at all.</p><p>Furthermore, the people affected by this is not the Mono developers (who developed prior to this promise), but the people who now adopt Mono because of this promise.  If Microsoft were to revoke their promise, these people can't "resume" their original position because they can't magically get back the money they invested in developing software based on Mono.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The promise includes the term " irrevocable " .
If Microsoft were to revoke it , it 's not that they have resumed their original position , it 's that they have never honored the promise at all.Furthermore , the people affected by this is not the Mono developers ( who developed prior to this promise ) , but the people who now adopt Mono because of this promise .
If Microsoft were to revoke their promise , these people ca n't " resume " their original position because they ca n't magically get back the money they invested in developing software based on Mono .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The promise includes the term "irrevocable".
If Microsoft were to revoke it, it's not that they have resumed their original position, it's that they have never honored the promise at all.Furthermore, the people affected by this is not the Mono developers (who developed prior to this promise), but the people who now adopt Mono because of this promise.
If Microsoft were to revoke their promise, these people can't "resume" their original position because they can't magically get back the money they invested in developing software based on Mono.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607333</id>
	<title>One question</title>
	<author>SoulRider</author>
	<datestamp>1246978500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Microsoft control this "Community Promise"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Microsoft control this " Community Promise " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Microsoft control this "Community Promise"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607633</id>
	<title>Re:No more FUD</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1246979580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, I still wouldn't touch Mono with a 10-foot pole. It's best avoided.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , I still would n't touch Mono with a 10-foot pole .
It 's best avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, I still wouldn't touch Mono with a 10-foot pole.
It's best avoided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611327</id>
	<title>Re:This makes no real difference!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609287</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1246986000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C# sounds quite nice. But what I'm wondering is: is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong, or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it?</p></div><p>Interesting question. I don't think it's to do with the existence of a few desirable apps. I've had plenty of experience with C# /<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET through work, and it's really very nice to work with. The language, the libraries, the platform and even the development environment all add up to a whole which (to my disappointment) I find much easier to work with than any free alternative I have yet discovered.</p><p>I still try to stay away from proprietary technologies in my personal projects, but I can see why people are excited by the prospect of a truly free version of this toolset. I'd switch to it in an instant if it happened. I don't think this announcement means we're there yet, however. Neither do I hold out much hope, with Microsoft being the way they are, that we will ever truly get there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C # sounds quite nice .
But what I 'm wondering is : is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong , or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it ? Interesting question .
I do n't think it 's to do with the existence of a few desirable apps .
I 've had plenty of experience with C # / .NET through work , and it 's really very nice to work with .
The language , the libraries , the platform and even the development environment all add up to a whole which ( to my disappointment ) I find much easier to work with than any free alternative I have yet discovered.I still try to stay away from proprietary technologies in my personal projects , but I can see why people are excited by the prospect of a truly free version of this toolset .
I 'd switch to it in an instant if it happened .
I do n't think this announcement means we 're there yet , however .
Neither do I hold out much hope , with Microsoft being the way they are , that we will ever truly get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# sounds quite nice.
But what I'm wondering is: is the noise and push over Mono as a popular platform a result of it being particularly strong, or a result of a few particularly desirable apps depending on it?Interesting question.
I don't think it's to do with the existence of a few desirable apps.
I've had plenty of experience with C# / .NET through work, and it's really very nice to work with.
The language, the libraries, the platform and even the development environment all add up to a whole which (to my disappointment) I find much easier to work with than any free alternative I have yet discovered.I still try to stay away from proprietary technologies in my personal projects, but I can see why people are excited by the prospect of a truly free version of this toolset.
I'd switch to it in an instant if it happened.
I don't think this announcement means we're there yet, however.
Neither do I hold out much hope, with Microsoft being the way they are, that we will ever truly get there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but you're spreading FUD. You can write a GUI in Mono without Windows Forms, and its generally even a good idea anyway since WinForms on anything but Windows looks and works horrible. On Linux its generally done with GTK#.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but you 're spreading FUD .
You can write a GUI in Mono without Windows Forms , and its generally even a good idea anyway since WinForms on anything but Windows looks and works horrible .
On Linux its generally done with GTK # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but you're spreading FUD.
You can write a GUI in Mono without Windows Forms, and its generally even a good idea anyway since WinForms on anything but Windows looks and works horrible.
On Linux its generally done with GTK#.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616451</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously</title>
	<author>mixmasta</author>
	<datestamp>1246975440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> (honestly, without proper anonymous closures, I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean, reusable, modular code, they're simply invaluable)</p></div><p>Feel like elaborating on that?  I've been doing programming on the side for years, with most of the common languages, and I don't even know what that means<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  (/grin)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( honestly , without proper anonymous closures , I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean , reusable , modular code , they 're simply invaluable ) Feel like elaborating on that ?
I 've been doing programming on the side for years , with most of the common languages , and I do n't even know what that means .... ( /grin )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (honestly, without proper anonymous closures, I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean, reusable, modular code, they're simply invaluable)Feel like elaborating on that?
I've been doing programming on the side for years, with most of the common languages, and I don't even know what that means ....  (/grin)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606437</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>Plug</author>
	<datestamp>1246973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I wanted to develop an app for Windows alone, you had C#/.NET, "Microsoft Java" with a complete native look-and-feel (although I do admit it took until<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0 to really get there), or "Java" with (at the time) looks-like-Java-on-all-platforms.</p><p>Not to mention the other languages on the CLR.</p><p>As to why Linux didn't pick it up, Java wasn't even really distributable until Sun released it under the GPL, and Mono was way ahead of the IcedTea (free JDK) project - Mono had ".NET does not exist on Linux" as a driver, where IcedTea was all about "Java exists; you could use that if you DL it from Sun, so this project is really only interesting to people who care a lot about the freedom".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I wanted to develop an app for Windows alone , you had C # /.NET , " Microsoft Java " with a complete native look-and-feel ( although I do admit it took until .NET 2.0 to really get there ) , or " Java " with ( at the time ) looks-like-Java-on-all-platforms.Not to mention the other languages on the CLR.As to why Linux did n't pick it up , Java was n't even really distributable until Sun released it under the GPL , and Mono was way ahead of the IcedTea ( free JDK ) project - Mono had " .NET does not exist on Linux " as a driver , where IcedTea was all about " Java exists ; you could use that if you DL it from Sun , so this project is really only interesting to people who care a lot about the freedom " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I wanted to develop an app for Windows alone, you had C#/.NET, "Microsoft Java" with a complete native look-and-feel (although I do admit it took until .NET 2.0 to really get there), or "Java" with (at the time) looks-like-Java-on-all-platforms.Not to mention the other languages on the CLR.As to why Linux didn't pick it up, Java wasn't even really distributable until Sun released it under the GPL, and Mono was way ahead of the IcedTea (free JDK) project - Mono had ".NET does not exist on Linux" as a driver, where IcedTea was all about "Java exists; you could use that if you DL it from Sun, so this project is really only interesting to people who care a lot about the freedom".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607745</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246980000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering your entire "question" is basically slamming it, I doubt you'll care what people answer.</p><p>But for the record, yes, it is *that* good.</p><p>The controversy is all over political crap, not the quality of the language or runtime. If you want to write software, and don't care about political crap, there's virtually nothing out there better than C# and the CLI right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering your entire " question " is basically slamming it , I doubt you 'll care what people answer.But for the record , yes , it is * that * good.The controversy is all over political crap , not the quality of the language or runtime .
If you want to write software , and do n't care about political crap , there 's virtually nothing out there better than C # and the CLI right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering your entire "question" is basically slamming it, I doubt you'll care what people answer.But for the record, yes, it is *that* good.The controversy is all over political crap, not the quality of the language or runtime.
If you want to write software, and don't care about political crap, there's virtually nothing out there better than C# and the CLI right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28618699</id>
	<title>Re:Still a Trap and Not Free</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1247084160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same could be said of the patent clause in GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same could be said of the patent clause in GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same could be said of the patent clause in GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609501</id>
	<title>Re:Java or Mono or Both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246986660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606601</id>
	<title>What about the FAT file systems?</title>
	<author>WhiteFluffyChest</author>
	<datestamp>1246974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strange, they are making promises about C# and the CLI but you still can't use the FAT filesystem?</p><p>They tried to sue TomTom for using FAT with Linux only a few weeks ago.</p><p>Microsoft are full of it.  You simply can't trust them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange , they are making promises about C # and the CLI but you still ca n't use the FAT filesystem ? They tried to sue TomTom for using FAT with Linux only a few weeks ago.Microsoft are full of it .
You simply ca n't trust them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange, they are making promises about C# and the CLI but you still can't use the FAT filesystem?They tried to sue TomTom for using FAT with Linux only a few weeks ago.Microsoft are full of it.
You simply can't trust them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606581</id>
	<title>Re:This shows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you need another 'a' on the end of your sig!</htmltext>
<tokenext>you need another 'a ' on the end of your sig !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need another 'a' on the end of your sig!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607853</id>
	<title>broken promises</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246980360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, Microsoft has NEVER broken a "promise", has it? Only when it suits its purposes...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , Microsoft has NEVER broken a " promise " , has it ?
Only when it suits its purposes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, Microsoft has NEVER broken a "promise", has it?
Only when it suits its purposes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608485</id>
	<title>Re:Bidirectional promise not to sue?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1246982880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft Community Promise</a> [microsoft.com]:</p><p><i>If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you</i></p><p>Is that a patent retaliation clause? Interesting.</p><p>Anyhow, the way I read that, you can't sue Microsoft if they make use of one of your patents in their own implementations, albeit limited to the specifications covered in this initiative. That probably wasn't very interesting in the context of what had previously been released under this scheme (HealthVault Service Specification, UI Automation v1.0 , etc.), but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net/Mono is much more serious technology and therefore more likely to contain or sprout patents.</p><p>So, considering that isn't it more likely that it's the indie developer (less likely to take out patents on own work) who wouldn't mind this promise rather than any commercial technology provider (more likely to take out patents on own work)? If that logic holds then one effect of this Microsoft initiative would be to prevent the emergence of any real commercial Mono competition to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net.</p></div><p>This is more like the GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD, but for specifications as opposed to source code. Basically, Microsoft is saying that if you take their specs and innovate on top of it, you can't sue MS for copying them without losing your right to the MS patents on the specs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Microsoft Community Promise [ microsoft.com ] : If you file , maintain , or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification , then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by youIs that a patent retaliation clause ?
Interesting.Anyhow , the way I read that , you ca n't sue Microsoft if they make use of one of your patents in their own implementations , albeit limited to the specifications covered in this initiative .
That probably was n't very interesting in the context of what had previously been released under this scheme ( HealthVault Service Specification , UI Automation v1.0 , etc .
) , but .Net/Mono is much more serious technology and therefore more likely to contain or sprout patents.So , considering that is n't it more likely that it 's the indie developer ( less likely to take out patents on own work ) who would n't mind this promise rather than any commercial technology provider ( more likely to take out patents on own work ) ?
If that logic holds then one effect of this Microsoft initiative would be to prevent the emergence of any real commercial Mono competition to .Net.This is more like the GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD , but for specifications as opposed to source code .
Basically , Microsoft is saying that if you take their specs and innovate on top of it , you ca n't sue MS for copying them without losing your right to the MS patents on the specs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Microsoft Community Promise [microsoft.com]:If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by youIs that a patent retaliation clause?
Interesting.Anyhow, the way I read that, you can't sue Microsoft if they make use of one of your patents in their own implementations, albeit limited to the specifications covered in this initiative.
That probably wasn't very interesting in the context of what had previously been released under this scheme (HealthVault Service Specification, UI Automation v1.0 , etc.
), but .Net/Mono is much more serious technology and therefore more likely to contain or sprout patents.So, considering that isn't it more likely that it's the indie developer (less likely to take out patents on own work) who wouldn't mind this promise rather than any commercial technology provider (more likely to take out patents on own work)?
If that logic holds then one effect of this Microsoft initiative would be to prevent the emergence of any real commercial Mono competition to .Net.This is more like the GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD, but for specifications as opposed to source code.
Basically, Microsoft is saying that if you take their specs and innovate on top of it, you can't sue MS for copying them without losing your right to the MS patents on the specs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609997</id>
	<title>Still a Trap and Not Free</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1246988820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are not protected under the promise if you ever sue MS for patent infringement, so you are basically surrendering all of your --and all of your user's-- patent portfolio to them in exchange for an *incomplete* platform license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not protected under the promise if you ever sue MS for patent infringement , so you are basically surrendering all of your --and all of your user 's-- patent portfolio to them in exchange for an * incomplete * platform license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not protected under the promise if you ever sue MS for patent infringement, so you are basically surrendering all of your --and all of your user's-- patent portfolio to them in exchange for an *incomplete* platform license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608803</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246984020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not SCO..</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but maybe ex-Microsoft-CTO <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan\_Myhrvold" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Nathan Myhrvold</a> [wikipedia.org]'s <a href="http://news.cnet.com/openroad/?keyword=Intellectual+Ventures" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">Intellectual Ventures</a> [cnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not SCO.. ... but maybe ex-Microsoft-CTO Nathan Myhrvold [ wikipedia.org ] 's Intellectual Ventures [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not SCO.. ... but maybe ex-Microsoft-CTO Nathan Myhrvold [wikipedia.org]'s Intellectual Ventures [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606527</id>
	<title>But they were all of them deceived....</title>
	<author>gwking</author>
	<datestamp>1246974480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love C# as a language, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET has been one of my favorite products from MS, it's great to use for development and seems to be what Java should have been.  My concern with this announcement though is that I can't get The Lord of the Rings out of my head...

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love C # as a language , and .NET has been one of my favorite products from MS , it 's great to use for development and seems to be what Java should have been .
My concern with this announcement though is that I ca n't get The Lord of the Rings out of my head.. . Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky , Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone , Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die , One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie .
One Ring to rule them all , One ring to find them , One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love C# as a language, and .NET has been one of my favorite products from MS, it's great to use for development and seems to be what Java should have been.
My concern with this announcement though is that I can't get The Lord of the Rings out of my head...

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611647</id>
	<title>Re:promise doesn't extent downstream</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1246995060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 'community promise' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications !</p></div><p>Where did you get that idea? I suspect you are confused because you can't sublicense, but that isn't a problem for downstream recipients, for the same reason GPLv3's similar prohibition isn't a problem.</p><p>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'community promise ' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications ! Where did you get that idea ?
I suspect you are confused because you ca n't sublicense , but that is n't a problem for downstream recipients , for the same reason GPLv3 's similar prohibition is n't a problem. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'community promise' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications !Where did you get that idea?
I suspect you are confused because you can't sublicense, but that isn't a problem for downstream recipients, for the same reason GPLv3's similar prohibition isn't a problem..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614225</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246962000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java gained generics in late 2004 (jse1.5) and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/C# in late 2005...</p><p>However, C#/.NET is really a platform(windows) bound prettied up java.</p><p>Sure there's mono, but good luck with that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java gained generics in late 2004 ( jse1.5 ) and .NET/C # in late 2005...However , C # /.NET is really a platform ( windows ) bound prettied up java.Sure there 's mono , but good luck with that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java gained generics in late 2004 (jse1.5) and .NET/C# in late 2005...However, C#/.NET is really a platform(windows) bound prettied up java.Sure there's mono, but good luck with that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28613895</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1246960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a great sign anyway of Microsoft, and they really should be asked to add asp.net, ado.net and winforms as well. Then we might find out that the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net platform is just great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a great sign anyway of Microsoft , and they really should be asked to add asp.net , ado.net and winforms as well .
Then we might find out that the .Net platform is just great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a great sign anyway of Microsoft, and they really should be asked to add asp.net, ado.net and winforms as well.
Then we might find out that the .Net platform is just great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606699</id>
	<title>The Head of the snake.</title>
	<author>sbenson</author>
	<datestamp>1246975500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No Matter how sensuously it moves it's tail, it's the snake's head that will bite you.<br>(or throw a chair at you.)</p><p>Until the head is removed, I'm not going to play with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No Matter how sensuously it moves it 's tail , it 's the snake 's head that will bite you .
( or throw a chair at you .
) Until the head is removed , I 'm not going to play with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Matter how sensuously it moves it's tail, it's the snake's head that will bite you.
(or throw a chair at you.
)Until the head is removed, I'm not going to play with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607289</id>
	<title>Promissory estoppel ftw</title>
	<author>QX-Mat</author>
	<datestamp>1246978320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lawyers amongst us are leaping for joy. I happen to be a law convert. So ill try and explain why we're happy!</p><p>Promissory estoppel is a legal defence (a so called shield). When a party (A) intending legal relations promises not to assert their strict legal rights, and another party (B) moves to rely upon this promise, that party (A) is estopped from enforcing their rights (against B) by way way of promissory estoppel.</p><p>It goes something like this: Now MS has promised not to enforce their C#-rights , and people rely on this promise, such as start development/deploying C# applications because of this promise, if the case came to court, MS's argument would be estopped by a defence of promissory estoppel.</p><p>It's a little more complicated. For instance it must be inequitable for B if A reneges on their promise (fairly clear if they suffer a disadvantage or loss as 'one who comes into equity must come with clean hands'), the promise must be clear and unequivocal (I'd say yes), there must be a change in reliance on the promise (yes), and it is a shield not a cause of action (in other words, we can't sue MS for revoking the promise, we can simply aovid being sued).</p><p>However, things get a little confusing. MS have declared that this promise is unilateral, in other words, it is a promise to the world without the need for a formal agreement. Such things are valid in the eyes of the law, and enforced by the fact promissory estoppel acts as an equitable remedy - there is no need for consideration, a key ingreediant to the traditional offer/acceptance/consideration contractual model.</p><p>Promissory estoppel is a common law principle. It's basis in England is from Lord Denning's High Court decision in High Trees.</p><p>Law bit:</p><p>In High Trees, due to WW2, the claimant ("High Trees") agreed to reduce rent for a block of flats. After the war, the claimant brought action seeking the past and future rent. Lord Denning said "When a promise is made that is intended to be acted upon, and is acted upon, you are estopped from going back on it."</p><p>In High Trees Denning referred, not to a previous case of Foakes v Beer (about the part payment of debt), but Hughes v Metropolitan Railway to establish his basis for promissory estoppel. In Hughes, it was held that the opening of negotiations for sale of a property had an implied promise not to enforce an outstanding notice of repair that would forfeit the respondents lease.</p><p>Key to the criticism over Denning's decision is that Hughes only <b>suspended rights</b>, whereas High Trees may extinguish them. This position has recently been approved in the UK by the House of Lords in Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd - the promisor may revive rights by formal notice, <b>unless it is impossible for the promisee to resume his original position.</b></p><p>Is it impossible to resume the original position prior to this agreement? We're talking about computers here. The agreement has come now, not several years ago. Consider Mono as it is now, as the original position. This is such a contentious area when you consider MS can revoke the promise, creating ambiguity, and because under Coombes v Coombes promissory estoppel is not a cause of action, the Mono community cannot sue MS to enforce this promise!</p><p>Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawyers amongst us are leaping for joy .
I happen to be a law convert .
So ill try and explain why we 're happy ! Promissory estoppel is a legal defence ( a so called shield ) .
When a party ( A ) intending legal relations promises not to assert their strict legal rights , and another party ( B ) moves to rely upon this promise , that party ( A ) is estopped from enforcing their rights ( against B ) by way way of promissory estoppel.It goes something like this : Now MS has promised not to enforce their C # -rights , and people rely on this promise , such as start development/deploying C # applications because of this promise , if the case came to court , MS 's argument would be estopped by a defence of promissory estoppel.It 's a little more complicated .
For instance it must be inequitable for B if A reneges on their promise ( fairly clear if they suffer a disadvantage or loss as 'one who comes into equity must come with clean hands ' ) , the promise must be clear and unequivocal ( I 'd say yes ) , there must be a change in reliance on the promise ( yes ) , and it is a shield not a cause of action ( in other words , we ca n't sue MS for revoking the promise , we can simply aovid being sued ) .However , things get a little confusing .
MS have declared that this promise is unilateral , in other words , it is a promise to the world without the need for a formal agreement .
Such things are valid in the eyes of the law , and enforced by the fact promissory estoppel acts as an equitable remedy - there is no need for consideration , a key ingreediant to the traditional offer/acceptance/consideration contractual model.Promissory estoppel is a common law principle .
It 's basis in England is from Lord Denning 's High Court decision in High Trees.Law bit : In High Trees , due to WW2 , the claimant ( " High Trees " ) agreed to reduce rent for a block of flats .
After the war , the claimant brought action seeking the past and future rent .
Lord Denning said " When a promise is made that is intended to be acted upon , and is acted upon , you are estopped from going back on it .
" In High Trees Denning referred , not to a previous case of Foakes v Beer ( about the part payment of debt ) , but Hughes v Metropolitan Railway to establish his basis for promissory estoppel .
In Hughes , it was held that the opening of negotiations for sale of a property had an implied promise not to enforce an outstanding notice of repair that would forfeit the respondents lease.Key to the criticism over Denning 's decision is that Hughes only suspended rights , whereas High Trees may extinguish them .
This position has recently been approved in the UK by the House of Lords in Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd - the promisor may revive rights by formal notice , unless it is impossible for the promisee to resume his original position.Is it impossible to resume the original position prior to this agreement ?
We 're talking about computers here .
The agreement has come now , not several years ago .
Consider Mono as it is now , as the original position .
This is such a contentious area when you consider MS can revoke the promise , creating ambiguity , and because under Coombes v Coombes promissory estoppel is not a cause of action , the Mono community can not sue MS to enforce this promise ! Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawyers amongst us are leaping for joy.
I happen to be a law convert.
So ill try and explain why we're happy!Promissory estoppel is a legal defence (a so called shield).
When a party (A) intending legal relations promises not to assert their strict legal rights, and another party (B) moves to rely upon this promise, that party (A) is estopped from enforcing their rights (against B) by way way of promissory estoppel.It goes something like this: Now MS has promised not to enforce their C#-rights , and people rely on this promise, such as start development/deploying C# applications because of this promise, if the case came to court, MS's argument would be estopped by a defence of promissory estoppel.It's a little more complicated.
For instance it must be inequitable for B if A reneges on their promise (fairly clear if they suffer a disadvantage or loss as 'one who comes into equity must come with clean hands'), the promise must be clear and unequivocal (I'd say yes), there must be a change in reliance on the promise (yes), and it is a shield not a cause of action (in other words, we can't sue MS for revoking the promise, we can simply aovid being sued).However, things get a little confusing.
MS have declared that this promise is unilateral, in other words, it is a promise to the world without the need for a formal agreement.
Such things are valid in the eyes of the law, and enforced by the fact promissory estoppel acts as an equitable remedy - there is no need for consideration, a key ingreediant to the traditional offer/acceptance/consideration contractual model.Promissory estoppel is a common law principle.
It's basis in England is from Lord Denning's High Court decision in High Trees.Law bit:In High Trees, due to WW2, the claimant ("High Trees") agreed to reduce rent for a block of flats.
After the war, the claimant brought action seeking the past and future rent.
Lord Denning said "When a promise is made that is intended to be acted upon, and is acted upon, you are estopped from going back on it.
"In High Trees Denning referred, not to a previous case of Foakes v Beer (about the part payment of debt), but Hughes v Metropolitan Railway to establish his basis for promissory estoppel.
In Hughes, it was held that the opening of negotiations for sale of a property had an implied promise not to enforce an outstanding notice of repair that would forfeit the respondents lease.Key to the criticism over Denning's decision is that Hughes only suspended rights, whereas High Trees may extinguish them.
This position has recently been approved in the UK by the House of Lords in Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd - the promisor may revive rights by formal notice, unless it is impossible for the promisee to resume his original position.Is it impossible to resume the original position prior to this agreement?
We're talking about computers here.
The agreement has come now, not several years ago.
Consider Mono as it is now, as the original position.
This is such a contentious area when you consider MS can revoke the promise, creating ambiguity, and because under Coombes v Coombes promissory estoppel is not a cause of action, the Mono community cannot sue MS to enforce this promise!Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611277</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1246993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thoughts on PyGtk?  I know people seem to like ignoring it.  It has most of the positives of developing with C#.  In the end you are either passing your code through a java interpretor or a python interpretor anyway.  Plus PyGtk looks more crossplatform in a real way than C#.</p><p>

From their site: <a href="http://www.pygtk.org/" title="pygtk.org">http://www.pygtk.org/</a> [pygtk.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>PyGTK lets you to easily create programs with a graphical user interface using the Python programming language. The underlying GTK+ library provides all kind of visual elements and utilities for it and, if needed, you can develop full featured applications for the GNOME Desktop.</p><p>PyGTK applications are truly multiplatform and they're able to run, unmodified, on Linux, Windows, MacOS X and other platforms.</p><p>Other distinctive features of PyGTK are, besides its ease of use and rapid prototyping, its first class accesibility support or the capability to deal with complex multilingual or bidirectional text for fully localized applications.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thoughts on PyGtk ?
I know people seem to like ignoring it .
It has most of the positives of developing with C # .
In the end you are either passing your code through a java interpretor or a python interpretor anyway .
Plus PyGtk looks more crossplatform in a real way than C # .
From their site : http : //www.pygtk.org/ [ pygtk.org ] PyGTK lets you to easily create programs with a graphical user interface using the Python programming language .
The underlying GTK + library provides all kind of visual elements and utilities for it and , if needed , you can develop full featured applications for the GNOME Desktop.PyGTK applications are truly multiplatform and they 're able to run , unmodified , on Linux , Windows , MacOS X and other platforms.Other distinctive features of PyGTK are , besides its ease of use and rapid prototyping , its first class accesibility support or the capability to deal with complex multilingual or bidirectional text for fully localized applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thoughts on PyGtk?
I know people seem to like ignoring it.
It has most of the positives of developing with C#.
In the end you are either passing your code through a java interpretor or a python interpretor anyway.
Plus PyGtk looks more crossplatform in a real way than C#.
From their site: http://www.pygtk.org/ [pygtk.org] PyGTK lets you to easily create programs with a graphical user interface using the Python programming language.
The underlying GTK+ library provides all kind of visual elements and utilities for it and, if needed, you can develop full featured applications for the GNOME Desktop.PyGTK applications are truly multiplatform and they're able to run, unmodified, on Linux, Windows, MacOS X and other platforms.Other distinctive features of PyGTK are, besides its ease of use and rapid prototyping, its first class accesibility support or the capability to deal with complex multilingual or bidirectional text for fully localized applications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608519</id>
	<title>Awesome I can now embed mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246983000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is fantastic news.</p><p>We're building a QT app and one of the decisions we had was whether or not to embed mono to host our applications 'data' and 'controllers' which would do all the processing web service calls, etc.</p><p>With the patent threat now lifted (we're not using any non ecma libs) we can have the best of both worlds, a fast C++ gui hosting a highly productive and maintainable core.</p><p>Thanks to all who helped make this happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is fantastic news.We 're building a QT app and one of the decisions we had was whether or not to embed mono to host our applications 'data ' and 'controllers ' which would do all the processing web service calls , etc.With the patent threat now lifted ( we 're not using any non ecma libs ) we can have the best of both worlds , a fast C + + gui hosting a highly productive and maintainable core.Thanks to all who helped make this happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is fantastic news.We're building a QT app and one of the decisions we had was whether or not to embed mono to host our applications 'data' and 'controllers' which would do all the processing web service calls, etc.With the patent threat now lifted (we're not using any non ecma libs) we can have the best of both worlds, a fast C++ gui hosting a highly productive and maintainable core.Thanks to all who helped make this happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612467</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing New, Doesn't Help Mono</title>
	<author>280Z28</author>
	<datestamp>1246998240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I haven't seen mentioned is very important: even in BCL classes that <i>are</i> covered by ECMA-335, the members you find might not be what you expect. For example, there are no <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f02979c7.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">TryParse</a> [microsoft.com] methods for any of the primitive types, which forces exception handling as flow control. "No one" uses the regular Parse methods in the face of unknown inputs. Honestly, there are a surprising number of items "missing" in the ECMA-335 standard. Originally I wanted to implement it precisely but I found it was hindering my ability to code with good practices. Where do you draw the line.<br> <br>

There are also some errors in the documentation in the standard. Not some large number of them, but certainly enough to make you wonder how flexible the promise is. Errors range from omissions to ambiguities to a couple instances of clearly incorrect/contradictory statements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I have n't seen mentioned is very important : even in BCL classes that are covered by ECMA-335 , the members you find might not be what you expect .
For example , there are no TryParse [ microsoft.com ] methods for any of the primitive types , which forces exception handling as flow control .
" No one " uses the regular Parse methods in the face of unknown inputs .
Honestly , there are a surprising number of items " missing " in the ECMA-335 standard .
Originally I wanted to implement it precisely but I found it was hindering my ability to code with good practices .
Where do you draw the line .
There are also some errors in the documentation in the standard .
Not some large number of them , but certainly enough to make you wonder how flexible the promise is .
Errors range from omissions to ambiguities to a couple instances of clearly incorrect/contradictory statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I haven't seen mentioned is very important: even in BCL classes that are covered by ECMA-335, the members you find might not be what you expect.
For example, there are no TryParse [microsoft.com] methods for any of the primitive types, which forces exception handling as flow control.
"No one" uses the regular Parse methods in the face of unknown inputs.
Honestly, there are a surprising number of items "missing" in the ECMA-335 standard.
Originally I wanted to implement it precisely but I found it was hindering my ability to code with good practices.
Where do you draw the line.
There are also some errors in the documentation in the standard.
Not some large number of them, but certainly enough to make you wonder how flexible the promise is.
Errors range from omissions to ambiguities to a couple instances of clearly incorrect/contradictory statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609471</id>
	<title>Who cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246986600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CRAP are proprietary mickeysoft junk.  Nobody with any self respect or skill would use any of these.  Java by it's cross-platform, open source nature should be the language of choice for REAL professionals (as opposed to hobbyists).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # and .CRAP are proprietary mickeysoft junk .
Nobody with any self respect or skill would use any of these .
Java by it 's cross-platform , open source nature should be the language of choice for REAL professionals ( as opposed to hobbyists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# and .CRAP are proprietary mickeysoft junk.
Nobody with any self respect or skill would use any of these.
Java by it's cross-platform, open source nature should be the language of choice for REAL professionals (as opposed to hobbyists).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616547</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246976280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, its not like any OSS apps evolve quickly and make an next to impossible target to hit.</p><p>Thats why you never see commercial developers talking about how Linux easy is such a stable target to hit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Sorry, but this is just a silly argument.</p><p>C#/.NET is going to take a few years to mature, naturally.  Guess you've never been around when something new comes out that really hasn't been ironed out yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , its not like any OSS apps evolve quickly and make an next to impossible target to hit.Thats why you never see commercial developers talking about how Linux easy is such a stable target to hit ...Sorry , but this is just a silly argument.C # /.NET is going to take a few years to mature , naturally .
Guess you 've never been around when something new comes out that really has n't been ironed out yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, its not like any OSS apps evolve quickly and make an next to impossible target to hit.Thats why you never see commercial developers talking about how Linux easy is such a stable target to hit ...Sorry, but this is just a silly argument.C#/.NET is going to take a few years to mature, naturally.
Guess you've never been around when something new comes out that really hasn't been ironed out yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607331</id>
	<title>Mono is now free to follow it's own path.</title>
	<author>mrpacmanjel</author>
	<datestamp>1246978440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thinking about it, the Community Promise is a huge win for Mono.</p><p>The Patent Trap was always a concern when I used Mono. I knew the external libraries ado.net, asp.net and winforms were "tainted" but was always unsure about the "core" on Mono itself.</p><p>Now that the "core" of Mono seems to be free from the patent threat from Microsoft Mono can take a new "patentless" path and develop equivalent versions of the libraries not mentioned in the Community Promise.</p><p>You won't be able to run Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net stuff (legally/safely) on Linux but you would be able to run Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net stuff on Windows.</p><p>GTK# seems to be a mature gui frontend the only major missing part is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ADO library for data access (unless something is already out there).</p><p>Mono does not *have to* follow Microsoft's upgrade treadmill and keep up-to-date compatibility with the latest version of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net instead concentrate on delivering applications on other systems - Linux, non-windows arm-based processors and macs.</p><p>In the end Mono could embrace, extend and extinquish Microsoft's own implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thinking about it , the Community Promise is a huge win for Mono.The Patent Trap was always a concern when I used Mono .
I knew the external libraries ado.net , asp.net and winforms were " tainted " but was always unsure about the " core " on Mono itself.Now that the " core " of Mono seems to be free from the patent threat from Microsoft Mono can take a new " patentless " path and develop equivalent versions of the libraries not mentioned in the Community Promise.You wo n't be able to run Windows .net stuff ( legally/safely ) on Linux but you would be able to run Linux .net stuff on Windows.GTK # seems to be a mature gui frontend the only major missing part is .ADO library for data access ( unless something is already out there ) .Mono does not * have to * follow Microsoft 's upgrade treadmill and keep up-to-date compatibility with the latest version of .net instead concentrate on delivering applications on other systems - Linux , non-windows arm-based processors and macs.In the end Mono could embrace , extend and extinquish Microsoft 's own implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thinking about it, the Community Promise is a huge win for Mono.The Patent Trap was always a concern when I used Mono.
I knew the external libraries ado.net, asp.net and winforms were "tainted" but was always unsure about the "core" on Mono itself.Now that the "core" of Mono seems to be free from the patent threat from Microsoft Mono can take a new "patentless" path and develop equivalent versions of the libraries not mentioned in the Community Promise.You won't be able to run Windows .net stuff (legally/safely) on Linux but you would be able to run Linux .net stuff on Windows.GTK# seems to be a mature gui frontend the only major missing part is .ADO library for data access (unless something is already out there).Mono does not *have to* follow Microsoft's upgrade treadmill and keep up-to-date compatibility with the latest version of .net instead concentrate on delivering applications on other systems - Linux, non-windows arm-based processors and macs.In the end Mono could embrace, extend and extinquish Microsoft's own implementation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616709</id>
	<title>why mono</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1246977540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and why not put more work into openstep?
<p>
Objective-C is nice, gorm is a workalike to interface builder.
</p><p>
Microsoft have everything to lose.  Apple have plenty to gain by Microsoft's loss.  Openstep has plenty to gain by Microsoft's loss/apple's gain.
</p><p>
OpenStep is a fine platform, but barely anyone seems to be developing for it.  Everyone just wants to copy windows.
</p><p>
I'm putting my money where my mouth is too, Have just finished reading a book on Objective-C, bought a Mac Mini, and am going to stick OpenStep on the PC so I can get my feet wet with cross-platform application development for OS/X and OpenStep.
</p><p>
But serious question... why is Openstep apparently shunned so much?  There seems to be so much wheel re-development going on, when we could have a platform that is reasonably common between OpenStep, Mac and Iphone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and why not put more work into openstep ?
Objective-C is nice , gorm is a workalike to interface builder .
Microsoft have everything to lose .
Apple have plenty to gain by Microsoft 's loss .
Openstep has plenty to gain by Microsoft 's loss/apple 's gain .
OpenStep is a fine platform , but barely anyone seems to be developing for it .
Everyone just wants to copy windows .
I 'm putting my money where my mouth is too , Have just finished reading a book on Objective-C , bought a Mac Mini , and am going to stick OpenStep on the PC so I can get my feet wet with cross-platform application development for OS/X and OpenStep .
But serious question... why is Openstep apparently shunned so much ?
There seems to be so much wheel re-development going on , when we could have a platform that is reasonably common between OpenStep , Mac and Iphone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and why not put more work into openstep?
Objective-C is nice, gorm is a workalike to interface builder.
Microsoft have everything to lose.
Apple have plenty to gain by Microsoft's loss.
Openstep has plenty to gain by Microsoft's loss/apple's gain.
OpenStep is a fine platform, but barely anyone seems to be developing for it.
Everyone just wants to copy windows.
I'm putting my money where my mouth is too, Have just finished reading a book on Objective-C, bought a Mac Mini, and am going to stick OpenStep on the PC so I can get my feet wet with cross-platform application development for OS/X and OpenStep.
But serious question... why is Openstep apparently shunned so much?
There seems to be so much wheel re-development going on, when we could have a platform that is reasonably common between OpenStep, Mac and Iphone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606431</id>
	<title>So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1246973700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A oft convicted company is now making a 'community promise' - and we're supposed to believe them??!!!

<p>Grab your ankles, folks, this will hurt us all in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A oft convicted company is now making a 'community promise ' - and we 're supposed to believe them ? ? ! ! !
Grab your ankles , folks , this will hurt us all in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A oft convicted company is now making a 'community promise' - and we're supposed to believe them??!!!
Grab your ankles, folks, this will hurt us all in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610943</id>
	<title>Re:FYI, this IS legally binding</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246992480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>open-sourced Microsoft stuff (like ASP.NET, under the OSI-approved MS-PL license)</p></div><p>ASP.NET is not open sourced. ASP.NET MVC is, but it's a different thing (and builds on ASP.NET).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>open-sourced Microsoft stuff ( like ASP.NET , under the OSI-approved MS-PL license ) ASP.NET is not open sourced .
ASP.NET MVC is , but it 's a different thing ( and builds on ASP.NET ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>open-sourced Microsoft stuff (like ASP.NET, under the OSI-approved MS-PL license)ASP.NET is not open sourced.
ASP.NET MVC is, but it's a different thing (and builds on ASP.NET).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611447</id>
	<title>What about the future?</title>
	<author>TaQ</author>
	<datestamp>1246994340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here <a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-microsofts-promises-for-ever.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">is something to think about</a> [blogspot.com]:
<br>
<i>
Q: Does this CP apply to all versions of the specification, including future revisions?<br>
A: The Community Promise applies to all existing versions of the specifications designated on the public list posted at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/interop/cp/, unless otherwise noted with respect to a particular specification.
</i>
<br>
Does Microsoft conspicuously fail to answer its own question?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is something to think about [ blogspot.com ] : Q : Does this CP apply to all versions of the specification , including future revisions ?
A : The Community Promise applies to all existing versions of the specifications designated on the public list posted at /interop/cp/ , unless otherwise noted with respect to a particular specification .
Does Microsoft conspicuously fail to answer its own question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is something to think about [blogspot.com]:


Q: Does this CP apply to all versions of the specification, including future revisions?
A: The Community Promise applies to all existing versions of the specifications designated on the public list posted at /interop/cp/, unless otherwise noted with respect to a particular specification.
Does Microsoft conspicuously fail to answer its own question?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616767</id>
	<title>Re:promise doesn't extent downstream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the provision about "extent it conforms with the Specifications" is telling you that they are waving their right to sue you over the parts that conform with the specification.</p><p>If you implement something that conforms with the spec; but uses something they hold a patent on that isn't in the spec (??) then since it isn't part of the spec; doesn't mean they aren't going to sue you.</p><p>Basically; they aren't waving the right to sue you over anything; just anything they specify in the spec.  I think it is mis-interpretation to say that you have to implement the spec completely and correctly to be covered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the provision about " extent it conforms with the Specifications " is telling you that they are waving their right to sue you over the parts that conform with the specification.If you implement something that conforms with the spec ; but uses something they hold a patent on that is n't in the spec ( ? ?
) then since it is n't part of the spec ; does n't mean they are n't going to sue you.Basically ; they are n't waving the right to sue you over anything ; just anything they specify in the spec .
I think it is mis-interpretation to say that you have to implement the spec completely and correctly to be covered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the provision about "extent it conforms with the Specifications" is telling you that they are waving their right to sue you over the parts that conform with the specification.If you implement something that conforms with the spec; but uses something they hold a patent on that isn't in the spec (??
) then since it isn't part of the spec; doesn't mean they aren't going to sue you.Basically; they aren't waving the right to sue you over anything; just anything they specify in the spec.
I think it is mis-interpretation to say that you have to implement the spec completely and correctly to be covered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611183</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246993440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply put, C# is Java with true generics, RAII, full-featured lambdas with short syntax and ability to mutate captured variables, operator overloading, and opt-in low-level operations complete with pointer arithmetic and unions. (This is still a simplification, but it's close enough).</p><p>If you are a Java coder who understands what the above means, and it makes you go "wow gimme!", then welcome to the club (though you may also want to consider Scala in this case).</p><p>If you understand, but it makes you wince, then you're probably a senior Java developer who writes "Hello, world!" as an enterprise JavaBean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>If you do not understand, but you know Ruby and like it, and wish Java had at least some of the tasty features of Ruby, you should definitely take a look.</p><p>If you don't understand it at all, then don't bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply put , C # is Java with true generics , RAII , full-featured lambdas with short syntax and ability to mutate captured variables , operator overloading , and opt-in low-level operations complete with pointer arithmetic and unions .
( This is still a simplification , but it 's close enough ) .If you are a Java coder who understands what the above means , and it makes you go " wow gim me !
" , then welcome to the club ( though you may also want to consider Scala in this case ) .If you understand , but it makes you wince , then you 're probably a senior Java developer who writes " Hello , world !
" as an enterprise JavaBean : ) If you do not understand , but you know Ruby and like it , and wish Java had at least some of the tasty features of Ruby , you should definitely take a look.If you do n't understand it at all , then do n't bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply put, C# is Java with true generics, RAII, full-featured lambdas with short syntax and ability to mutate captured variables, operator overloading, and opt-in low-level operations complete with pointer arithmetic and unions.
(This is still a simplification, but it's close enough).If you are a Java coder who understands what the above means, and it makes you go "wow gimme!
", then welcome to the club (though you may also want to consider Scala in this case).If you understand, but it makes you wince, then you're probably a senior Java developer who writes "Hello, world!
" as an enterprise JavaBean :)If you do not understand, but you know Ruby and like it, and wish Java had at least some of the tasty features of Ruby, you should definitely take a look.If you don't understand it at all, then don't bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606435</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So really, even if MS adds the 2 standards to their Community Promise, that still doesn't mean you get anything useful - if you write a simple app that does nothing, you're fine. If you want DB access, or web serving, or a GUI.. you're still in the same problem as before.</p></div><p>I believe it means that if you want DB access, or web serving, or a GUI, you will have to use other libraries that Mono offers, such as GTK# for the GUI instead of WinForms etc. You don't have to use the windows libraries -- it's just convenient to have them available for Mono for cross-platform purposes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So really , even if MS adds the 2 standards to their Community Promise , that still does n't mean you get anything useful - if you write a simple app that does nothing , you 're fine .
If you want DB access , or web serving , or a GUI.. you 're still in the same problem as before.I believe it means that if you want DB access , or web serving , or a GUI , you will have to use other libraries that Mono offers , such as GTK # for the GUI instead of WinForms etc .
You do n't have to use the windows libraries -- it 's just convenient to have them available for Mono for cross-platform purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So really, even if MS adds the 2 standards to their Community Promise, that still doesn't mean you get anything useful - if you write a simple app that does nothing, you're fine.
If you want DB access, or web serving, or a GUI.. you're still in the same problem as before.I believe it means that if you want DB access, or web serving, or a GUI, you will have to use other libraries that Mono offers, such as GTK# for the GUI instead of WinForms etc.
You don't have to use the windows libraries -- it's just convenient to have them available for Mono for cross-platform purposes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608793</id>
	<title>Re:This makes no real difference!</title>
	<author>miguel</author>
	<datestamp>1246983960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a research paper on ILX from 2001.</p><p>The research work from ILX was folded into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0 and is part of ECMA 4th edition.</p><p>All of the instructions that you listed are deprecated, they never really made it into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, their much improved, polished and battle field tested versions did.   And they are the foundation for C#'s generics support and Don Syme's F# compiler, both which run just fine in Mono today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a research paper on ILX from 2001.The research work from ILX was folded into .NET 2.0 and is part of ECMA 4th edition.All of the instructions that you listed are deprecated , they never really made it into .NET , their much improved , polished and battle field tested versions did .
And they are the foundation for C # 's generics support and Don Syme 's F # compiler , both which run just fine in Mono today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a research paper on ILX from 2001.The research work from ILX was folded into .NET 2.0 and is part of ECMA 4th edition.All of the instructions that you listed are deprecated, they never really made it into .NET, their much improved, polished and battle field tested versions did.
And they are the foundation for C#'s generics support and Don Syme's F# compiler, both which run just fine in Mono today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606411</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1246973580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:\_Licensing" title="mono-project.com" rel="nofollow">Not an issue.</a> [mono-project.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not an issue .
[ mono-project.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not an issue.
[mono-project.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607973</id>
	<title>Re:promise doesn't extent downstream</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1246980780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just avoiding "embrace and extend".</p><p>The stated intent of the promise (and you can be as cynical as you like about whether this is really what they're doing) is to facilitate interoperability.  They're not interested in you making other things that use their patents.  They're really not interested you you writing a "C# implementation" using their patents, but really it toasts bagels instead of compiling C# code, and claim they can't sue you.</p><p>They also leave themselves some interesting outs, so the question I can't answer (as I haven't studied the relevant material) is one of intent.  The real test of whether they're trying to be interoperable would come with an analysis of the spec in question.  Are the "interesting" parts of the spec over which they hold patents mandatory parts of the core spec?  If they're optional, then MS can sue you if you use their patents to implement them.  If a key feature is implemented using a spec that is referenced by the covered spec, that doesn't fall under the promise either.</p><p>At worst it might be somewhere between a nice start and a PR stunt; at best it might be a legitimate move toward a patent truce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just avoiding " embrace and extend " .The stated intent of the promise ( and you can be as cynical as you like about whether this is really what they 're doing ) is to facilitate interoperability .
They 're not interested in you making other things that use their patents .
They 're really not interested you you writing a " C # implementation " using their patents , but really it toasts bagels instead of compiling C # code , and claim they ca n't sue you.They also leave themselves some interesting outs , so the question I ca n't answer ( as I have n't studied the relevant material ) is one of intent .
The real test of whether they 're trying to be interoperable would come with an analysis of the spec in question .
Are the " interesting " parts of the spec over which they hold patents mandatory parts of the core spec ?
If they 're optional , then MS can sue you if you use their patents to implement them .
If a key feature is implemented using a spec that is referenced by the covered spec , that does n't fall under the promise either.At worst it might be somewhere between a nice start and a PR stunt ; at best it might be a legitimate move toward a patent truce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just avoiding "embrace and extend".The stated intent of the promise (and you can be as cynical as you like about whether this is really what they're doing) is to facilitate interoperability.
They're not interested in you making other things that use their patents.
They're really not interested you you writing a "C# implementation" using their patents, but really it toasts bagels instead of compiling C# code, and claim they can't sue you.They also leave themselves some interesting outs, so the question I can't answer (as I haven't studied the relevant material) is one of intent.
The real test of whether they're trying to be interoperable would come with an analysis of the spec in question.
Are the "interesting" parts of the spec over which they hold patents mandatory parts of the core spec?
If they're optional, then MS can sue you if you use their patents to implement them.
If a key feature is implemented using a spec that is referenced by the covered spec, that doesn't fall under the promise either.At worst it might be somewhere between a nice start and a PR stunt; at best it might be a legitimate move toward a patent truce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606697</id>
	<title>Re:So, let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1246975500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a promise in the sense of "I promise not to cheat". It's a promise in the legally binding sense of promissory estoppel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a promise in the sense of " I promise not to cheat " .
It 's a promise in the legally binding sense of promissory estoppel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a promise in the sense of "I promise not to cheat".
It's a promise in the legally binding sense of promissory estoppel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610811</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Note that what Microsoft is stopped from doing has no bearing on what they can fund other companies to do on their behalf [cnet.com]. </i></p><p>Since other companies can't sue to enforce Microsoft's patents, that's not relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that what Microsoft is stopped from doing has no bearing on what they can fund other companies to do on their behalf [ cnet.com ] .
Since other companies ca n't sue to enforce Microsoft 's patents , that 's not relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that what Microsoft is stopped from doing has no bearing on what they can fund other companies to do on their behalf [cnet.com].
Since other companies can't sue to enforce Microsoft's patents, that's not relevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606277</id>
	<title>Sounds promising...</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1246972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds promising, and it may end up meaning Stallman was wrong all along and that it was safe to implement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net/C# (which GNU have done anyway). It's be useful to have somewhere slightly more authoritative to hear it from (like Microsoft themselves) but at least people don't need to worry about "arrrghh, it's a patent trap" and can get on with "hurrah! I can focus on coding for the desktop in a decent language rather than having low-level memory concerns etc".</p><p>Not that I ever cared anyway. Stick to the registered standard definition of C# and Microsoft couldn't exactly kill off Mono anyway, as they'd probably have ended up breaching the "fair and non-discriminatory" part of the patent licensing or been forced to give Mono a free license anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds promising , and it may end up meaning Stallman was wrong all along and that it was safe to implement .Net/C # ( which GNU have done anyway ) .
It 's be useful to have somewhere slightly more authoritative to hear it from ( like Microsoft themselves ) but at least people do n't need to worry about " arrrghh , it 's a patent trap " and can get on with " hurrah !
I can focus on coding for the desktop in a decent language rather than having low-level memory concerns etc " .Not that I ever cared anyway .
Stick to the registered standard definition of C # and Microsoft could n't exactly kill off Mono anyway , as they 'd probably have ended up breaching the " fair and non-discriminatory " part of the patent licensing or been forced to give Mono a free license anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds promising, and it may end up meaning Stallman was wrong all along and that it was safe to implement .Net/C# (which GNU have done anyway).
It's be useful to have somewhere slightly more authoritative to hear it from (like Microsoft themselves) but at least people don't need to worry about "arrrghh, it's a patent trap" and can get on with "hurrah!
I can focus on coding for the desktop in a decent language rather than having low-level memory concerns etc".Not that I ever cared anyway.
Stick to the registered standard definition of C# and Microsoft couldn't exactly kill off Mono anyway, as they'd probably have ended up breaching the "fair and non-discriminatory" part of the patent licensing or been forced to give Mono a free license anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610499</id>
	<title>Re:Is C# / Mono + libraries really *that* good?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1246990860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is. Its Java except someone found a way to make it not-so-goddamned-verbose, and add some stuff from Functional languages in a way that fits with the rest of the language.</p><p>But one thing you're missing is that the controversy itself isn't as big as these discusions make it out to be. Microsoft's hypothetical patent portfolio is only a problem if you live in the US (and, I believe, Japan as well) but for the rest of us its just 'features vs features' and that's how we judge, legal safety doesn't come into the picture as both have implementations under the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is .
Its Java except someone found a way to make it not-so-goddamned-verbose , and add some stuff from Functional languages in a way that fits with the rest of the language.But one thing you 're missing is that the controversy itself is n't as big as these discusions make it out to be .
Microsoft 's hypothetical patent portfolio is only a problem if you live in the US ( and , I believe , Japan as well ) but for the rest of us its just 'features vs features ' and that 's how we judge , legal safety does n't come into the picture as both have implementations under the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is.
Its Java except someone found a way to make it not-so-goddamned-verbose, and add some stuff from Functional languages in a way that fits with the rest of the language.But one thing you're missing is that the controversy itself isn't as big as these discusions make it out to be.
Microsoft's hypothetical patent portfolio is only a problem if you live in the US (and, I believe, Japan as well) but for the rest of us its just 'features vs features' and that's how we judge, legal safety doesn't come into the picture as both have implementations under the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606537</id>
	<title>Re:promise doesn't extent downstream</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1246974600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 'community promise' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications !</p></div><p>I think that is incorrect. Quoting from the community promise itself (linked in article)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification</p></div><p>It includes "using". So I do not receive the rights from the distributor of a MONO application, but I, as a user, am directly granted the right to use it from the microsoft community promise.<br> <br> The fact that you have to conform to the standards is however a real restriction. It makes some sense, to avoid someone else playing an embrace-extend-hijack on them, like they tried with Java... however this also means that if I invent my own language+runtime D# that infringes on some microsoft C# patents  this does not protect me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'community promise ' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications ! I think that is incorrect .
Quoting from the community promise itself ( linked in article ) Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making , using , selling , offering for sale , importing or distributing any implementation , to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications , and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specificationIt includes " using " .
So I do not receive the rights from the distributor of a MONO application , but I , as a user , am directly granted the right to use it from the microsoft community promise .
The fact that you have to conform to the standards is however a real restriction .
It makes some sense , to avoid someone else playing an embrace-extend-hijack on them , like they tried with Java... however this also means that if I invent my own language + runtime D # that infringes on some microsoft C # patents this does not protect me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'community promise' does not extend to commercial downstream recipients of open source MONO applications !I think that is incorrect.
Quoting from the community promise itself (linked in article)Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specificationIt includes "using".
So I do not receive the rights from the distributor of a MONO application, but I, as a user, am directly granted the right to use it from the microsoft community promise.
The fact that you have to conform to the standards is however a real restriction.
It makes some sense, to avoid someone else playing an embrace-extend-hijack on them, like they tried with Java... however this also means that if I invent my own language+runtime D# that infringes on some microsoft C# patents  this does not protect me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607761</id>
	<title>Sorry, but I just have to laugh</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246980060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I see the words "Microsoft" and "Promise" together it just raises a comical sensation somehow.  Perhaps it doesn't with many, but I am the typical Slashdot-Microsoft-hater for better or worse.  I just don't trust Microsoft to not hold some strings somewhere or this to not be some sort of trap.  Microsoft doesn't trust the market to choose Microsoft or its products to compete fairly against others.  Instead, it typically needs to control the market and reduce competition in order to maintain its profit and position.  They are the "Dick Dastardly and Muttley" (from the Wacky Races cartoon) of the technology marketplace.  I have always found it ironic that they [D.Dastardly and Muttley] could somehow get in front of all the other racers in order to set some sort of trick or trap to slow down or knock out the other racers, but they can't simply take the lead and keep it.  (Is it wrong that a 5-year-old child at the time had such thoughts watching these cartoons instead of just enjoying the slapstick action?)  Microsoft is the same to me in this way.  They have enormous resources and quite likely a vast arsenal of talented and creative people.  They have more than enough of "the right stuff" to compete and win in the marketplace.  But instead, they use their resources and creativity to cause other people to fail or otherwise harm others in the marketplace.</p><p>Obviously differences between the Dastardly Duo and Microsoft emerge on comparison as well.  Microsoft actually manages to win most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I see the words " Microsoft " and " Promise " together it just raises a comical sensation somehow .
Perhaps it does n't with many , but I am the typical Slashdot-Microsoft-hater for better or worse .
I just do n't trust Microsoft to not hold some strings somewhere or this to not be some sort of trap .
Microsoft does n't trust the market to choose Microsoft or its products to compete fairly against others .
Instead , it typically needs to control the market and reduce competition in order to maintain its profit and position .
They are the " Dick Dastardly and Muttley " ( from the Wacky Races cartoon ) of the technology marketplace .
I have always found it ironic that they [ D.Dastardly and Muttley ] could somehow get in front of all the other racers in order to set some sort of trick or trap to slow down or knock out the other racers , but they ca n't simply take the lead and keep it .
( Is it wrong that a 5-year-old child at the time had such thoughts watching these cartoons instead of just enjoying the slapstick action ?
) Microsoft is the same to me in this way .
They have enormous resources and quite likely a vast arsenal of talented and creative people .
They have more than enough of " the right stuff " to compete and win in the marketplace .
But instead , they use their resources and creativity to cause other people to fail or otherwise harm others in the marketplace.Obviously differences between the Dastardly Duo and Microsoft emerge on comparison as well .
Microsoft actually manages to win most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I see the words "Microsoft" and "Promise" together it just raises a comical sensation somehow.
Perhaps it doesn't with many, but I am the typical Slashdot-Microsoft-hater for better or worse.
I just don't trust Microsoft to not hold some strings somewhere or this to not be some sort of trap.
Microsoft doesn't trust the market to choose Microsoft or its products to compete fairly against others.
Instead, it typically needs to control the market and reduce competition in order to maintain its profit and position.
They are the "Dick Dastardly and Muttley" (from the Wacky Races cartoon) of the technology marketplace.
I have always found it ironic that they [D.Dastardly and Muttley] could somehow get in front of all the other racers in order to set some sort of trick or trap to slow down or knock out the other racers, but they can't simply take the lead and keep it.
(Is it wrong that a 5-year-old child at the time had such thoughts watching these cartoons instead of just enjoying the slapstick action?
)  Microsoft is the same to me in this way.
They have enormous resources and quite likely a vast arsenal of talented and creative people.
They have more than enough of "the right stuff" to compete and win in the marketplace.
But instead, they use their resources and creativity to cause other people to fail or otherwise harm others in the marketplace.Obviously differences between the Dastardly Duo and Microsoft emerge on comparison as well.
Microsoft actually manages to win most of the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606389</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want a GUI on Windows, or using the Windows libraries, sure.</p><p><a href="http://www.mono-project.com/GtkSharp" title="mono-project.com">GTK#</a> [mono-project.com] is entirely developed by the Mono project, and requires none of the aforementioned Microsoft parts.  That means applications like <a href="http://projects.gnome.org/tomboy/" title="gnome.org">Tomboy</a> [gnome.org] and <a href="http://banshee-project.org/" title="banshee-project.org">Banshee</a> [banshee-project.org] should now be fully RMS-friendly.</p><p>Mono is more than just 'running Windows applications on Linux'.  There is a large ecosystem of utilities developed with it, because (a) a properly object-oriented language with native bindings is much better than the C-with-Gobject alternative, and (b) Java was not Free at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want a GUI on Windows , or using the Windows libraries , sure.GTK # [ mono-project.com ] is entirely developed by the Mono project , and requires none of the aforementioned Microsoft parts .
That means applications like Tomboy [ gnome.org ] and Banshee [ banshee-project.org ] should now be fully RMS-friendly.Mono is more than just 'running Windows applications on Linux' .
There is a large ecosystem of utilities developed with it , because ( a ) a properly object-oriented language with native bindings is much better than the C-with-Gobject alternative , and ( b ) Java was not Free at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want a GUI on Windows, or using the Windows libraries, sure.GTK# [mono-project.com] is entirely developed by the Mono project, and requires none of the aforementioned Microsoft parts.
That means applications like Tomboy [gnome.org] and Banshee [banshee-project.org] should now be fully RMS-friendly.Mono is more than just 'running Windows applications on Linux'.
There is a large ecosystem of utilities developed with it, because (a) a properly object-oriented language with native bindings is much better than the C-with-Gobject alternative, and (b) Java was not Free at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467</id>
	<title>why so happy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would Miguel De Icaza be so happy if his previous assertions that there is nothing to worry about mean anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Miguel De Icaza be so happy if his previous assertions that there is nothing to worry about mean anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Miguel De Icaza be so happy if his previous assertions that there is nothing to worry about mean anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611265</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>FrangoAssado</author>
	<datestamp>1246993680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy (I'm primarily a Linux programmer), but saying Java and C# are practically the same is being blind or unwilling to see the truth.</p><p>Java and C# are really very similar in the surface. Microsoft seems to have designed C# to replace Java, so that's hardly surprising. They have literally copied every good idea from Java, but there are many changes and additions to C# (and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET) that make the languages and VMs very different.</p><p>I actually believe that a lot people working with both think they are very similar, but that's because there's a lot of overlap. If you program in Java, you can start programming in C# right away (the syntax is almost the same, you only have to learn differences in the library). The other way around is a lot more difficult -- C# has a lot of features that don't exist in Java.</p><p>Take generics for example. In Java, generics are a late addition that didn't modify the JVM; this causes many limitations. In<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, the runtime knows about generics (you can even inspect them with reflection). More important (at least for me) is the ability to use primitive (i.e. value) types with generics. That way you can use</p><p>

<tt>
Dictionary&lt;string,int&gt;
</tt>

</p><p>and be assured that it will be as efficient as possible -- no boxing and no castings happening behind the curtains.</p><p>Another good feature of C# are delegates, very useful for callbacks of GUIs, for example. Java's inner classes are simply too much of a hassle when you compare them to delegates, specially for simple things.</p><p>There are many other features that Java doesn't have (unsigned integral types, using binary logical operators with enums and events are a few that are easy to remember), but this post is too long as it is.</p><p>But don't get me wrong, I also think Java has some strengths. For example, it has a lot more libraries around (if you need it, chances are someone else already wrote it), it runs in a lot of systems, and there's no chance of some day someone claiming a patent and forcing you to stop using it (well, technically this risk exists even for Java, but it seems really unlikely).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy ( I 'm primarily a Linux programmer ) , but saying Java and C # are practically the same is being blind or unwilling to see the truth.Java and C # are really very similar in the surface .
Microsoft seems to have designed C # to replace Java , so that 's hardly surprising .
They have literally copied every good idea from Java , but there are many changes and additions to C # ( and .NET ) that make the languages and VMs very different.I actually believe that a lot people working with both think they are very similar , but that 's because there 's a lot of overlap .
If you program in Java , you can start programming in C # right away ( the syntax is almost the same , you only have to learn differences in the library ) .
The other way around is a lot more difficult -- C # has a lot of features that do n't exist in Java.Take generics for example .
In Java , generics are a late addition that did n't modify the JVM ; this causes many limitations .
In .NET , the runtime knows about generics ( you can even inspect them with reflection ) .
More important ( at least for me ) is the ability to use primitive ( i.e .
value ) types with generics .
That way you can use Dictionary and be assured that it will be as efficient as possible -- no boxing and no castings happening behind the curtains.Another good feature of C # are delegates , very useful for callbacks of GUIs , for example .
Java 's inner classes are simply too much of a hassle when you compare them to delegates , specially for simple things.There are many other features that Java does n't have ( unsigned integral types , using binary logical operators with enums and events are a few that are easy to remember ) , but this post is too long as it is.But do n't get me wrong , I also think Java has some strengths .
For example , it has a lot more libraries around ( if you need it , chances are someone else already wrote it ) , it runs in a lot of systems , and there 's no chance of some day someone claiming a patent and forcing you to stop using it ( well , technically this risk exists even for Java , but it seems really unlikely ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy (I'm primarily a Linux programmer), but saying Java and C# are practically the same is being blind or unwilling to see the truth.Java and C# are really very similar in the surface.
Microsoft seems to have designed C# to replace Java, so that's hardly surprising.
They have literally copied every good idea from Java, but there are many changes and additions to C# (and .NET) that make the languages and VMs very different.I actually believe that a lot people working with both think they are very similar, but that's because there's a lot of overlap.
If you program in Java, you can start programming in C# right away (the syntax is almost the same, you only have to learn differences in the library).
The other way around is a lot more difficult -- C# has a lot of features that don't exist in Java.Take generics for example.
In Java, generics are a late addition that didn't modify the JVM; this causes many limitations.
In .NET, the runtime knows about generics (you can even inspect them with reflection).
More important (at least for me) is the ability to use primitive (i.e.
value) types with generics.
That way you can use


Dictionary


and be assured that it will be as efficient as possible -- no boxing and no castings happening behind the curtains.Another good feature of C# are delegates, very useful for callbacks of GUIs, for example.
Java's inner classes are simply too much of a hassle when you compare them to delegates, specially for simple things.There are many other features that Java doesn't have (unsigned integral types, using binary logical operators with enums and events are a few that are easy to remember), but this post is too long as it is.But don't get me wrong, I also think Java has some strengths.
For example, it has a lot more libraries around (if you need it, chances are someone else already wrote it), it runs in a lot of systems, and there's no chance of some day someone claiming a patent and forcing you to stop using it (well, technically this risk exists even for Java, but it seems really unlikely).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616607</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1246976640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net technologies.</p></div><p>NO!</p><p>Microsoft is only estopped from going after people using C# and *CLI* technologies. They hold patents over other aspects of *.NET* technologies which are not covered by this feel-good announcement.</p><p>It is still all clear as mud.</p><p>So what if I grant royalty-free licences to everyone who wants to build a car chassis<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if I have patented using a car chassis *with wheels*? What if Microsoft, say, patented general GUI functionality *in so far as it requires the CLI*? Even Gtk# would infringe that sort of patent, even though Gtk++ and the CLI separately had no patent encumbrances.</p><p>Just because all the components are safe from patent threats, it does not mean that any *combination* of those components are free from patent threats. "Using GUI functionality with the CLI" may be patented - or "using database functionality with the CLI". Having the CLI and your own GUI or database library won't help you there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c # and .net technologies.NO ! Microsoft is only estopped from going after people using C # and * CLI * technologies .
They hold patents over other aspects of * .NET * technologies which are not covered by this feel-good announcement.It is still all clear as mud.So what if I grant royalty-free licences to everyone who wants to build a car chassis ... if I have patented using a car chassis * with wheels * ?
What if Microsoft , say , patented general GUI functionality * in so far as it requires the CLI * ?
Even Gtk # would infringe that sort of patent , even though Gtk + + and the CLI separately had no patent encumbrances.Just because all the components are safe from patent threats , it does not mean that any * combination * of those components are free from patent threats .
" Using GUI functionality with the CLI " may be patented - or " using database functionality with the CLI " .
Having the CLI and your own GUI or database library wo n't help you there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c# and .net technologies.NO!Microsoft is only estopped from going after people using C# and *CLI* technologies.
They hold patents over other aspects of *.NET* technologies which are not covered by this feel-good announcement.It is still all clear as mud.So what if I grant royalty-free licences to everyone who wants to build a car chassis ... if I have patented using a car chassis *with wheels*?
What if Microsoft, say, patented general GUI functionality *in so far as it requires the CLI*?
Even Gtk# would infringe that sort of patent, even though Gtk++ and the CLI separately had no patent encumbrances.Just because all the components are safe from patent threats, it does not mean that any *combination* of those components are free from patent threats.
"Using GUI functionality with the CLI" may be patented - or "using database functionality with the CLI".
Having the CLI and your own GUI or database library won't help you there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not just that its 'promised' to be added to the Community Promise, its only the ECMA 334 and 335 standards that will be added (possibly).</p><p>According to TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>    ECMA 334 specifies the form and establishes the interpretation of programs written in the C# programming language, while the ECMA 335 standard defines the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) in which applications written in multiple high-level languages can be executed in different system environments without the need to rewrite those applications to take into consideration the unique characteristics of those environments.</p></div><p>however.. later on, he says about Mono:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Astute readers will point out that Mono contains much more than the ECMA standards, and they will be correct.</p><p>In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions. One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others.</p></div><p>So really, even if MS adds the 2 standards to their Community Promise, that still doesn't mean you get anything useful - if you write a simple app that does nothing, you're fine. If you want DB access, or web serving, or a GUI.. you're still in the same problem as before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not just that its 'promised ' to be added to the Community Promise , its only the ECMA 334 and 335 standards that will be added ( possibly ) .According to TFA : ECMA 334 specifies the form and establishes the interpretation of programs written in the C # programming language , while the ECMA 335 standard defines the Common Language Infrastructure ( CLI ) in which applications written in multiple high-level languages can be executed in different system environments without the need to rewrite those applications to take into consideration the unique characteristics of those environments.however.. later on , he says about Mono : Astute readers will point out that Mono contains much more than the ECMA standards , and they will be correct.In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions .
One will be ECMA , the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET , ADO.NET , Winforms and others.So really , even if MS adds the 2 standards to their Community Promise , that still does n't mean you get anything useful - if you write a simple app that does nothing , you 're fine .
If you want DB access , or web serving , or a GUI.. you 're still in the same problem as before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not just that its 'promised' to be added to the Community Promise, its only the ECMA 334 and 335 standards that will be added (possibly).According to TFA:    ECMA 334 specifies the form and establishes the interpretation of programs written in the C# programming language, while the ECMA 335 standard defines the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) in which applications written in multiple high-level languages can be executed in different system environments without the need to rewrite those applications to take into consideration the unique characteristics of those environments.however.. later on, he says about Mono:Astute readers will point out that Mono contains much more than the ECMA standards, and they will be correct.In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions.
One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others.So really, even if MS adds the 2 standards to their Community Promise, that still doesn't mean you get anything useful - if you write a simple app that does nothing, you're fine.
If you want DB access, or web serving, or a GUI.. you're still in the same problem as before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606609</id>
	<title>Legally Executed Agreement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A promise is nice, but hardly a legally binding agreement.  If the FSF reviews and agrees to this agreement - in perpetuity, then I may consider using this.  Ok, probably not.</p><p>Fool me once, shame on you.</p><p>Fool me twice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Anyone recall the FAT legal woes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A promise is nice , but hardly a legally binding agreement .
If the FSF reviews and agrees to this agreement - in perpetuity , then I may consider using this .
Ok , probably not.Fool me once , shame on you.Fool me twice ...Anyone recall the FAT legal woes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A promise is nice, but hardly a legally binding agreement.
If the FSF reviews and agrees to this agreement - in perpetuity, then I may consider using this.
Ok, probably not.Fool me once, shame on you.Fool me twice ...Anyone recall the FAT legal woes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28615357</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1246967520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a real issue because if I know anything about Microsoft, it is that they like to keep targets moving. This means dot-net will evolve so quickly that there will only be one complete implementation: Microsofts own one.</p></div><p>Er... <i>developers</i> choose which version they want to target. Not Microsoft.</p><p>No one's forcing you to target a newer version of the framework, and if you're writing a cross-platform app, you'd be wise not to migrate to newer versions until they're standardized and fully supported in Mono anyway.</p><p>I work on a commercial application that targets<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0, and I've felt no pressure to upgrade it: I believe that with VS 2008 you can even upgrade your IDE while still targeting the old framework, although I'm still using VS 2005 for this project.</p><p>(Oddly enough, I'm also working on a free application that targets<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 3.5, and it works just fine under Mono.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>With C++, there is no vendor with this amount of power, and that's the way I like it.</p></div><p>You're mistaken about the "amount of power" Microsoft has here: the situations of C++ and C# are more analogous than you think.</p><p>If you write a C++ app that uses a proprietary library, you're subject to the vendor's terms. Likewise, if you write a C# app that uses proprietary libraries like ADO.NET, you're subject to Microsoft's terms. Solution: use an open source data/GUI/whatever layer instead.</p><p>If you're unable to resist shiny, nonstandard features that a certain vendor makes available (say, a C++ language extension), that vendor has power over you. Likewise, if you're unable to resist features of Microsoft's C# 4.0 before they're standardized and implemented by other vendors, Microsoft has power over you. Solution: stick to features that have been standardized and implemented by Mono.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a real issue because if I know anything about Microsoft , it is that they like to keep targets moving .
This means dot-net will evolve so quickly that there will only be one complete implementation : Microsofts own one.Er... developers choose which version they want to target .
Not Microsoft.No one 's forcing you to target a newer version of the framework , and if you 're writing a cross-platform app , you 'd be wise not to migrate to newer versions until they 're standardized and fully supported in Mono anyway.I work on a commercial application that targets .NET 2.0 , and I 've felt no pressure to upgrade it : I believe that with VS 2008 you can even upgrade your IDE while still targeting the old framework , although I 'm still using VS 2005 for this project .
( Oddly enough , I 'm also working on a free application that targets .NET 3.5 , and it works just fine under Mono .
) With C + + , there is no vendor with this amount of power , and that 's the way I like it.You 're mistaken about the " amount of power " Microsoft has here : the situations of C + + and C # are more analogous than you think.If you write a C + + app that uses a proprietary library , you 're subject to the vendor 's terms .
Likewise , if you write a C # app that uses proprietary libraries like ADO.NET , you 're subject to Microsoft 's terms .
Solution : use an open source data/GUI/whatever layer instead.If you 're unable to resist shiny , nonstandard features that a certain vendor makes available ( say , a C + + language extension ) , that vendor has power over you .
Likewise , if you 're unable to resist features of Microsoft 's C # 4.0 before they 're standardized and implemented by other vendors , Microsoft has power over you .
Solution : stick to features that have been standardized and implemented by Mono .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a real issue because if I know anything about Microsoft, it is that they like to keep targets moving.
This means dot-net will evolve so quickly that there will only be one complete implementation: Microsofts own one.Er... developers choose which version they want to target.
Not Microsoft.No one's forcing you to target a newer version of the framework, and if you're writing a cross-platform app, you'd be wise not to migrate to newer versions until they're standardized and fully supported in Mono anyway.I work on a commercial application that targets .NET 2.0, and I've felt no pressure to upgrade it: I believe that with VS 2008 you can even upgrade your IDE while still targeting the old framework, although I'm still using VS 2005 for this project.
(Oddly enough, I'm also working on a free application that targets .NET 3.5, and it works just fine under Mono.
)With C++, there is no vendor with this amount of power, and that's the way I like it.You're mistaken about the "amount of power" Microsoft has here: the situations of C++ and C# are more analogous than you think.If you write a C++ app that uses a proprietary library, you're subject to the vendor's terms.
Likewise, if you write a C# app that uses proprietary libraries like ADO.NET, you're subject to Microsoft's terms.
Solution: use an open source data/GUI/whatever layer instead.If you're unable to resist shiny, nonstandard features that a certain vendor makes available (say, a C++ language extension), that vendor has power over you.
Likewise, if you're unable to resist features of Microsoft's C# 4.0 before they're standardized and implemented by other vendors, Microsoft has power over you.
Solution: stick to features that have been standardized and implemented by Mono.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610231</id>
	<title>Elvis says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246989780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You aint nothing but a <a href="http://projects.gnome.org/tomboy/" title="gnome.org" rel="nofollow">Tomboy</a> [gnome.org], crying all the time."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You aint nothing but a Tomboy [ gnome.org ] , crying all the time .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You aint nothing but a Tomboy [gnome.org], crying all the time.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609209</id>
	<title>Because....</title>
	<author>cratermoon</author>
	<datestamp>1246985700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is new and different! Microsoft has never before made intentionally vague and obtuse promises and later broken them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is new and different !
Microsoft has never before made intentionally vague and obtuse promises and later broken them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is new and different!
Microsoft has never before made intentionally vague and obtuse promises and later broken them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28615015</id>
	<title>Re:This shows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246965360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCc0TgUMK2E" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Microsoft got a new hustle.</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft got a new hustle .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft got a new hustle.
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28617969</id>
	<title>Re:But of course...</title>
	<author>FishWithAHammer</author>
	<datestamp>1246989000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# and the CLI are ECMA standards and therefore not proprietary, dumbass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # and the CLI are ECMA standards and therefore not proprietary , dumbass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# and the CLI are ECMA standards and therefore not proprietary, dumbass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608823</id>
	<title>A Promise?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246984140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or a contract?</p><p>People break promises all the time. I'd hate to be left holding the bag if they change their mind down the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a contract ? People break promises all the time .
I 'd hate to be left holding the bag if they change their mind down the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a contract?People break promises all the time.
I'd hate to be left holding the bag if they change their mind down the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606391</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>tolan-b</author>
	<datestamp>1246973520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I understand it none of the Gnome Mono apps use those other libraries. Perhaps ADO.net, I'm not certain.</p><p>Certainly they don't use Winforms, they use the GTK bindings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I understand it none of the Gnome Mono apps use those other libraries .
Perhaps ADO.net , I 'm not certain.Certainly they do n't use Winforms , they use the GTK bindings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I understand it none of the Gnome Mono apps use those other libraries.
Perhaps ADO.net, I'm not certain.Certainly they don't use Winforms, they use the GTK bindings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606541</id>
	<title>What is included?</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1246974660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I am aware promises have little legal binding. There is always the worry that they will decide that some element "wasn't covered by the promise" and try to collect royalties, or sue for damages. Is it clear where the "open" libraries end and the "closed" operating system call start? (this is a genuine question; I don't know)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I am aware promises have little legal binding .
There is always the worry that they will decide that some element " was n't covered by the promise " and try to collect royalties , or sue for damages .
Is it clear where the " open " libraries end and the " closed " operating system call start ?
( this is a genuine question ; I do n't know )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I am aware promises have little legal binding.
There is always the worry that they will decide that some element "wasn't covered by the promise" and try to collect royalties, or sue for damages.
Is it clear where the "open" libraries end and the "closed" operating system call start?
(this is a genuine question; I don't know)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612427</id>
	<title>Re:...and this means?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fwiw, I think Secure Submitter really needs a UX designer step in and force the developer to throw out about 3/4 of the interfaces on screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fwiw , I think Secure Submitter really needs a UX designer step in and force the developer to throw out about 3/4 of the interfaces on screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fwiw, I think Secure Submitter really needs a UX designer step in and force the developer to throw out about 3/4 of the interfaces on screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349</id>
	<title>FYI, this IS legally binding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <strong>"Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?</strong> <br>
<br>
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft's implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice."<br>
<br>
tl;dr they can't sue you, ever, unless you sue them over patents.<br>
<br>
Also, Mono contains<br>
1) parts that are covered by the ECMA standard (C# and the CLI)<br>
2) original namespaces (like Mono.Simd)<br>
3) open-sourced Microsoft stuff (like ASP.NET, under the OSI-approved MS-PL license)<br>
4) parts that are in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET but not covered by the standard (like Winforms)<br>
which is why Miguel de Icaza says they'll be splitting their distribution up into now definitely safe (1 and 2) and potentially dodgy (3 and 4) packages, which is what already happens on Ubuntu for instance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Q : Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others ?
A : Yes , the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft .
The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise .
Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable , it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft .
The CP is , and will be , available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies .
As stated in the CP , the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings ( or voluntarily participates in ) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft 's implementation of the same Covered Specification .
This type of " suspension " clause is common industry practice .
" tl ; dr they ca n't sue you , ever , unless you sue them over patents .
Also , Mono contains 1 ) parts that are covered by the ECMA standard ( C # and the CLI ) 2 ) original namespaces ( like Mono.Simd ) 3 ) open-sourced Microsoft stuff ( like ASP.NET , under the OSI-approved MS-PL license ) 4 ) parts that are in .NET but not covered by the standard ( like Winforms ) which is why Miguel de Icaza says they 'll be splitting their distribution up into now definitely safe ( 1 and 2 ) and potentially dodgy ( 3 and 4 ) packages , which is what already happens on Ubuntu for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft.
The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise.
Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft.
The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies.
As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft's implementation of the same Covered Specification.
This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice.
"

tl;dr they can't sue you, ever, unless you sue them over patents.
Also, Mono contains
1) parts that are covered by the ECMA standard (C# and the CLI)
2) original namespaces (like Mono.Simd)
3) open-sourced Microsoft stuff (like ASP.NET, under the OSI-approved MS-PL license)
4) parts that are in .NET but not covered by the standard (like Winforms)
which is why Miguel de Icaza says they'll be splitting their distribution up into now definitely safe (1 and 2) and potentially dodgy (3 and 4) packages, which is what already happens on Ubuntu for instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608593</id>
	<title>Re:Java or Mono or Both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246983240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know that these<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?</p><p>Reverse engineering only works against copyright, since it only covers specific implementations. Patents cover concepts, so simply writing your own isn't an option.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain " patent-threat " free ? Reverse engineering only works against copyright , since it only covers specific implementations .
Patents cover concepts , so simply writing your own is n't an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?Reverse engineering only works against copyright, since it only covers specific implementations.
Patents cover concepts, so simply writing your own isn't an option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28613837</id>
	<title>Re:This shows</title>
	<author>ais523</author>
	<datestamp>1246960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft do want us to be happy, though, it distracts attention from the rest of what they're doing. (I suspect Microsoft Research is a large division churning out useful things that help people in general, with nothing evil about it at all, used as a distraction to make the company look good as a whole.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft do want us to be happy , though , it distracts attention from the rest of what they 're doing .
( I suspect Microsoft Research is a large division churning out useful things that help people in general , with nothing evil about it at all , used as a distraction to make the company look good as a whole .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft do want us to be happy, though, it distracts attention from the rest of what they're doing.
(I suspect Microsoft Research is a large division churning out useful things that help people in general, with nothing evil about it at all, used as a distraction to make the company look good as a whole.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335</id>
	<title>...and this means?</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246973160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, first off - I'm a Linux user. I love FOSS.  I'm also a realist - i put my trust in that my staff will be able to write C# apps in Wintendo that will function. I expect in the near future that portions may be converted over to mono so that we may host items on Linux servers:<br><br>http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2009/20090312\_secure\_submitter.jpg<br><br>http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/20080912\_JEDI\_Vitals\_Screen.png<br><br>http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/20081205\_ie6\_yoda\_ii\_ponte.jpg<br><br>My question is this - does MS moving to a new license change my current licensing? How does it interact with those running SLES or Virtualized Windows 2008 under XEN?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , first off - I 'm a Linux user .
I love FOSS .
I 'm also a realist - i put my trust in that my staff will be able to write C # apps in Wintendo that will function .
I expect in the near future that portions may be converted over to mono so that we may host items on Linux servers : http : //www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2009/20090312 \ _secure \ _submitter.jpghttp : //www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/20080912 \ _JEDI \ _Vitals \ _Screen.pnghttp : //www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/20081205 \ _ie6 \ _yoda \ _ii \ _ponte.jpgMy question is this - does MS moving to a new license change my current licensing ?
How does it interact with those running SLES or Virtualized Windows 2008 under XEN ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, first off - I'm a Linux user.
I love FOSS.
I'm also a realist - i put my trust in that my staff will be able to write C# apps in Wintendo that will function.
I expect in the near future that portions may be converted over to mono so that we may host items on Linux servers:http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2009/20090312\_secure\_submitter.jpghttp://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/20080912\_JEDI\_Vitals\_Screen.pnghttp://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/20081205\_ie6\_yoda\_ii\_ponte.jpgMy question is this - does MS moving to a new license change my current licensing?
How does it interact with those running SLES or Virtualized Windows 2008 under XEN?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495</id>
	<title>Bidirectional promise not to sue?</title>
	<author>MadFarmAnimalz</author>
	<datestamp>1246974180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft Community Promise</a> [microsoft.com]:
<p>
<i>If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you</i>
</p><p>
Is that a patent retaliation clause? Interesting.
</p><p>
Anyhow, the way I read that, you can't sue Microsoft if they make use of one of your patents in their own implementations, albeit limited to the specifications covered in this initiative. That probably wasn't very interesting in the context of what had previously been released under this scheme (HealthVault Service Specification, UI Automation v1.0 , etc.), but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net/Mono is much more serious technology and therefore more likely to contain or sprout patents.
</p><p>
So, considering that isn't it more likely that it's the indie developer (less likely to take out patents on own work) who wouldn't mind this promise rather than any commercial technology provider (more likely to take out patents on own work)? If that logic holds then one effect of this Microsoft initiative would be to prevent the emergence of any real commercial Mono competition to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Microsoft Community Promise [ microsoft.com ] : If you file , maintain , or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification , then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you Is that a patent retaliation clause ?
Interesting . Anyhow , the way I read that , you ca n't sue Microsoft if they make use of one of your patents in their own implementations , albeit limited to the specifications covered in this initiative .
That probably was n't very interesting in the context of what had previously been released under this scheme ( HealthVault Service Specification , UI Automation v1.0 , etc .
) , but .Net/Mono is much more serious technology and therefore more likely to contain or sprout patents .
So , considering that is n't it more likely that it 's the indie developer ( less likely to take out patents on own work ) who would n't mind this promise rather than any commercial technology provider ( more likely to take out patents on own work ) ?
If that logic holds then one effect of this Microsoft initiative would be to prevent the emergence of any real commercial Mono competition to .Net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Microsoft Community Promise [microsoft.com]:

If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you

Is that a patent retaliation clause?
Interesting.

Anyhow, the way I read that, you can't sue Microsoft if they make use of one of your patents in their own implementations, albeit limited to the specifications covered in this initiative.
That probably wasn't very interesting in the context of what had previously been released under this scheme (HealthVault Service Specification, UI Automation v1.0 , etc.
), but .Net/Mono is much more serious technology and therefore more likely to contain or sprout patents.
So, considering that isn't it more likely that it's the indie developer (less likely to take out patents on own work) who wouldn't mind this promise rather than any commercial technology provider (more likely to take out patents on own work)?
If that logic holds then one effect of this Microsoft initiative would be to prevent the emergence of any real commercial Mono competition to .Net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609075</id>
	<title>Re:Bidirectional promise not to sue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246985220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a lawyer, but...

" As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft&#226;(TM)s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of &#226;oesuspension&#226; clause is common industry practice." - <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]

A more plain English quote from their website.

So your situation is:
- Microsoft makes a spec
- You take Microsoft's spec and add something to it.
- Microsoft implements it .

So, now is this in the spec? If its not, then sue ahead (actually don't - we don't need more litigation).

If it gets added into the specification (remember, these are ECMA standards - yes, Microsoft is a member), then Microsoft will withdraw their promise with you if you sue them over the specification.


 So, you can look at it a few ways:

- Microsoft sees something that would be useful, tries to get it added to the spec so people will have access to it.
- Microsoft sees something that would be useful, tries to get it added to the spec so that THEY SCREW YOU OVER.

Brilliant.

"Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following:

This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you. To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification.

This promise by Microsoft is not an assurance that either (i) any of Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise." is the promise.

So, my interpretation is, There (may) exist Microsoft patents that you need to implement a specification. If you need those patents to implement a specification under this promise, go ahead. Microsoft won't sue you. By putting this specification under this promise, you won't sue us for our implementation of the specification lest you want to withdraw this promise.


So, okay, go ahead and extend it. Just don't complain if Microsoft extends CLI/C# back so that it includes that functionality. The mono faq says "Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK, but we will also offer an ECMA compliant subset of the libraries.". Let's see how this plays out.

After all, more people using C# doesn't hurt Microsoft. And adding stuff that people want/use to the language isn't going to do anything but help people.

Plus, I don't see Mono intending to destroy microsoft or whatever.

And the patents that are likely to sprout are things WRITTEN in C#/CLI. If I have something patentable in say a box, I can sue the box company if they copy whats inside the box. But I can't sue the box company if I take their box (its a special box) and extend it, and they extend their box for that functionality.

Microsoft is giving you the box in this case. You're worried whats inside the box. They promise that other people can make boxes as well (eg. Mono). Go ahead. Do whatever you want in the box. Feel free to get your box from whoever you want.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a lawyer , but.. . " As stated in the CP , the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings ( or voluntarily participates in ) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft   ( TM ) s implementation of the same Covered Specification .
This type of   oesuspension   clause is common industry practice .
" - http : //www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx [ microsoft.com ] A more plain English quote from their website .
So your situation is : - Microsoft makes a spec - You take Microsoft 's spec and add something to it .
- Microsoft implements it .
So , now is this in the spec ?
If its not , then sue ahead ( actually do n't - we do n't need more litigation ) .
If it gets added into the specification ( remember , these are ECMA standards - yes , Microsoft is a member ) , then Microsoft will withdraw their promise with you if you sue them over the specification .
So , you can look at it a few ways : - Microsoft sees something that would be useful , tries to get it added to the spec so people will have access to it .
- Microsoft sees something that would be useful , tries to get it added to the spec so that THEY SCREW YOU OVER .
Brilliant . " Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making , using , selling , offering for sale , importing or distributing any implementation , to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications , and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ( " Covered Implementation " ) , subject to the following : This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you , and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers , distributors , or otherwise in connection with this promise .
If you file , maintain , or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification , then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you .
To clarify , " Microsoft Necessary Claims " are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions ( which also include the required elements of optional portions ) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification .
This promise by Microsoft is not an assurance that either ( i ) any of Microsoft 's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable , or ( ii ) a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party .
No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted , waived or received by implication , exhaustion , estoppel , or otherwise .
" is the promise .
So , my interpretation is , There ( may ) exist Microsoft patents that you need to implement a specification .
If you need those patents to implement a specification under this promise , go ahead .
Microsoft wo n't sue you .
By putting this specification under this promise , you wo n't sue us for our implementation of the specification lest you want to withdraw this promise .
So , okay , go ahead and extend it .
Just do n't complain if Microsoft extends CLI/C # back so that it includes that functionality .
The mono faq says " Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK , but we will also offer an ECMA compliant subset of the libraries. " .
Let 's see how this plays out .
After all , more people using C # does n't hurt Microsoft .
And adding stuff that people want/use to the language is n't going to do anything but help people .
Plus , I do n't see Mono intending to destroy microsoft or whatever .
And the patents that are likely to sprout are things WRITTEN in C # /CLI .
If I have something patentable in say a box , I can sue the box company if they copy whats inside the box .
But I ca n't sue the box company if I take their box ( its a special box ) and extend it , and they extend their box for that functionality .
Microsoft is giving you the box in this case .
You 're worried whats inside the box .
They promise that other people can make boxes as well ( eg .
Mono ) . Go ahead .
Do whatever you want in the box .
Feel free to get your box from whoever you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a lawyer, but...

" As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoftâ(TM)s implementation of the same Covered Specification.
This type of âoesuspensionâ clause is common industry practice.
" - http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx [microsoft.com]

A more plain English quote from their website.
So your situation is:
- Microsoft makes a spec
- You take Microsoft's spec and add something to it.
- Microsoft implements it .
So, now is this in the spec?
If its not, then sue ahead (actually don't - we don't need more litigation).
If it gets added into the specification (remember, these are ECMA standards - yes, Microsoft is a member), then Microsoft will withdraw their promise with you if you sue them over the specification.
So, you can look at it a few ways:

- Microsoft sees something that would be useful, tries to get it added to the spec so people will have access to it.
- Microsoft sees something that would be useful, tries to get it added to the spec so that THEY SCREW YOU OVER.
Brilliant.

"Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following:

This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise.
If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.
To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification.
This promise by Microsoft is not an assurance that either (i) any of Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.
" is the promise.
So, my interpretation is, There (may) exist Microsoft patents that you need to implement a specification.
If you need those patents to implement a specification under this promise, go ahead.
Microsoft won't sue you.
By putting this specification under this promise, you won't sue us for our implementation of the specification lest you want to withdraw this promise.
So, okay, go ahead and extend it.
Just don't complain if Microsoft extends CLI/C# back so that it includes that functionality.
The mono faq says "Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK, but we will also offer an ECMA compliant subset of the libraries.".
Let's see how this plays out.
After all, more people using C# doesn't hurt Microsoft.
And adding stuff that people want/use to the language isn't going to do anything but help people.
Plus, I don't see Mono intending to destroy microsoft or whatever.
And the patents that are likely to sprout are things WRITTEN in C#/CLI.
If I have something patentable in say a box, I can sue the box company if they copy whats inside the box.
But I can't sue the box company if I take their box (its a special box) and extend it, and they extend their box for that functionality.
Microsoft is giving you the box in this case.
You're worried whats inside the box.
They promise that other people can make boxes as well (eg.
Mono). Go ahead.
Do whatever you want in the box.
Feel free to get your box from whoever you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612755</id>
	<title>Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet</title>
	<author>SplashMyBandit</author>
	<datestamp>1246999320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Java was not Free at that time but it has always included a license for compatible implementations over the whole stack (see the JDK license). Not so with C#.NET.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java was not Free at that time but it has always included a license for compatible implementations over the whole stack ( see the JDK license ) .
Not so with C # .NET .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java was not Free at that time but it has always included a license for compatible implementations over the whole stack (see the JDK license).
Not so with C#.NET.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612519</id>
	<title>Re:Java or Mono or Both?</title>
	<author>ZachPruckowski</author>
	<datestamp>1246998420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know that these<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?</p></div><p>Re-implementation doesn't protect against patent suits, as patents like these basically cover the functionality.  While I haven't done extensive research, I'd be surprised if there was a way to unambiguously implement around the patents while retaining compatibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain " patent-threat " free ? Re-implementation does n't protect against patent suits , as patents like these basically cover the functionality .
While I have n't done extensive research , I 'd be surprised if there was a way to unambiguously implement around the patents while retaining compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?Re-implementation doesn't protect against patent suits, as patents like these basically cover the functionality.
While I haven't done extensive research, I'd be surprised if there was a way to unambiguously implement around the patents while retaining compatibility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607985</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1246980840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.</i></p><p>"They" do?  Really!  Funny, as a C# programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java, I've never said any such thing.  Maybe you should try *not* stereotyping large groups of people, eh?</p><p>For the record, C# is really Java polished up.  It provided generics and a foreach loop first, implements type-safe function pointers, lambdas (the absence of lambdas in Java always annoyed the hell out of me), a much better native call interface, and a few minor but handy language features (eg, safe ref and out parameters, using blocks, etc).  And I very much prefer the native GUI of C# applications (although the nasty boilerplate necessary to build them makes a GUI builder absolutely required).</p><p>On the API side, they're about equivalent, though both have their warts... although, I must confess, some of the problems in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET API are a bit baffling (date handling in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0, for example, is unbelievably primitive... there is simply no facility for doing arbitrary time zone conversions... seriously, what the hell?).</p><p>But anyone who argues that C# is basically the same as Java doesn't understand how some of those features can make a programmer's life *much* easier.  Are they necessary?  No, of course not.  But they certainly are handy (honestly, without proper anonymous closures, I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean, reusable, modular code, they're simply invaluable).</p><p>And as an aside, while I realize that Java is starting to take on a lot of these features, keep in mind, it probably never would have if it weren't for the competition that C# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET are offering.  So, in the end, the Java fans out there can thank Microsoft for Java finally moving forward and gaining some of it's new, modern features (can we say "generics"?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C # programmers , they 'll go on about how different C # is from Java .
" They " do ?
Really ! Funny , as a C # programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java , I 've never said any such thing .
Maybe you should try * not * stereotyping large groups of people , eh ? For the record , C # is really Java polished up .
It provided generics and a foreach loop first , implements type-safe function pointers , lambdas ( the absence of lambdas in Java always annoyed the hell out of me ) , a much better native call interface , and a few minor but handy language features ( eg , safe ref and out parameters , using blocks , etc ) .
And I very much prefer the native GUI of C # applications ( although the nasty boilerplate necessary to build them makes a GUI builder absolutely required ) .On the API side , they 're about equivalent , though both have their warts... although , I must confess , some of the problems in the .NET API are a bit baffling ( date handling in .NET 2.0 , for example , is unbelievably primitive... there is simply no facility for doing arbitrary time zone conversions... seriously , what the hell ?
) .But anyone who argues that C # is basically the same as Java does n't understand how some of those features can make a programmer 's life * much * easier .
Are they necessary ?
No , of course not .
But they certainly are handy ( honestly , without proper anonymous closures , I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean , reusable , modular code , they 're simply invaluable ) .And as an aside , while I realize that Java is starting to take on a lot of these features , keep in mind , it probably never would have if it were n't for the competition that C # and .NET are offering .
So , in the end , the Java fans out there can thank Microsoft for Java finally moving forward and gaining some of it 's new , modern features ( can we say " generics " ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.
"They" do?
Really!  Funny, as a C# programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java, I've never said any such thing.
Maybe you should try *not* stereotyping large groups of people, eh?For the record, C# is really Java polished up.
It provided generics and a foreach loop first, implements type-safe function pointers, lambdas (the absence of lambdas in Java always annoyed the hell out of me), a much better native call interface, and a few minor but handy language features (eg, safe ref and out parameters, using blocks, etc).
And I very much prefer the native GUI of C# applications (although the nasty boilerplate necessary to build them makes a GUI builder absolutely required).On the API side, they're about equivalent, though both have their warts... although, I must confess, some of the problems in the .NET API are a bit baffling (date handling in .NET 2.0, for example, is unbelievably primitive... there is simply no facility for doing arbitrary time zone conversions... seriously, what the hell?
).But anyone who argues that C# is basically the same as Java doesn't understand how some of those features can make a programmer's life *much* easier.
Are they necessary?
No, of course not.
But they certainly are handy (honestly, without proper anonymous closures, I feel crippled as a programmer... as a tool for building clean, reusable, modular code, they're simply invaluable).And as an aside, while I realize that Java is starting to take on a lot of these features, keep in mind, it probably never would have if it weren't for the competition that C# and .NET are offering.
So, in the end, the Java fans out there can thank Microsoft for Java finally moving forward and gaining some of it's new, modern features (can we say "generics"?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608701</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, who the fuck cares?</title>
	<author>xoluxo</author>
	<datestamp>1246983600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those links compare C# 1.0 vs Java in 2000.</p><p>C# 1.0 had a few goodies over Java: events, properties, delegates, p/invoke.</p><p>C# 2.0 introduced generics, iterators and a handful of extra features and lambdas.</p><p>C# 3.0 introduced linq, expression trees.</p><p>C# 4.0 introduces dynamic types, optional and named parameters.</p><p>Java in the meantime introduced the worst possible kind of generics.    That is what happens when you layoff the entire language design team and let the language bitrot for a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those links compare C # 1.0 vs Java in 2000.C # 1.0 had a few goodies over Java : events , properties , delegates , p/invoke.C # 2.0 introduced generics , iterators and a handful of extra features and lambdas.C # 3.0 introduced linq , expression trees.C # 4.0 introduces dynamic types , optional and named parameters.Java in the meantime introduced the worst possible kind of generics .
That is what happens when you layoff the entire language design team and let the language bitrot for a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those links compare C# 1.0 vs Java in 2000.C# 1.0 had a few goodies over Java: events, properties, delegates, p/invoke.C# 2.0 introduced generics, iterators and a handful of extra features and lambdas.C# 3.0 introduced linq, expression trees.C# 4.0 introduces dynamic types, optional and named parameters.Java in the meantime introduced the worst possible kind of generics.
That is what happens when you layoff the entire language design team and let the language bitrot for a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311</id>
	<title>It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246972920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net technologies.</p><p>This is the answer I've wanted from Miguel ever since the Novell brouhaha.</p><p>Promissory estoppel serves as a "consideration substitute" in contract law that renders certain promises otherwise lacking in consideration binding and enforceable. In such cases, the promisee's reliance is treated as an independent and sufficient basis for enforcing the promise. Promissory estoppel can be viewed as a legal device that prohibits the promissor from denying the existence of a contract for lack of consideration.</p><p><a href="http://www.lawnix.com/cases/promissory-estoppel.html" title="lawnix.com">http://www.lawnix.com/cases/promissory-estoppel.html</a> [lawnix.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c # and .net technologies.This is the answer I 've wanted from Miguel ever since the Novell brouhaha.Promissory estoppel serves as a " consideration substitute " in contract law that renders certain promises otherwise lacking in consideration binding and enforceable .
In such cases , the promisee 's reliance is treated as an independent and sufficient basis for enforcing the promise .
Promissory estoppel can be viewed as a legal device that prohibits the promissor from denying the existence of a contract for lack of consideration.http : //www.lawnix.com/cases/promissory-estoppel.html [ lawnix.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now Microsoft is estopped from going after people using c# and .net technologies.This is the answer I've wanted from Miguel ever since the Novell brouhaha.Promissory estoppel serves as a "consideration substitute" in contract law that renders certain promises otherwise lacking in consideration binding and enforceable.
In such cases, the promisee's reliance is treated as an independent and sufficient basis for enforcing the promise.
Promissory estoppel can be viewed as a legal device that prohibits the promissor from denying the existence of a contract for lack of consideration.http://www.lawnix.com/cases/promissory-estoppel.html [lawnix.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606671</id>
	<title>Another attempt by Microsoft...</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1246975380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to make itself remotely relevant among geeks. But it's too late. I certainly never be using any Microsoft technology or God forbid a language invented by them. Thanks MS, but no thanks. You betrayed all the trust you ever had. Have a long and painful death, bye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to make itself remotely relevant among geeks .
But it 's too late .
I certainly never be using any Microsoft technology or God forbid a language invented by them .
Thanks MS , but no thanks .
You betrayed all the trust you ever had .
Have a long and painful death , bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to make itself remotely relevant among geeks.
But it's too late.
I certainly never be using any Microsoft technology or God forbid a language invented by them.
Thanks MS, but no thanks.
You betrayed all the trust you ever had.
Have a long and painful death, bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610623</id>
	<title>Re:...and this means?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246991340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay, first off - I'm a Linux user. I love FOSS.  I'm also a realist - i put my trust in that my staff will be able to write C# apps in Wintendo that will function.</p></div><p>Certainly you meant to say "I'm a Lintendo user"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , first off - I 'm a Linux user .
I love FOSS .
I 'm also a realist - i put my trust in that my staff will be able to write C # apps in Wintendo that will function.Certainly you meant to say " I 'm a Lintendo user " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, first off - I'm a Linux user.
I love FOSS.
I'm also a realist - i put my trust in that my staff will be able to write C# apps in Wintendo that will function.Certainly you meant to say "I'm a Lintendo user"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608127</id>
	<title>what Microsoft needs to do</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1246981500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just so we have solid proof they need to gather together all of the stuff that they have under this "community promise"<br>and then etch the following onto titanium plates</p><p>1 the exact wording of the "Community Promise"<br>2 all of the code/concepts that are covered under the community promise<br>3 a machine readable copy of the source code (data glyphs maybe) with human readable chunks for failsafe (maybe on a left side right side basis</p><p>make like three copies of the plates and give one copy to the GNU foundation one copy goes in the national  archives one copy stays with MS and if they try to sue over covered code HIT THEM WITH THE PLATES</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just so we have solid proof they need to gather together all of the stuff that they have under this " community promise " and then etch the following onto titanium plates1 the exact wording of the " Community Promise " 2 all of the code/concepts that are covered under the community promise3 a machine readable copy of the source code ( data glyphs maybe ) with human readable chunks for failsafe ( maybe on a left side right side basismake like three copies of the plates and give one copy to the GNU foundation one copy goes in the national archives one copy stays with MS and if they try to sue over covered code HIT THEM WITH THE PLATES</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just so we have solid proof they need to gather together all of the stuff that they have under this "community promise"and then etch the following onto titanium plates1 the exact wording of the "Community Promise"2 all of the code/concepts that are covered under the community promise3 a machine readable copy of the source code (data glyphs maybe) with human readable chunks for failsafe (maybe on a left side right side basismake like three copies of the plates and give one copy to the GNU foundation one copy goes in the national  archives one copy stays with MS and if they try to sue over covered code HIT THEM WITH THE PLATES</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611087</id>
	<title>get real</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1246993020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Java has less "patent liability" than Mono.</i></p><p>Sun has lots of patents on lots of aspects of Java.  The only area where you *may* be safe is if you use Sun's own implementations.</p><p><i>I know that these<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?</i></p><p>Most people who develop with Mono develop using standard Linux libraries, libraries that are free of any hint of Microsoft patents.  That's one of the things that makes Mono so attractive.</p><p><i>prefer Mono - especially Banshee<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Without the other libraries I fear Mono is hamstrung.</i></p><p>Banshee, like almost all Mono desktop apps, is based on Gtk#, not Winforms.</p><p><i>What are the overheads of both the Java and Mono virtual machines running at the same time? Would we be better getting behind just one environment and using that.</i></p><p>IKVM runs Java inside a CLR.  It also neatly avoids Sun's patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java has less " patent liability " than Mono.Sun has lots of patents on lots of aspects of Java .
The only area where you * may * be safe is if you use Sun 's own implementations.I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain " patent-threat " free ? Most people who develop with Mono develop using standard Linux libraries , libraries that are free of any hint of Microsoft patents .
That 's one of the things that makes Mono so attractive.prefer Mono - especially Banshee ... Without the other libraries I fear Mono is hamstrung.Banshee , like almost all Mono desktop apps , is based on Gtk # , not Winforms.What are the overheads of both the Java and Mono virtual machines running at the same time ?
Would we be better getting behind just one environment and using that.IKVM runs Java inside a CLR .
It also neatly avoids Sun 's patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java has less "patent liability" than Mono.Sun has lots of patents on lots of aspects of Java.
The only area where you *may* be safe is if you use Sun's own implementations.I know that these .net libraries have been implemented in Mono but would we have to write new open-source libraries to replace thier functionality and remain "patent-threat" free?Most people who develop with Mono develop using standard Linux libraries, libraries that are free of any hint of Microsoft patents.
That's one of the things that makes Mono so attractive.prefer Mono - especially Banshee ... Without the other libraries I fear Mono is hamstrung.Banshee, like almost all Mono desktop apps, is based on Gtk#, not Winforms.What are the overheads of both the Java and Mono virtual machines running at the same time?
Would we be better getting behind just one environment and using that.IKVM runs Java inside a CLR.
It also neatly avoids Sun's patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28613895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28617969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28613837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28615015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28615357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28618699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28617519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_0434236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606435
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28613895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606411
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606389
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612755
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611277
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606369
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607055
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607341
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28615357
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28617519
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616547
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608311
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28613837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28615015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28617969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28609997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28618699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28612807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28610855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_0434236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28608701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28611265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607985
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28614225
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28616451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28606437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_0434236.28607919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
