It's in the article [LWN.net]

It's in the article

Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:16 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: The FSF warns (again) against Mono by elanthis
Parent article: The FSF warns (again) against Mono

The "maybes" involved are of the type: "maybe that hungry fox will attack that nearby lamb".

No no no, I'm just spreading anti-fox FUD, no one can prove what the fox is thinking. We should wait until after the attack before making any comment about the safety of leaving the lamb beside the fox.

Despite various wordy announcements, MS still has broad unwaived patent rights on c# related things which could be used to launch patent threats against users/developers/distributors of Mono and related software in the future. Staying away from that area is simply common sense. (We should also try to end software patents, such as by instructing the USA's Supreme Court on how and why when they review Bilski)

(Log in to post comments)

It's in the article

Posted Jul 19, 2009 22:02 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Eggsackerly.

The promise basically *only* covers a *complete* implementation of the spec. And the spec is buggy and incomplete.

So if you reduce the spec to logic, you get something like "A = not B" and "If A and B then you are safe". Putting the two together, the only possible logical conclusion is that the promise is worthless, and you are not safe.

So saying the promise isn't worth the paper it's written on is NOT FUD. Just applying basic mathematical logical reduction shows that the promise will self-destruct. So you can't rely on it.

Cheers,
Wol