By "ban" I mean "discourage anyone from using it". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

You dodged my main point - so why doesn't this apply to OO or Samba? Why doesn't it apply to ANYTHING in Debian? MS has said that Linux might be violating their patents - why is that not a serious threat, but Mono is?

Holy crap, you really think like that?

Here's the thing: let's go with your mindset, and think that MS is just waiting to file patent claims against Mono, because they hate Linux. They're just waiting...

MS HAS A TON OF PATENTS. If they want to try to screw up Linux, they can sue over probably 50 other things. So banning Mono doesn't accomplish your goal. So quit pretending that it does.

What about Samba? Why is that fine? Let's ban that, too. What about PDF? That's an Adobe-owned format, let's get rid of that, too.

Open Office supports VB, the devil's language as you mentioned above. Now how is that any different from Mono? Should we go ahead and take that out, too?

You should be more honest and write: "I don't really understand what C# is, and I hate Microsoft. I don't want anyone using apps written in C# unless they wrote it themselves. If this were the 1970s, I would be saying the same thing about C and how everyone should continue writing apps in Fortran and Cobol, like God intended!"

How exactly is using an implementation of a published spec "repeating the mistake of using MS Windows"? That's just 100% incorrect, and if anyone in this debate was interested in talking about the truth rather than their blind ideals, I wouldn't be the only person calling you out on it. Don't lie to try to win a debate.

No disagreement here.

That doesn't change the fact that you can't determine if something might get a patent claim against in the future. The idea that GNU apps are 100% clear and Mono is totally at risk is just absurd.

If neither one has anyone claiming that it violates patents, then I fail to see the difference. MS's rep for patent cases is nothing compared to tiny companies that do nothing but sue, so if you ask me who I'm more afraid of, it's not MS. They actually might lose customers if they sue someone.

How do you determine if a piece of software has legal entanglements?

People say things like this, and it just makes me wonder if people realize that this logic dooms EVERYTHING. Any standard, any proprietary non-patented open source app. At some point you have to write code, and with our current legal system, you are now in a state of "who knows if this violates someone's patent, when anything can be patented?"

Very much so. That was a very informative post! Thanks!

I think you misunderstand me. I REALLY, TRULY can't understand your post. I have no idea what you're trying to say. It SOUNDS like you have something to say, but I can't follow AT ALL.

Something about copies of bills not being distributed? Something about copyright law and the internet?

I'm totally up for a better explanation of what you're saying - I suspect you're far more informed on these issues than I am these days.

I read this sentence a number of times, and I tried really hard to parse it. First, it has no verb at all. I tried concatenating it to the title of your post, and it still has no verb.

How did this get +4 Interesting? "Occasionally copies of bill go"? Your first sentence does not parse. The second sentence says, "Occassionally bills go to the committee, but approved bills go back to the committee for another pass". Again, this is not a logical statement. You're also talking about commerce and energy committee, where this story is about the Internet committee.

Third paragraph is talking about him leaving, and him being still there. The article is about him gaining a chairmanship of a commitee.

So, first sentence makes no sense. Second sentence also makes no sense and is off topic. Third sentence makes no sense.

In conclusion, please posts on the slashdot.org webpage and onto the internet, the universe, and the grand unification.