Even Mr Ballmer said today that Microsoft's biggest *threat* is Linux.

So, would you like to reconsider your response?  Ballmer thinks that
Linux is a huge issue for Microsoft - how do you think that Microsoft
will behave with respect to Mono, considering their fear of Linux?

From the link:

"The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft
falls under the ECMA/ISO submission"

And:

"The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has
developed and integrated third party class libraries"

I think it would be prudent to include patent notices with the upstream
distribution of Mono, in a addition to the usual copyright notices, in
order to differentiate those components which are Microsoft's
Intellectual Property, for the benefit of those of us who might need to
assess our liabilities, and make an informed choice.

"When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono
runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to
relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms.

This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that
might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code.

Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime
engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release
those changes back."

This would essentially preclude anyone from protecting their
contributions, to the core of Mono, from being exploited in such a way
that destroys the intended freedom of that contribution. Effectively,
this is a GPL circumvention device, in the vein of Tivoisation.

That does not seem at all consistent with the principles of Free Software.

Perhaps you could elucidate those doubts for our benefit.

It is an interesting interview, however, and reveals that you are
obviously someone who is primarily technically motivated, with little
interest in political issues, similar to Torvalds for example.

However, in your efforts to counteract the demonisation of Microsoft,
you appear to have overcompensated somewhat, since you are clearly
fawning to the interviewer. I found your comments with respect to
Windows reliability quite amusing. You seemed to be inferring that
Windows hasn't suffered interminable instability and crashes since the
days of Windows 3.1, which is clearly not the case.

Since this interview was little more than a PR exercise ("Microsoft:
we're not evil, honest"), I would not have seriously expected you to
voice your true opinions of them, since that would have entirely
defeated the purpose of the exercise.

I'm afraid it might be an entirely unrealistic expectation for you to
speak candidly about a company that is, in essence, your employer, but I
was hoping you could at least provide some form of reassurance. After
all, you are an ambassador for Mono (regardless of whatever other
capacity you may fill), so it's only natural that you should be prepared
to endorse it with authoritative assurances, since the authority;
veracity; and trustworthiness of Microsoft; ECMA and Novell are
questionable.

Let me ask you a perfectly blunt question. Do you, or do you not think
that Microsoft should have been prosecuted for violations of the Sherman
Act?

If we can establish that much, then I'll know whether or not there is
any point to this discussion.

Microsoft's modus operandum is well known and well documented, indeed
they have been prosecuted for it, which is the main reason it is so well
documented. What I am asking is if you believe that technologies like
.NET, Silverlight and OOXML are further extensions of that strategy, and
whether or not they assist Microsoft's agenda of market domination; the
inhibition of freedom and choice by the enforcement of Intellectual
Monopolies; and the suppression of Free Software and Open Standards.

<snip>

If you MUST use that google shite, & not a *proper* news client, kindly
attribute to whom you are replying.