Re: [DotGNU]Re: C# class library

[Rhys Weatherley]

Miguel de Icaza wrote:

> So the bottom line is: before you complain about Mono C# library not
> being suitable for you for a legal reason that is not clear to you,
> consider that the pieces of Portable.NET that you have were reverse
> engineered, and not even built from the spec (there was no spec back
> then).  You do not mind Portable.NET's code being reverse engineered,
> but you seem to mind Mono written-from-spec code.  Which seems to be
> inconsistent.

Portable.NET was not built as a result of reverse engineering
Microsoft's code.    Your claim is FUD.

There is more than one way to interoperate with an unknown
target: reverse engineering the target's source code is a very
poor way and I did not use it.

Cheers,

Rhys.