¿What's wrong with Mono?

According to an article written by Richard Matthew Stallman, there is something dangerous in "dependent" in C#.

It may be curious that Stallman do worry about dependence on a particular programming language, because the programming language can be changed to another and get the same software (even identical at the binary level, with some help from the compiler). Still, Stallman says in that article, "The risk" is that Microsoft may want to bring C# implementations under a patent.

In my opinion if something of this were to happen, the least problem would be to change the language to an equivalent. But the truth is that this will not come to pass.

WHY DOES MICROSOFT NOT PATENTING C#?

If we do some memory, remember that .NET is a standard, however, somewhat less well known is that C# is registered to ISO, as a little searching on the Internet you can prove.

Microsoft can not issue that patent because:

1. Microsoft has put C# under ISO.
2. Existing implementations of third parties.
3. They can sue Microsoft for monopoly.
4. Microsoft likes that there are others implementations of C#, to attract developers to Visual Studio.

Perhaps what worries Stallman is that they does not say "free standard" but "open standard". But Stallman and the Free Software community should understand that there is no such thing as a "free standard" (as in free speech) because if everyone has the right to modify and adapt the standard to his choice then it is not a standard. At best we can say that is a technical recommendation or a suggestion, or a guide.

Perhaps what annoys Stallman is that Debian are using Mono, that Mono is from Novell and that nobody uses DotGNU. Mono is not against the GNU politics or philosophy and Stallman knows that.