[Mono-list] Re: C# class library

[Miguel de Icaza]

>   If we consider it to be an unacceptable legal risk to rely on
>   code that has been created by following a procedure like it is
>   outlined in that "How to Reverse Engineer and still be Legal"
>   article,  then we should not rely on the Mono C# class library.

The short story:

	You should use the Mono C# library, and contribute to it. 

The long story is:

	* You insinuated that the Mono C# class library might have
          legal issues.

	* We have tried to stay clear by having a set of rules and
	  principles on how you contribute code.

	* We do not have a real 3-tier team to implement things as the
          paper suggest.  Simply put, there are no resources to do so.

	* I pointed out that if you are concerned about the state of
          the Mono C# class library, you probably should look at your
          code before, as it is probably written from reverse
          engineered pieces and has not gone through the 3-tier
          process.

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.

The second bottom line is: you can use the Mono C# library, I would be
glad if you and many other runtimes use it.  

Miguel.