One of my friends saying that C# does not own by Microsoft.
Does anybody has anything to say about this.



Thanks for any help you can provide.
Mark

Hello mark,

Invented and developed by MS
owned by ECMA (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270)

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev [Microsoft MVP] :: blog: http://spaces.live.com/laflour

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo


m> One of my friends saying that C# does not own by Microsoft. Does
m> anybody has anything to say about this.
m>
m> Thanks for any help you can provide.
m> Mark

Ratification by a standards body does not confer ownership which is a term
which has legal and lawful implications. It would be ridiculous for
Microsoft to turn ownership over to a 3rd party considering the actual
meaning of the word in the legal context as it could then be used against
them lawfully.

If you have a link to the definitive statement of --ownership-- I would like
to see it and read it as I consider the statement to be an incredulous
assumption.


"Michael Nemtsev [MVP]" <nemtsev@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:900895ec59eac8cabf21b74e3d40@xxxxxx

> Hello mark,
>
> Invented and developed by MS
> owned by ECMA (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270)
>
> ---
> WBR, Michael Nemtsev [Microsoft MVP] :: blog:
> http://spaces.live.com/laflour
> "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
> miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo
>
> m> One of my friends saying that C# does not own by Microsoft. Does
> m> anybody has anything to say about this.
> m> m> Thanks for any help you can provide.
> m> Mark
>
>

"JackPot" <somebody@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ebiXj0L8IHA.3260@xxxxxx

> Ratification by a standards body does not confer ownership which is a term
> which has legal and lawful implications. It would be ridiculous for
> Microsoft to turn ownership over to a 3rd party considering the actual
> meaning of the word in the legal context as it could then be used against
> them lawfully.
>
> If you have a link to the definitive statement of --ownership-- I would
> like to see it and read it as I consider the statement to be an
> incredulous assumption.
>
>

Actually, Michael's comment is appropriate.
By releasing the standard to ECMA and the ISO, Microsoft has relinquished
proprietary rights to "control" C# to a body that will consider suggested
changes properly submitted by any entity. So, while Micheal's wording may
not please you, his meaning is accurate, IMHO.

> news:ebiXj0L8IHA.3260@xxxxxx

>> Ratification by a standards body does not confer ownership which is a
>> term which has legal and lawful implications. It would be ridiculous for
>> Microsoft to turn ownership over to a 3rd party considering the actual
>> meaning of the word in the legal context as it could then be used against
>> them lawfully.
>>
>> If you have a link to the definitive statement of --ownership-- I would
>> like to see it and read it as I consider the statement to be an
>> incredulous assumption.
>>
>>

> Actually, Michael's comment is appropriate.
> By releasing the standard to ECMA and the ISO, Microsoft has relinquished
> proprietary rights to "control" C# to a body that will consider suggested
> changes properly submitted by any entity. So, while Micheal's wording may
> not please you, his meaning is accurate, IMHO.
>

ROFL Which is why it has become a stereotype rationalizing why it is wise to
keep software developers as far away from business decisions as possible.
Uh, do you think that grenade is still live or is that just your IMHO?

Thanks everybody.

Mark
"PvdG42" <pvan@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OQt0T3N8IHA.3648@xxxxxx

>
>
> "JackPot" <somebody@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ebiXj0L8IHA.3260@xxxxxx

>> Ratification by a standards body does not confer ownership which is a
>> term which has legal and lawful implications. It would be ridiculous for
>> Microsoft to turn ownership over to a 3rd party considering the actual
>> meaning of the word in the legal context as it could then be used against
>> them lawfully.
>>
>> If you have a link to the definitive statement of --ownership-- I would
>> like to see it and read it as I consider the statement to be an
>> incredulous assumption.
>>
>>

> Actually, Michael's comment is appropriate.
> By releasing the standard to ECMA and the ISO, Microsoft has relinquished
> proprietary rights to "control" C# to a body that will consider suggested
> changes properly submitted by any entity. So, while Micheal's wording may
> not please you, his meaning is accurate, IMHO.
>
>

Mark,

That is what you mean with own.

Microsoft owns Visual Studio and all what is about C# inside that or to say
it easier by instance Visual C# Express.

However, Microsoft cannot create themselves alone new possibilities in the
language C# as they can in VB.

Therefore Visual C# 3.0 misses some parts which are now in VB9.

Don't understand me wrong, this can be a benefit for C#.

I among those which think about the opposite as I have seen Cobol slowly
dying because the owners could not go with the progression in hardware.
Therefore Cobol, which was a great programming language for the time it
started, was keeping its old possibilities only based on batch computing.

Cor

"Mark" <Mark@xxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:eX$IgWL8IHA.1080@xxxxxx

> One of my friends saying that C# does not own by Microsoft.
> Does anybody has anything to say about this.
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide.
> Mark
>