Comment by nosefrog
11 years ago
What you're saying is correct, MIT vs GPL is irrelevant if Microsoft owns the whole copyright to the project.
Contributors to .NET need to assign their copyright to the .NET Foundation (http://www.dotnetfoundation.org/faq), which seems impartial but also has a board of 100% Microsoft employees. If .NET were GPL, then only the .NET Foundation would have the power to let others create proprietary extensions, which I guarantee they would give Microsoft.
Miguel de Icaza is on the board and not an MSFT employee.
You're right. I was under the impression that Microsoft had bought Xaramin.