[yareally]

> Are you being serious?

Just countering your argument with an equally absurd one.

I probably wouldn't even bother if you hadn't dragged out the tired old "embrace, extend, extinguish" meme/mantra that was popular 10-15 years ago (and then wiki linking to it like no one is aware of it). I respect the differences in our opinions, but having to convey your point by adding that line in 2015 make one's argument a bit hallow.

[nickysielicki]

Fair point about Wikipedia. I suppose that was unnecessary. I do think that's a bit of an ad hominem though.

> equally absurd one.

You must be trolling me. You cannot possibly think that the statement "Britain cannot be trusted, after what they did in the 18th century" and "Microsoft cannot be trusted after what they did in the early 2000's" are on equal footing.

But let's not resort to making this argument about analogies. How about you respond to my statement in the highest comment: What Microsoft can possibly stand to gain, fiscally speaking, from open sourcing .NET? From future profits to the current market.

[yareally]

> You must be trolling me.

Okay you're correct about the comparison, it was slightly more absurd to highlight the absurdity I saw in your original remark.

> What Microsoft can possibly stand to gain, fiscally speaking, from open sourcing .NET?

What does Google, Facebook or any other public, for-profit entity have to gain from open sourcing? I don't see Microsoft's motives as being any different. Companies aren't individuals, despite what US Corporate Law states. They're a system composed of the good and bad individuals currently working there and are subject to change. I would keep going, but I would basically end up saying everything coldtea already said to you a couple days ago.

If you you're looking for an official answer, you might want to ask the core .net developer in this thread as I don't work for or have any affiliation with Microsoft.