Mark will look after himself. If that coincides with what helps others (eg, “me”), then that is wonderful, but I don’t assume he will. I don’t sit still and wait to be rescued. ["God helps those who help themselves."]

I pay attention to arguments, and I am certain I am not the only one that does. Mark (or whomever) may want to consider sharing why he would not be worried about mono and sees more gains to losses in allowing mono influence to grow (if that is the plan). Maybe he thinks mono won’t go far and wants to keep some developers happy. Maybe he wants to project there is a lack of threat. Maybe he wants to pressure Microsoft to be direct (as they were with VFAT). Maybe he understands he might miscalculate but knows he most likely will not have financial problems down the road.

It makes a lot of sense not to run from Microsoft’s FUD, but how much mono will you allow to gain momentum and influence (trusting perhaps that ports to eg C will happen and will be able to avoid Microsoft’s patents)? Will you say mono is fine and leave it at that?

Mono might be allowed today in default Ubuntu but taken back a year from now after people have been motivated to port mono apps to eg C or should the SCOTUS decisions not be favorable.

Maybe patents will not be a major threat for a long time (or ever) because Microsoft will have much to gain from dotnet/mono newly created LOC and mono/dotnet knowledge spreading (as was mentioned on IRC recently).

Maybe M Shuttleworth believes a long stream of patent owners will keep attacking Microsoft and ultimately force Microsoft to support patent reform (but this would likely be to limit monetary damages.. something that helps Microsoft but not small players nor FOSS).

boycottnovell and individuals can get away with acting on doubts and avoiding Microsoft, but Canonical might feel pressured not to play that game (at least not to the same level). I understand that.

In going after some of the same business as Red Hat, Canonical might try to differentiate (like Novell) with mono/dotnet instead of Java. This is another possibility.

Keep in mind that the money and time spent to beat Microsoft’s VFAT patents most likely can’t be spent repeatedly to knock out their many patents. They create the patents much faster (and for much less) than we can knock them down [though maybe a revolutionary FOSS-like advance here would change that game]. And the sad part would be that we can avoid most of the problems, eg, by avoiding going into dotnet, OOXML, etc.

There are many possibilities.. for Mark (some less positive for us than others). We are not Mark. I don’t know if Mark sees some or many positives from a Microsoft partnership, for example. People should have an idea of the game details. Blind trust is not a very good idea. You put yourself in a weaker position and leave chunks of your fate to the whims of others. Those who wait to be saved are sometimes heavily disappointed and end up the sacrificial lamb (no religious allusions intended).

This was not an attack on Mark (whose person or opinions I don’t really know). The point was that people should try to avoid following others if they have doubts about the direction being taken. This is the open source world not the closed source follow Bill Gates blind faith world.

I’d say the gnote route is best, i.e. replace the apps with C versions that perform ridiculously better. Or, if you must keep a VM around, translate to Java

Why don’t people care more about the effects of human global overpopulation on the environment. I used to believe that people didn’t get the problem because most people don’t understand exponential growth.

Here is a really good lecture on the subject.

One point they seem to be missing is the strategic dangers of Mono.

Strategy should be the top of Shuttleworth’s mind, not legal minutiae. But that appears not to be the case. I wonder about something analogous.
Why don’t people care more about the effects of human global overpopulation on the environment. I used to believe that people didn’t get the problem because most people don’t understand exponential growth. And that may be true, but the more I see people defending Mono, the more I realize that many people really aren’t capable of thinking strategically in any serious sense. Or is it that are refusing to think strategically–to think about the long run–out of some fear of something. Perhaps death? I just don’t know.

Some appear to have been duped into arguing over the letter of the agreements instead of the spirit of the project. Ubuntu was supposed to be about helping, not tripping people up.

The noise and smoke generated by MS’ seditionists must not be a distraction from the spirit and goals of the FOSS-based projects like Ubuntu.

[*] “There is a substantive effort in open source to bring such an implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to Novell customers.”

–Bob Muglia, Microsoft President

Watch the latest SCO news and remember that Microsoft used Baystar to fund SCO.

Also, it’s more dangerous for Microsoft to attack Canonical than it is to attack other Linux-based companies. Mark has the money to buy an army of lawyers to defend it.

being that i already run ubuntu on my two other machines, ubuntu would have been the natural choice for this laptop – but i will not run a distro that gives me mono per default anymore.

if today’s announcement had been stronger i might have goen that way. must admit i got a little happy when i read the headline, but the statement is too weak.

how hard is it to throw mono off the default install and put it in the repos for those who want it? that’s all i ask…

“there appears to be no significant cause for concern over its IP situation”. That’s a truth that needed saying! If it’s good enough for Canonical, it’s good enough for me.

RE: [Dotnet-sscli] Microsoft applies for .Net patent

Beppe,

As one of the inventors on that patent as well as the person heading up
the standardization efforts for the CLI, I’d like to explain why I’ve
never felt the two are in conflict.

The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that
are essential for implementing its standards are available under
“reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms” for the purpose of
implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all
International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a “royalty-free and otherwise RAND” basis
for this purpose.

Furthermore, our release of the Rotor source code base with a specific
license on its use gives wide use to our patents for a particular
(non-commercial) purpose, and as we explicitly state we are open to
additional licenses for other purposes.

–Jim

Miguel de Icaza insists that for a patent licence/clarification for Mono “You ask Microsoft.” When asked “who specifically [to] ask at Microsoft,” Miguel replied: “How would I know? Dunno, as an exercise, you might want to try to get licenses from companies for stuff they contribute to IETF. Like IBM, Macromedia and Microsoft, the standards should be free, so you might to do a trial run and ask them to give you whatever paperwork you require.”

Another suggestion of his was that concerned people “should try to get other covenants, as a control group.”

Frankly speaking, adds de Icaza: “I have been trying to get some internal paperwork done at Novell for over 9 months now for some internal projects; My request is just not at the top of their priorities. I do not know how Microsoft operates internally, but it could be that they are slow.”

When asked whether it “would it impact Mono-based projects negatively” de Icaza replied: “It already does.”

“If you want to understand patents, you really need to sit down with a lawyer for him to explain it to you,” he explains.

In response to the concern that “With the Novell/Microsoft covenant, Novell developers and customers are protected from any lawsuits from Microsoft. What about people who aren’t Novell customers or developers?”

De Icaza says: “That question has been answered a million times already. The Novell/MS agreement covers a lot of things. MS *claims* that the kernel infringes some 200 of their patents.”

I wonder if Microsoft will find some patented VM tricks for Novell to apply that aren’t already in Java or academic research.