If the kernel was created with mono, we’d have a tumor. Otherwise, we likely have a wart.

Worse, if we build GNU/Linux significantly with mono, then we’d be looking at a malignant cancer that was spreading inside.

See http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/21/microsoft-linux-v-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-71129

And looking both ways before rushing out into the street doesn’t guarantee I make it to the other side safely either.

>> M$ has already claimed that Linux infringes and unless I’m mistaken, the kernel wasn’t written in Mono.

If I have 3 mild chronic sicknesses, do I go vacationing into the heart of the Amazon without any sort of protection, preparation, information, or supplies. I mean, sure, I stand a chance. Sure, I might die of what I already had before.

>> Would using Mono “increase” the chances you’ll infringe?

Would tripling my daily calorie intake increases the chances I’ll get obese?

I think we have a fairly safe “yes”.

>> Maybe – it depends on what M$ does down the road.

Sure does.

Like, for example, if Ballmer stands outside the bank and hands out one hundred dollar bills, one at a time, to anyone (but at most 1 per second) until people get tired of accepting them or until Microsoft runs out of money (we’ll pretend the Directors cleared this already).

>> As far as your example goes, unless Mono offers functionality that you can’t get in any other language – it’s possible to rewrite the code.

Well, naturally.

In fact, I might convince Linus to start rewriting the Linux kernel. This way he can stay young and relive the good old days.

>> As a programmer I know it’s easier to recreate something then it is to start from scratch.

And then I’ll convince Bill Gates to do likewise for DOS and then Windows (after they’ve emptied their bank account and open sourced Windows, of course).

Maybe DOS-Win-ng will be easier to do. I think so.

>> People are either free to use the tools they want , or they aren’t.

Look, if I can get Linus and Gates to do an encore, surely they can use mono this time around.

We can all acquire mono in the United States of America!

>> Distros are either free to include things they want, or they aren’t.

I particularly like the distros that come with hours and hours of Pron.

>> I understand and respect the concerns that have been posted about Mono, but I think the developers should be allowed to decide what tools to use and not have the decision made for them.

Alright, I’ll get serious.

Do you understand what I was describing here http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/20/fsf-on-microsofts-empty-promise/comment-page-1/#comment-458 or here http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1 ?

The short of it is this:

You can “patent an API”. This means that using the API will infringe on a patent. In other words, simply using the API will give the application you are building the properties identified in a patent claim as constituting a patented invention. [At least this would be the ideal case for the patent trap setter. Rather than 100% chances of infringement, you can still work towards a high % per use of any part of the API.]

This is what I call the API patent trap. [The model I am using is the US patent system, based on my layman's understanding of it.]

A sample scenario would be using mono or java or anything else if the entity that designed the API had applied for patents to parallel the API.

The risk varies depending on, eg,
(a) whether the API creator set out to create these patents,
(b) how skillful they were in creating these APIs and patents,
(c) how many patent (claims) they were able to create and maintain, and
(d) what their plans are for the patents.

These are all important points. These traps don’t fall from the sky. For example, not patenting enough means you might leave many holes behind. Lacking skill means you might not set a trap where infringement would happen with a high probability or where others could code around easily or where you fail to avoid prior art, etc. Lacking premeditated intent means you likely won’t create any traps, period. Lacking a desire to exploit the patents offensively obviously also means the traps might never hurt many (eg, if you pledge the patents to defend FOSS).

Only the “inventor” can get a patent. Prior art voids a patent. This is one reason why you want to build these traps before you publish the API. [If you don't create (ie, apply for) the patents before publishing the final API, someone else might take out the patents before you (to exploit for themselves) or else at least maybe create some prior art quickly.]

There is another trap that works differently. I call this the extension patent trap.

In short, you are led to using a technology thinking you have patent protection, and you very well may. The problem is that once you are using an invention, it becomes much easier to infringe on a patent claim from which you don’t have protection. These patent claims would extend the “core” invention from which you are protected. ..With this intro in mind, you can just finish reading this other comment I wrote yesterday: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/22/self-serving-linux-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-71076

(“On Sundays, we get something different instead of bread and water: water and bread!“)

Oh, the humanity!

The “Four Horsemen” of Roy Schestowitz’s Apocalypse: Steve Ballmer, Nathan Myrvhold, Miguel de Icaza, and me, with any luck.

I hope you’re not suggesting that pointing to a post that you made on Linux Today, containing a Blunt Assertion, and pointing back to here consstitutes evidence of anything. I am led to wonder why you bothered posting this at all.

I’ve tried making a perpetual motion machine out of a pair of reciprocal link on different web sites, and it doesn’t work, if you think that might save you any time.

But never say die! I’ve tried that, too, and it doesn’t work, either. Things won’t die just because you tell them to (I don’t know whether Roy or Mr. Hill or Mr. Malroy might have discovered this independently or not.)

As the late and lamented Dr. Hunter S. Thompson observed “Why burn the candle at both ends when you can burn it from the middle with an acetylene torch? It doesn’t last very long, but it make a helluva light!”

Unless someone’s inadvertently implemented something in there which violates a patent held by Microsoft (or Nathan Myhrvold)…

Hey, wait a second. One of the two designers of the Mach microkernel, which is the basis for GNU/Mach, which is at the very core of the HURD is Richard Rashid, who has been employed at Microsoft since 1991. The other is Avie Tevanian, who was in charge of development at NeXT before taking on the job of Chief Software Technology Officer at Apple until 2006! (I know Avie, by the way. I don’t like him, but I know him.)

Do you realize what this means? Do you see what the implications of this are?

Microsoft set a trap in the 80s, and in 1995, the FSF stepped right into it. Ballmer’s just biding his time, but I think anyone running GNU/HURD is in big potential trouble. Can anyone show me that the Mach microkernel is not a buzzing hornet’s nest of Microsoft-controlled patents?

I don’t think anyone can; therefore it must be true.

Hey, Roy: can I edit a page on this site?

“In reviewing the email thread which led up to the attempt, orchestrated by Mark Fink in collaboration with Roy (that’s my assertion: I feel I have evidence to support it, and I’ve presented it numerous times; I’m happy to debate it with Roy wherever he feels it to be on-topic) to interfere with my employment over my suggestion to Mark that he stop flaming the ubuntu-devel list, I came across…”

Let’s stipulate, for the sake of the argument, that Roy is right about Mono, and that there is indeed a good reason to pull it and anything which depends on it out of Ubuntu in particular, or “GNU/Linux” in general, so as not to run the risk of becoming reliant on technologies which might be encumbered by patents which are under the control of Microsoft (or “Micro$oft”, if you prefer).

SJR comments, “If you are worried about software in Ubuntu that is alleged elsewhere by Microsoft to infringe patents it does hold, and is apparently actively enforcing, I suggest starting a separate thread to discuss removing the kernel from the archive.”

Discuss.

http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/20/fsf-on-microsofts-empty-promise/comment-page-1/#comment-478

>> What if you maintain a single FOSS app? In this case, you also have to worry about redesigning. Changing programming languages should help on average, but it may still fall short of any given patent attack. Large parts of the plumbing of applications do not change automatically by changing languages. If you depended on system.whatever.something and leveraged this all over the app, then you may have to analyze and rework all of those calls (and you may not be able to find any auto mapping to help you). This could take lots of time for large apps. It means new rounds of debugging and alpha quality code. Extra effort comes in if the original contributors are not there. And since you probably will only try to work around the immediate patents, you can get another round or attacks later on after you thought you were about to leave alpha quality. Now, you will survive and have something, but I’d hate to be pushed into that position. You will lose users/contributors. You will spend time unable to improve the app in various ways (adding new features, debugging further, or optimizing). The larger an app and the larger number of apps you maintain (of mono investment), the larger these headaches would be. This means generally that the more improvements you add, the larger is the pit you are digging.

Also there are costs to users:

>> If you are a user and are heavily invested in foss dotnet apps (including things like aspdotnet pages), it is a burden to change apps or to recode (or will cost you third party money to end up back where you were), and, if you don’t deal, they can come after you for past infringement anyway. Users, distributors, etc, paying these tolls is where a lot of the money comes from to support the monopolies. Honestly, either a user doesn’t mind shelling the bucks on royalties repeatedly (and these might be modest sums) or they will change at some point and deal with the headaches. If you anticipate a significantly greater chance of having problems later on, you might simply invest in an alternative technology today (php, java, fairly standard webapps, c++, etc).

The above related to the “extension patent trap” and also to the “API patent trap.”

Are you being honest, eet?

I’d agree that the “6 people” was intended as a low blow.

If you can get into the mood to elaborate on the “bull” (and I hope you do), I’ll find it in me to read your views.

Shall I ask him, Roy?

It seems odd to me that, on a site which devotes itself to FLOSS “advocacy”, people seem to have so little actual knowledge about FLOSS.

Doesn’t anyone want to tell me that Greg is a “Micro$oft shill”? Come on, guys, don’t make me beg.

http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2009/04/01/656-porting-to-cplusplus

So I will use the above post as “proof” that if M$ tries to pull a fast one with Mono it will be possible to recode FSpot, Banshee, etc using C/C++ thereby diminishing the threat to the FOSS community.

*****
I’d like to go one step further and make an even more refined distinction: not even all of the software patents owned by Microsoft are equally threatening.
- The patents covering Mono and the .NET APIs are dangerous. These patents are *gratuitously* infringed by the inclusion of Mono apps in live media and default install sets.
- Any patents owned by Microsoft that touch on interoperability are pretty weak. These are *necessarily* infringed patents that read on file formats and communication protocols.

See, interoperability has a special place in the hearts and minds of judges, and Microsoft knows that very well. We don’t know what the US legal system would do when push comes to shove, but in the EU there is a precedent of protecting interoperability efforts at the expense of rights holders, in Samba’s case.

Wine, Samba, and support for MS-owned file formats are all things that sprang into existence as a consequence of people’s naturally occurring requirement to coexist and interoperate with a largely Windows-dominated computing ecosystem.

Mono? Not so much. Nobody asked for Mono. It is relentlessly being shoved down our throats for the sake of those 6 people worldwide that *may* need it in order to run their legacy .NET apps.
Imagine being a judge and hearing the following argument:
“Your honor, the defendant has willfully infringed on my client’s patents by not removing Tomboy and the Mono runtime from the default install set, even when they had the choice of using a feature-by-feature equivalent application called Gnote. We therefore regard this as a gratuitous infringement on my client’s patents and ask to be properly compensated.”
(Replace Tomboy as needed with any Mono app that Gnome or [insert-name-of-popular-distro] may choose to shove down our throats in the future.)

I thus hope to have also answered the question that Jo asked of me in another thread on this blog.
*****

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-07-21-003-35-NW-MS-LL-0003