In part I, our reader and guest writer was trying to get the underlying ideas about Mono across. There was a car analogy. Here is a more detailed explanation of the picture (metaphorically speaking).
“It would be hard to convince why Microsoft should not be entitled to collect royalties for such a big chunk of IP, if Novell does pay Microsoft.”This makes it so much harder for something like Groklaw to counter the propaganda, which is also something Microsoft learned from the SCO-case.
The idea is basically to show that Mono is something like a specially-designed Trojan horse, that masks itself with free-licensing and therefore makes it seem legit and on the same perceived risk-scale than other technologies.
While the original dotnet is genuine (although it borrows and builds on top of a lot of other ideas - just like cars do built on the same old concepts and evolve), Mono is specifically and superficially created, as to incorporate the very same underlying technology - all the blueprints for copying are purposely thrown on the table, and so letting Mono grow fulfills 2 goals:
“Someone has to weigh these arguments in, if s/he choses to defend usage of Mono by claiming it is on the same scale as usage of Java.”It is much, much harder to prove such a case and nurture such a claim for MS with regards to using Java (for example), as MS themselves built dotnet on ideas relating to Java, which could then be proven to be mostly prior art. Java-technology would also get defended by a company like Sun (or Google), and MS had to prove the infringing IP of Java resembling dotnet, which would be easy in case of dotnet vs. mono.
So the litigation-scenario IS a major factor for anyone, who tries to compare the risk of possible litigation on the basis of IP-claims between dotnet and Mono and dotnet and Java. Someone has to weigh these arguments in, if s/he choses to defend usage of Mono by claiming it is on the same scale as usage of Java.
From Microsoft's perspective and the public viewing of such a case, it is clearly not. Even the possible danger from Sun suing over Java is clearly not comparable, because Sun knew what it did when releasing GPL-Java and would have a hard stand to sue anyone not wanting to pay patent-royalties afterwards. If Microsoft would do the same as sun and release an official "Microsoft-certified" dotnet-variant under GPL, later license demanding through litigation would instantly lose a great deal of appeal.
So Microsoft having set up everything in place in its favor with Novell, now sits back and laughs silently as they have found the ONE weak-spot, with they trying to split FLOSS-land: The GPLv2 only and LGPLv2 only, which are poorly designed to such a clever patent-scam-attack. Microsoft weapon is a GPL-tarnished sword called Mono, developed by Novell.
At least, this is how I perceive this whole Microsoft-Novell-nonsense. Now the hard part is to prove this theory other than to wait and let it prove itself. So all we can and should do is make that threat as transparent as possible by exposing its nature to the fullest by just describing it as precisely as possible without making anything up.
Maybe this analogy helps a little to achieve this goal, and raise the awareness to where the difference (and danger) lies. ⬆
Comments
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-20 17:00:45
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-20 17:22:29
Needs Sunlight
2008-09-20 17:38:14
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-20 17:39:58
This is a snippet of #mono on GimpNET from a few minutes ago. It seems to me that his "vested interest" is fighting FUD and not any sort of financial ties or business reasons.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-20 18:15:21
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-20 19:15:58
As for who I work for, as I've said on numerous occasions: it's none of your business.
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-20 19:18:56
I got confused because I lost track of which thread I was replying on (I thought we were talking about Mr. Steadfast who obviously works for Novell currently).
Josh Bell
2008-09-20 19:20:15
twitter
2008-09-20 19:38:38
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-20 19:52:04
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-20 20:01:52
So how is that related to AlexH's or directhex's "vested interests"?
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-20 20:46:33
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-20 21:05:38
If you didn't mean of them, who did you mean?
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-20 21:06:36
AlexH
2008-09-21 08:17:24
In the first couple of paragraphs alone it makes credulous suggestions about someone being sued, Mono being a rewrite, and Novell paying Microsoft for it.
None of which is true, and which is easily verifiable to anyone who cares to check.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 08:22:35
AlexH
2008-09-21 08:57:26
Remember, most free software distributions include Mono and Mono applications. So we're not exactly talking about a minority of people supporting Mono.
aeshna23
2008-09-21 11:57:58
I found this paragraph hard to understand. GPL vs LGPL is suddenly introduced and it results in some vulnerability. What is the author trying to say?
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 12:58:18
There are more people actively using and contributing to Mono (minus Novell-paid developers) than there are people who oppose it.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 15:51:06
Baby and bathwater, Dan. You could do better than that.
Anyway, I got an E-mail from the guy who wrote this. He added:
The main goal or MS is to bring this message to the public perception: If you were a car-maker competing with other car-makers, and saw a more-or-less complete functional, exact replica of your top-model driving in masses around the streets giving all their "owners" and "passengers" (users) free rides on Linux, wouldn't you want to demand royalties at least from the COMPANIES making money by distributing this IP with Linux?
Leave aside all those hobby-users (just like in case MS does with regards to pirating their other IP, Windows and Office), but predate everyone making money (Red Hat, etc.)
AlexH
2008-09-21 16:22:24
Is Jose_X writing these posts? :D
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 16:30:11
AlexH
2008-09-21 16:37:24
I can't really agree or disagree with it, I can barely understand most of it sadly.
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 17:18:30
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 17:39:39
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 17:43:27
AlexH
2008-09-21 17:47:23
I think the point is that many of the points that have been raised have been raised before and refuted. You can keep shouting "oh, but patents!" but it doesn't make it true.
My main problem with this article is that it's simply incoherent rambling interspersed with random statements about the GPL and various bizarre legal theories.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 17:48:45
Has this Novell chap ( http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2 ) removed a post which claims to have 'debunked' me)?
AlexH
2008-09-21 17:52:37
Or are you saying their legal team isn't sufficiently switched on to realise the threat?
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 17:55:36
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 17:58:07
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 17:59:58
AlexH
2008-09-21 18:00:05
Circumstantial evidence has convicted many criminals. I've seen it on TV. Perry Mason, mostly.
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 18:00:40
As you proved a few weeks ago, Roy doesn't even comprehend a simple aspect of copyright law, nevermind something more complicated like patent law.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 18:02:28
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/15/no-mono-in-fedora-10/ http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/02/fedora-no-moonlight/
AlexH
2008-09-21 18:09:24
"No Mono in Fedora 10" is obviously untrue, though. Whether or not it's on which disc doesn't seem clear, and even if it's not in the default install that provides you precisely no legal protection. If it were otherwise, they would ship MP3 support etc.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 18:11:29
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 18:12:36
Just because you dismiss them simply because he works for Novell, doesn't make his evidence untrue. Especially since any unaffiliated objective person can verify his proof.
Let's take a look at history:
1. He wrote a blog entry about optimizing Mono's I/O performance and discovered that in that particular case, it was faster than Java.
You badmouthed him saying that he was a liar. AlexH and Miles ran the tests and concluded that the numbers Mr. Steadfast gave were accurate.
Meanwhile, you refused to run the tests yourself, insisting that they were wrong and that anyone who ran the tests and found the data to be accurate were simply biased against Java.
2. There was another blog post he made about wishing he could have written a new IMAP backend/plugin/whatever for Evolution in C# because it would have saved him time and effort.
You posted your own article bashing him, GNOME, and Mono saying that Novell was forcing Mono into the core of GNOME.
Needless to say, you were once again proven to be wrong, not him.
3. He posted a blog entry debunking the myths about GNOME depending on Mono with factual evidence backing up his statements.
Once again, you were proven wrong.
Does anyone else see a pattern, here? Because I certainly do.
Roy is consistently proven wrong, again and again.
AlexH
2008-09-21 18:13:42
If Mono isn't on the LiveCD I suggest that it's rather more to do with trimming packages to fit into 660Mb with a variety of locales and languages than any FUD you're throwing at it.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 18:16:33
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 18:17:01
(For those not in-the-know, gNewSense is the FSF-sponsored GNU/Linux distribution).
AlexH
2008-09-21 18:18:11
"We don't know for sure" that the core of the moon isn't cheese.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 18:20:34
AlexH
2008-09-21 18:23:27
Note, though, that where they do have a worry, not only is the package not on discs they provide, but it's also not in the repos.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 18:30:23
Dan O'Brian
2008-09-21 18:31:58
AlexH
2008-09-21 18:32:10
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 18:34:27
AlexH
2008-09-21 19:40:15
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 19:43:56
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454
AlexH
2008-09-21 19:50:22
Roy Schestowitz
2008-09-21 19:53:56
AlexH
2008-09-21 19:57:03
I don't see what elaboration you're asking for. SFLC issued a statement about Microsoft's Moonlight covenant. Mono, for obvious reasons, doesn't rely on that covenant and actively avoids Microsoft patents. So the statement about the covenant doesn't tell you anything about SFLC's opinion on Mono.