Readers or users who don't trust Mono should ask for a patent licence from Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft does, for a verifiable fact, have a department dedicated specifically to that type of stuff. We made a start by asking for our protection as we might wish to install the GNOME desktop environment in the future and it's already extremely hard to get it preinstalled without Mono these days. Here is the message we sent last night.
From: Roy Schestowitz To: iplg at microsoft.com Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2008 Subject: Request for a written license for ECMA 376 implementation
Dear Microsoft Licensing,
I would be interested to receive a licence for commercial distribution of Mono, in accordance with your terms presented by Bob Muglia: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2060750,00.asp
"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."
According to several legal analyses, Mono is not safe for those who are not Novell customers to use. I would therefore like to purchase a licence.
Best regards,
Roy Schestowitz
This is the Postfix program at host mail175-wa4-R.bigfish.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The Postfix program
<iplg@microsoft.com>: host winse-6216-mail1.customer.frontbridge.com[205.248.106.64] said: 550 5.7.1 <Your e-mail was rejected by an anti-spam content filter on gateway (205.248.106.64). Reasons for rejection may be: obscene language, graphics, or spam-like characteristics. Removing these may let the e-mail through the filter.> (in reply to end of DATA command)
[...]
Samba grew out of a classic hacker's itch. Its creator, Andrew Tridgell, wanted to connect his PC to a departmental Sun machine, and knocked up a bit of server code for the latter to make that possible. It was only later that he discovered – to his amazement – that his program also worked with PCs running Windows.
This meant that Samba, running on GNU/Linux, could function as a file and printer server for Windows users, which was why it became one of the first free software programs to find its way into enterprises, since it was effectively a drop-in replacement for more expensive Windows-based solutions. In other words, Samba is a free implementation of some protocols used by Windows, and was created so that free code could be used instead of Microsoft's.
Now consider Mono. Like Samba, it aims to reproduce functionality available on the Windows platform, so that people can use free software instead: a laudable goal in itself. But the end-result, which depends on Microsoft's work, is something that encourages developers to write *yet more* code that uses Microsoft's approach. In benighted countries where software can be patented, this means that any patents that Microsoft has in the .NET framework are like to apply to any code developed with Mono. Like an infectious disease, the intellectual monopoly is spread wider.
[...]
This is what makes Mono so dangerous: developers that use this framework are, in fact, helping to disperse the poison of Microsoft's intellectual monopolies across the free software ecosystem. I'm sure that's not the aim of the Mono developers, who doubtless have the best of intentions, but sadly it is the inevitable result. And that is why developers and users need to be warned off Mono in a way that is not necessary for Samba.
Q4. After Mono 2.0 was announced on Monday, I saw speculation in several Linux discussion sites that Mono is somehow a 'trojan horse' that, along with Novell's alliance with Microsoft, will somehow give Microsoft patent leverage over the Linux desktop. Would you care to respond?
A4.[Pauses] I'm surprised people were able to figure out our evil plot.
(Attendant Novell press relations rep interjects: "He's kidding! He's kidding!!")
The position of the Mono project has always been that we believe .Net includes a lot of innovation along with a good mix of well-known technology. So, if people found a patent infringement, we would take it out. If there's prior art, though, the patent is invalid. This is the way it is done in the open source world. A good example is Freetype. They discovered that they could not use a byte code interpreter for fonts, so they invented a different approach.
Sean: There is a certain amount of skepticism about Microsoft in the open source community; people are always wondering what they are “really up to.” I would imagine that people must ask you fairly frequently why they would develop under Mono for Linux, instead of using Java or Python or PHP.
“In due course, we may wish to identify (and preferably also list) some patents that Mono violates and show them to Miguel, advising removal.”It must be mentioned that a lot of Novell's revenue comes from Microsoft, so many Novell employees are essentially funded by Microsoft.
In due course, we may wish to identify (and preferably also list) some patents that Mono violates and show them to Miguel, advising removal. Would that be evil? Well, if he removes his code, then he might as well realise what position he willingly put himself in.
The same goes for Silverlight. Next up we will seek a patent licence also for Moonlight (at least to find out the cost) and all the codecs that goes with it. Let's find out what sort of trap Novell is leading to before, not after, it becomes another bit of ammunition for Microsoft to intimidate with and to successfully use in secret extortions.
There is a timely lesson about this type of thing in today's news about AMD. Companies are forced to pay their abusive, monopolistic and even criminal competitors for patents, simply because the system is pathetic but also because re-engineering of existing architectures of one's rival is a bad idea from the get-go.
Intel's lawyers launch probe into AMD's spinoff plans
Intel's lawyers are evaluating whether a new manufacturing business spun out of Advanced Micro Devices could end a long-standing cross-licensing agreement between the firms.
--Miguel de Icaza
Comments
AlexH
2008-10-09 13:50:31
This is illogical and wrong; knowing how a protocol operates doesn't give you patent rights to it. In reality, what happens is that Samba try to avoid the patents that are listed against the tech. Same situation as Mono is in really; work to avoid patents in the first place, replace code as and when infringement is suspected.
This claim is also incorrect. Assuming "like" is actually a typo for "likely", it doesn't follow at all. That's the same as saying any Java program infringes Kodak's patents; it's just nonsense.
Dan O'Brian
2008-10-09 14:00:07
Mind showing us where Mono developers are attacking anyone? Because, frankly, I don't see it.
What I do see is you and other anti-Mono people attacking them, but afaict, they just ignore it.
Needs Sunlight
2008-10-09 14:36:28
The problem with Mono (aside from the technical problems) is the patent encumberance. Just use Java, Perl, or Ruby and leave the both the licensing and technical problems of Mono behind.
David Gerard
2008-10-09 14:43:30
Mono and .NET are basically redundant technologies in the face of a free software Java that's had over a decade's real-world hardening. Also fabulously easy to develop for, but a substitute that's no longer needed at all.
Dan O'Brian
2008-10-09 14:46:22
It depends on the vagueness of the patent, but at least some can be worked around by using a different approach.
AlexH
2008-10-09 14:51:33
"Just use Java" is fine, and I endorse that for those situations where Java is a good tool to use. But there's nothing wrong with using Mono either.
aeshna23
2008-10-09 14:52:27
AlexH
2008-10-09 14:58:23
aeshna23
2008-10-09 15:03:50
You do know that the licenses for OpenOffice.org, KDE, and the Linux kernel are matters of public record?
Dan O'Brian
2008-10-09 15:12:46
I could, however, be wrong.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 15:25:10
AlexH
2008-10-09 15:29:37
What does it prove? It proves that Microsoft are willing to sell you a patent license. It doesn't prove there is any infringing IP that you need to pay for, because your original question already makes that assumption.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 15:47:42
AlexH
2008-10-09 16:03:35
Or is it because I've exposed your little game?
You know full well Microsoft aren't going to write back to you and say "we hold no patents which Mono infringes, so go ahead and use it!" - even if that was what they thought, their legal counsel would never allow such advice.
What will happen is that they will write back to you and probably advise you to buy Novell, or (unlikely) offer you a broad patent license. You will then tout this as "proof" that Mono is tainted somehow, when you begged the question by telling Microsoft you needed a license.
If you tell them you need a license, they're not going to disagree with you.
Jeffrey Stedfast
2008-10-09 18:45:20
Just an FYI: Miguel, Joseph, and I have never tried to portray ourselves as non-Novell employees. We also always use our real names - something that cannot be said of your anonymous supporters (who, as I understand it, are known to have more than 14 accounts???).
When you learn to grow up, we can talk. Until then, I would appreciate it if you stopped spreading libel about me.
Thanks.
C.J.
2008-10-09 19:57:06
If I may be so bold, I would recommend requesting interviews with the folks you cover in your articles. In my experience, they are approachable and willing (if not always happy) to discuss the topics you report on. I have already provided you the IRC server and channel where you can find the Free Software developers who are the subject of this article. I am happy to provide the information again, should you need it.
In my experience, it is dangerous for journalists to make accusations (or, as you brought up yesterday, implications of accusations) about individuals' intent. Consider how you would feel if claims purporting to be fact were made about your motives regarding the maintenance of and content posted on this site.
Instead, I recommend that you ask a direct question on the record. Let your audience know that any comments you make about the recorded conversation are your interpretation, and that they should read the original to make their own determination on the matter. Failure to treat your subjects with the respect you would expect yourself will likely cause problems in both your readership and your relationships with current and future subjects.
Sincerely,
C.J.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 20:14:49
Are you referring to my suggestion that you might be trying to promote Mono at Java's expense? I still think so.
I look at your blog, which says:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/12271561115384429651
"Jeffrey Stedfast
About Me
- A Software Engineer Seeking The Path Toward Enlightenment. My Blogs
Team Members A Moment of Zen"
Nothing about Novell. Same in the front page. It wasn't until O'Brian said something (about a month ago) that I realised you work for Novell.
AlexH
2008-10-09 20:26:52
It's not wrong to separate your personal blog from your employer's when you're not speaking on their behalf. You do it, I do it, Jeff does it. You're only drawing the link between the two because it's convenient to you to attack Mono.
Jeffrey Stedfast
2008-10-09 20:41:29
Everyone in the GNOME and Mono communities know who I am and who I work for (which are 2 of the 3 planets my blog is linked from, the third being planetsuse.com). It is no secret. I've been working for Helix Code -> Ximian -> Novell for 8 years.
I also have a "Mono Contributor" icon on my blog, in case you didn't notice. No one reading my blog should be surprised I work on Mono nor that I'm a Novell employee.
And no, I'm talking about the attacks on this particular article. I wasn't even aware of other articles, thanks for giving me more ammunition, though.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 20:46:22
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/10/09/15/25/07-bruce-are-you-stupid-
I dare you never to make mistakes. It's impossible. Some erroneous claims I also received by E-mail and I try to verify them before posting.
I apologise if there were incorrect insinuations, none of which were intended (I don't lie, but sometimes I am not sufficiently well informed).
Jeffrey Stedfast
2008-10-09 21:04:43
You can start by retracting that blurb, perhaps following up with a formal apology for even insinuating such things.
No one with any clue thinks we are independent fans of Mono, I still don't understand how you could possibly think so.
Try reading the article:
He comes right out and says that he is the PM for Mono at Novell, I don't know how it could get any plainer than that.
Jeffrey Stedfast
2008-10-09 20:50:30
The courts don't make that distinction, Roy. I suggest you become sufficiently informed before making accusations in public.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 20:54:36
If I worked for someone, it would say so. I'm a volunteer. You can also click on my name to find my personal site. I hide nothing (extrovert).
I apologise, but I can't retract my suggestion that it's not clear who you work for. The blog is personal (I totally understand that), but it's not in a Novell domain yet it discusses your professional work at Novell.
I guess it's an issue with blogs in general. I have nothing personal.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 20:57:57
Are you hinting at lawsuits? Either way, where I am not sure I typically don't state something as though it's a fact. Please show me what you want corrected if you feel injustice was done.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 21:37:11
Ziggyfish
2008-10-09 22:03:53
Dan O'Brian
2008-10-09 23:02:50
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-09 23:15:41
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&num=50&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=site:boycottnovell.com+byfield
Slashdot User
2008-10-10 00:34:18
Beware of 'twitter', puppet master, nym extraordinaire and legendary Slashdot troll who hangs out on #boycottnovell and does righteous battle with the evil "M$".
http://slashdot.org/~willyhill/journal/205317
With friends like these...
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-10 00:38:24
Slashdot User
2008-10-10 00:51:17
I apologize if that came across as a personal attack. It wasn't intended as such at all. I know for a fact you do not remove comments, but if you want, please delete or blank out mine.
I just think it's a shame that the "Roy has friends that game websites with 14+ accounts" line has now become a sort of punch line for some people.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-10 00:54:51
Slashdot User
2008-10-10 01:51:01
In all fairness though, and as some people here have commented, it's difficult for you to counteract accusations of culpability by association, just as it is difficult to ask people not to rush to judgments based solely on perception, because you unfortunately do that a lot, too.
Michael Zucchi
2008-10-10 01:59:34
Most people would not want to put who they work for on their personal `blog' - for the express reason that it may imply some sort of official/company position. How you could claim that everyone would normally show their employer on their `blog' is pretty strange. There is a difference between 'I work for a company and get paid to blog to support their position in secret', and 'I work for a company and love my job and like to talk about all the great stuff I am/we are doing, as well as movies/food/friends/etc'.
To claim that you didn't know Jeff was an employee of Novell does suggest you should do some more research. Jeff has been involved in Ximian/Novell almost as long as Miguel has. And not only that, has likewise been very open and very public about it - posting thousands of e-mails on public lists over the last 8 years for example. I also know him personally and worked with him for several years and think he's a pretty decent bloke who is I know is completely dedicated to free software, and I feel somewhat offended that you are attacking him (and others, such as Miguel - disagree yes, but why attack?).
I, like others, know you do a lot of jumping to quick conclusions on often poorly researched facts, but tend to forgive you because also coalesce a lot of interesting links and opinion and seem to hold a position on a number of issues that I generally agree with. However, I do wish you'd stop these personal attacks - all they do is upset people who are more complex than you make them out to be. Groklaw has a habit of doing it too, although PJ has a much more annoying 'holier than thou' attitude which i'm fed up with. Such attacks don't add any value to this otherwise useful site.
It is nice to see you apologise, but certainly in this case it wouldn't have taken much research to never have needed to in the first place.
Michael Zucchi
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-10 07:02:47
If they didn't use that to discredit the messenger, they would find something else. That's their nature.
AlexH
2008-10-10 07:18:34
I think people would make less of your associations if you didn't harp on about association constantly.
As you say, it's a cheap attack, so hopefully we won't be seeing attacks by association in the future.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-10 07:33:36
stevetheFLY
2008-10-10 07:34:05
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
AlexH
2008-10-10 07:47:02
Bill Gates
2008-10-10 10:39:31
I feel ever so embarassed that the smart people who run boycottnovell.com have unmasked my evil schemes and my henchmen. Please forgive me.
As a token of my good will, I'd like to tell Roy that he is actually working for me, too. It hasn't been on purpose, of course, poor Roy; you have been acting under the power of a post-hypnotic command. I am ever so sorry, Roy! Now, let me free you with a snip of my fingers... *snip!*
And also Roy, you are, in reality, my illegitimate son.
Bill Gates
2008-10-10 10:42:40
Thank you
Eldon
2008-10-10 18:08:37
Sum Yung Gai
2008-10-10 20:47:48
AlexH
2008-10-11 10:40:52
DugC
2008-10-12 14:36:36
Roy Schestowitz
2008-10-12 15:16:18