GNU project founder Richard Stallman has called on developers to pull back from Mono, arguing that increasing use of the open-source toolset could prompt legal action by Microsoft.
Sydney Water has decided to migrate its email platform from Novell's GroupWise to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange and is looking for a contractor to help implement the change.
De Icaza has been trying for EIGHT YEARS to get a distro to become totally dependent on MONO, and since Novell bought De Icaza, both have increased their propaganda efforts, with the assistance of Microsoft TEs, trolls, astroturfers and fanbois.
IF MONO is what its advocates are saying it is (the best thing since sliced bread and safe to use), it would already be in widespread adoption by now. The fact that you can count dependent programs on the fingers of one hand says VOLUMES about how the Linux community as a whole totally distrusts MONO. They are right to hold that distrust.
Java is open source and is MUCH less susceptible to patent attacks. It has CONSIDERABLY MORE tools and applications built with it and for it than MONO does.
Qt4 is GPL'd and has an excellent API and development tools, bar none. It also has excellent apps built by it and tools available for it.
MONO serves no purpose, except to raise the risk of patent attack or of being left in isolation WHEN Microsoft adds extensions to .NET that patents will prevent being added to MONO. This is backwards from Microsoft's usual attack mode.
So, Debian didn't change "the default installation" (whatever that's supposed to be) but the dependency of a package which is used by a minority of our users who explicitly wishes to install everything GNOME related (which is to the best of my knowledge in accordance with upstream developers who added tomboy to the default GNOME installation, too).
Debian - Mono is not in our default installation
[...]
In response to the open letter written by free software guru Richard Stallman about the Mono problem, Alexander Schmehl, Debian developer and spokesperson for the GNU/Linux distribution has pointed out that Debian has no plans to include the controversial programming environment in the default GNOME installation. Stallman, who opened his letter with "Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy", had suggested that Debian were including the Mono libraries for anyone using Debian with GNOME.
I recently came across this very interesting article, written in 1999, which details the tactics used by Microsoft to fight IBM. They obviously saw OS/2 as a threat. Back then, Windows 95 was the trading token. They could have caused IBM a great deal of harm shall they refused to license it to them, but it seems the idea of subjugating IBM was more appealing. This is how Garry Norris (IBM) put it:
“Microsoft repeatedly said we would suffer in terms of prices, terms, conditions and support programs, as long as we were offering competing products.“
“[Microsoft] insisted that IBM sell 300,000 copies of Windows 95 in the first five months or face a 20 percent price increase“
Nice deal, eh? Make your dependancy on Windows 95 stronger, or else we’ll use your existing dependancy on Windows 95 against you. No surprise IBM abandoned the PC market. Are Red Hat and Sun/Oracle set on the same direction?
Our company also takes the potential threat of patents seriously. As such we stand by the position of the SFLC, FSF and RMS in that Mono is just too dangerous.
We are therefore going to look at switching from Ubuntu to Fedora.
The threat is too great to ignore. I wish the UTB would reconsider this as more harm will come to Ubuntu rather than good.
The Ubuntu technical board has announced that it sees no reason to consider a dependency on Mono as an issue when suggesting applications to be included in the default set included in the GNU/Linux distribution.
[...]
The Software Freedom Law Centre, which provides "legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free, Libre and Open Source Software" has a diametrically different view.
Following the statement made by Free Software Foundation chief Richard M. Stallman against Debian's inclusion of Mono as a default, SFLC technology director, Bradley Kuhn , has written an essay, backing Stallman's view about it being better to avoid a language like C#.
Comments
Will
2009-07-01 23:12:08
I'm hoping MS won't succeed in snaring Ubuntu as this goes on. It was only a few years ago that I jumped ship from OpenSuse to Ubuntu, and Fedora is a little too bleeding edge for me. I guess there's always Debian, if it ever comes to that.
Will
2009-07-01 23:13:13
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-01 23:22:09
http://blog.mandriva.com/2007/10/31/an-open-letter-to-steve-ballmer/
Ed Landaveri
2009-07-02 02:12:36
To most people I helped to migrate to Linux. I installed, helped with the installation with Ubuntu. This way they won't have to tweak harder with movies, music, && plug-in issues when I'm away. But ALWAYS teach them, first thing after installation to remove mono opensourcerer style.Thanks OpenSourcer! Men, I have a feeling of kicking Ballmer's && Icaza's b_tts! everytime I do it or someone tells me they've removed it. We have to educate our people about mono dangers. Why give MS another chance to sue Linux as they have done with Tom Tom! Wake UP people! The leopard WON'T change its spots! NEVER!
When I read that Debian which I installed on my daughters desktops since Ubuntu went the mono way was to include mono on a default installation I was disappointed since I was to help other people to migrate from Ubuntu to Debian. I hope they will leave it on the repositories where it belongs. Users MUST be free to decide if they want it or not! That's the beauty of CHOICE! I sincerely hope they will listen the FSF && the SFLC. If not my people will go to Fedora which is becoming easier && easier for newbies.
Let us not our guard down with MS/Novell deception! Keep up the good work!
contextfree
2009-07-02 03:44:20
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-02 17:32:42
"This article is little more than flamebait as it stands now. I don't believe it was your intention, but this topic deserves some more accuracy.
The issue is not C#. C# has been standardized through Ecma and as part of that standards process Microsoft and partners had to declare that any patents they may hold on the technology behind C#, Common Language Runtime(CLR) and Common Type System(CTS) be made available to any implementor on a fair an non-discriminatory base.
Microsofts deal with Novell has basically set the standard: Free. As Novell gets the patent licenses for free, any implementor of C#, CLR and/or CTS would be discriminated against if they had to pay.
C# (the language) is in this respect much more open than Java. Java has open source implementations, but the all-important specification is still fully under Suns (and soon Oracles) control. As benevolent dictators Sun has for many years followed a semi-open path by relinquishing some control to the Java Community Process (JCP). But Sun was *always* at the end of the table and always reserve their right to veto or just forge ahead without the JCP. Like they did with JavaFX.
C# cannot be changed by Microsoft alone anymore. They have to get amendments through the same Ecma/ISO channel. Of course, MS has a big saying in these matters, but even so, factually, this process protects against any patent litigation from Microsoft with respect to C#, CLR and CTS implementations.
Now, Mono is not just C#. The Mono project also has clean-room implementations of large/most parts of the .NET Framework. Some of this Framework is also covered by the standards process patent protection, while other parts such as Windows Forms and ASP.NET are not.
The FUD about the potential Microsoft patent litigation actually centers around these parts. The fear is that even while Mono does a clean room implementation that may still violate some patent within their implementation.
Microsoft certainly holds many patents, and some code you write may indeed violate a Microsoft patent (where valid) or someone elses patents. What is unclear is how Mono code somehow is more prone to such infringement than other code, say Java Runtime implementations.
You (nor Microsoft) can not patent an API. Only implementations can be patented in some jurisdictions (you can only patent how a machine *work*, not what it *does*).
The .NET API does not mandate a specific implementation. Yes, Mono code may violate some patents, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Apple, Rambus etc. So may any other code. To suggest that Mono code is more likely to infringe is disingenious. Simply FUD.
Indeed, Microsoft has covered Moonlight by their Novell covenant. Moonlight (part of the Mono project) is guaranteed free from Microsoft litigation. And Microsoft has gone beyond that and offered users of Moonlight free access to Microsoft licensed (not owned by Microsoft) codecs. They could do that because anyone who downloads the codec from Microsoft are covered by Microsofts license with the IP owners.
So, please. This is not about C#. It is just a programming language, and it is guaranteed free from MS litigation, per the terms agreed to by Microsoft as a prerequisite to standardize C#.
Some believe that there is an issue with Monos reimplementation of the .NET Framework. However, it is hard to see how Mono code should be any more at risk than anything else."
Finalzone
2009-07-02 18:49:04
Robert Millan
2009-07-02 21:35:49
It is very similar to "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND), so maybe it means the same. Whenever I read about RAND, I see a loaded term with an implicit point of view: "UFO terms are reasonable!"
But I don't agree that they are. In any case, reasonable or not, they are incompatible with free software.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#RAND
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-03 10:57:07
RMS (and you, now) like to claim (without particular substantiation) that RAND terms are "incompatible" or that they somehow "discriminate against" the free software community.
(Luckily for me, I'm part of the "open source software community", so such things don't affect me; also, how the range of possible license arrangements that could be described as "reasonable and non-discriminatory" can somehow all be "incompatible with free software" is a complete mystery to me: if my "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" are that anyone can use my invention as they please, and I don't expect to be paid a fee, that's clearly pretty clearly "reasonable" and just as clearly "non-discriminatory", yet you and RMS make a blanket claim that would cover that arrangement as well...)
This all seems quite silly, just as much so as if you were to go in and demand some sort of special discount on your groceries by virtue of the fact that you're a member of "the free software community". The grocer's turning you down doesn't make his groceries "incompatible with free software", as much as you might wish it did.
You may not like the terms on some patent licenses, but it's up the the holders of those patents to set the terms they choose. This is entirely legitimate, just as it's entirely legitimate for a copyright holder to only use his copyright to keep others from publishing his work against his will.
Just because something is inconvenient for you doesn't necessarily make it "incompatible with free software". And coming up with a new term (e.g. "UFO" vs. "RAND") for something doesn't change the underlying practices.
Robert Millan
2009-07-03 13:20:31
I know what "fair" and "non-discriminatory" means in English. You should be aware that patent lawyers, however, speak a different language. When they say "fair" or "reasonable", they mean "we aren't screwing you completely". When they say "non-discriminatory", they mean "we're not discriminating against anyone we care about".
When Ecma says "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory", it is not English they're using, but a variant of it, which I like to call IP-speak (as a pun on Newspeak from 1984). In IP-speak, "piracy" doesn't mean attacking ships and murdering, but helping your friends by sharing with them. "protection" doesn't mean preventing harm, but imposing restrictions on someone, etc.
In English, you can say "everyone will pay, and the fee will be the same" in many different ways. One of them is "uniform fee only". Notice that "uniform fee only" (UFO) doesn't carry any implicit point of view in it: it merely describes reality. If I wanted to embed my particular POV in those words, I could use "tax" rather than "fee", but I wouldn't hide the fact that it is my opinion this is representing.
In contract, IP-speak people like to pretend they have the right to define words like "fair", "reasonable" or "non-discriminatory" to suit their agenda.
Because of this, before I can establish a meaningful conversation with you, I need to know if you're speaking English or IP-speak.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-03 15:49:49
You should be aware that patent lawyers, however, speak a different language. When they say “fair” or “reasonable”, they mean “we aren’t screwing you completely”. When they say “non-discriminatory”, they mean “we’re not discriminating against anyone we care about”.
You should perhaps be aware that I actually work with patent attorneys on a regular and ongoing basis, and I suspect I understand a lot more about the process than you do. When I state that, in this context, "fair" means "fair" and "non-discriminatory" means "non-discriminatory", I am able to do so with some authority. Believe me when I tell you that no judge will interpret those terms as you suggest.
You, on the other hand, seem to have little to offer but propaganda, and not even original propaganda at that. If you can point to a concrete instance of "fair", "reasonable" or "non-discriminatory" being arbitrarily redefined as you've described and those redefinitions being supported in a court, please trot it out. I'd love to see it. If you can't, then you're just blowing hot air, and this site already has an ample supply of that, thanks to Roy's efforts. Your attempts to add to that supply is literally carrying coals to Newcastle.
Jose_X
2009-07-05 23:20:04
You don't have to search the definitions for too long, if you speak English, to realize that these words are not defined in black or white. Perhaps little English, if any, is black or white (ie, unambiguous), but surely these words are nowhere near black or white.
When the US Constitution was created, slavery was likely considered fair and non-discriminatory in many ways by many slave holders and writers of the Constitution. I think human slavery is an example of what one group sees as fair, the other sees as unfair. There is a lot of gray, so much that some might see white where others see black.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 00:08:59
Are you really not understanding the point Twitter is trying to get across to you?
Since you have more experience than I do, is it your belief that the fairness of a "fair" contract term has never been disputed in court?
I am curious as to how the body that defined RAND defines "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory".
Again, if anyone thinks that the application of "fair", "reasonable", and "non-discriminatory" has never been in dispute or that no person (or court) has ever felt the need to shed light on what might constitute something "fair", "reasonable", or "non-discriminatory", then I will have to question the level of experience of such a person in understanding how these words are used in society. [I think "level of experience" is also one of those grey areas.]
>> This all seems quite silly, just as much so as if you were to go in and demand some sort of special discount on your groceries by virtue of the fact that you’re a member of “the free software community”. The grocer’s turning you down doesn’t make his groceries “incompatible with free software”, as much as you might wish it did.
>> You may not like the terms on some patent licenses, but it’s up the the holders of those patents to set the terms they choose.
Fact is that if many developers and users like the protections of the GPL (and don't think "free software" is protected enough in many cases), then the details of "fair" and "non-discriminatory" are very important to know ahead of time.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger, since the GPL is a very popular license which has protections that other free software does not, don't you think that the many people that value what the GPL offers will be unwilling to call "reasonable" any patent license whose protections are rejected by the GPL or are otherwise incompatible with the GPL?
Perhaps you will be less misunderstood on this forum if you start addressing issues that affect the GPL and stop simply considering "free software" in its most general forms. This site is about protecting FOSS and not just about what is defined technically as FOSS. It's about preventing monopolists and those working with them from exploiting the contributions of the community to protect their monopolies.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 01:01:22
Their contract was not reduced to "the terms of this contract are that Novell gets RAND and no fees."
They have a long contract with many stipulations.
Did Novell get free access because they were able to offer their own set of patents to cross-license?
Would you be considered my customer if you download software that was modified and redistributed several times since I posted it?
Did Novell customers gain the ability to pass on this same protection from Microsoft to their customers for forks of mono and anything else related?
Why do some people want all of these issues to be shoved under the carpet? Shouldn't those that want mono uptake to grow be pressuring Microsoft to answer these very relevant questions that could become problems for GPL and other software depending no how these issues are ultimately resolved?
>> What is unclear is how Mono code somehow is more prone to such infringement than other code, say Java Runtime implementations.
Microsoft created dotnet. They didn't create Java. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1 . It's much easier to generate patent infringements to your patents if people adopt API you crafted.
>> You (nor Microsoft) can not patent an API. Only implementations can be patented in some jurisdictions (you can only patent how a machine *work*, not what it *does*).
You should read the above trap link if you don't understand.
API can specify how an application (ie, "machine") works.
>> To suggest that Mono code is more likely to infringe is disingenious. Simply FUD.
Consider reading the above link.
>> C# (the language) is in this respect much more open than Java.
Dotnet patents have particular relevance to those working on desktop software and who are impacted by Monopolysoft.
Beyond this, I'd say that Java (platform in particular) might also be a concern, if a lesser concern, from the patent pov. I don't know enough of the details, but I suspect your overall statements about Java did the situation injustice.
The picture might get less cloudy after the SCOTUS rulings later this year (or next). Hopefully the rulings will turn out to bring some peace to these discussions (at least for Americans.. and depending on how much could be undone through the passage of new laws).
contextfree
2009-07-03 01:35:07
Shane Coyle
2009-07-03 10:45:00
Not that I've seen, but I do recall a discussion here once where an interview with a Microsoft spokesperson did indeed confirm their intent to have RAND-Z terms (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory, Zero-Cost). My concern is that RAND-Z is still not necessarily GPL compatible, including (but not limited to) whether redistribution is permitted, etc.
I'll search through the old discussions for that link, it was right around when I actually tried to contact MS and HP for elucidation of those RAND terms. Like Sam Varghese a few months later, I had never received anything but an autoreply from HP acknowledging receipt of my emails.
Shane Coyle
2009-07-03 11:08:48
Someone mentioned that the SFLC should contact MS and try to obtain the terms, I'd be all for that - FACTS trump FUD almost every time.
(OH, and Roy- couldja fix my comment where I bungled the link? THX)
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-09 08:15:19
Shane Coyle
2009-07-03 10:56:25
During the discussion, a link to this article/interview with MS Director of Intellectual Property, Michelle Herman yielded the RAND-RF/RAND-Z confirmation:
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-03 11:12:05
Thanks for digging that up, Shane...
twitter
2009-07-04 20:33:36
A side issue of RAND is that no agreement which forces the receiver to recognize software patents should be considered reasonable. Software patents are a contentious issue, even in US courts, which are well out of line with informed US opinion. Software patents are business method patents and should never have been recognized or enforced in the US.
G. Michaels
2009-07-05 06:22:12
LOL Willy, IP law does not disappear or change because you don't like it.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-05 14:18:21
twitter
2009-07-05 16:15:59
You have a ZDNet reporter saying "no fees," his interpretation of RAND. Roy has sourced many other Novell and M$ executives saying that no one but Novell has a license to use mono. In short, everyone else has nothing. Novell's magical mono license has never been published, but we do know that M$ gave Novell a lot of money to accept it. I'm afraid it was a bad investment for M$ to make right before the Biski decision. We can all be sure M$ intended to get their money back in FUD and shakedowns. From what I see here, even the FUD is a bad investment. All they have managed to do is waste their own money and Novell's time. The net result is that more people understand how devious and dishonest M$ is.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-05 17:21:38
Actually, it's more amazing that you can ignore what's clearly right in front of your eyes, not to mention quoted in full a few comments up. I am forced to suspect reading comprehension issues, frankly.
Do people pay you to think like that?
If you mean clearly, coherently, and in possession of the actual facts, then yes, they do.
You have a ZDNet reporter saying “no fees,” his interpretation of RAND.
Let's look at that quote which you seem to be unable to comprehend again.
(Emphasis added for the reality-impaired.)
Now, that's not "a ZDNET reporter", that's Microsoft's intellectual property chief. And there's no "interpretation" necessary of "non-royalty, non-fee": it simply means what it says, i.e. they won't charge a royalty and they won't charge a fee. It's clearly neither a statement nor an interpretation the reporter made, it's a clear, simple and straightforward statement that Microsoft made.
Which seems to have somehow completely escaped you. (Hence the name, I suppose, although I continue to feel there's a syllable too many there, and it's not the first one...)
If Roy has "sourced" such statements, then the authoritative statement quoted in the ZDNET article, made by a person who's clearly the authority in this context, completely undercuts them; I'd have to take that public statement as being the fact of the matter (as would any judge in the world, by the way).
I find nothing controversial or unusual in the other terms. You're fomenting a lot of imaginings about the agreement between Novell and Microsoft (which I think was a silly and unnecessary move on Novell's part, by the way), but you've got no actual facts with which to back up those turgid imaginings.
Patent Sleuth
2009-07-04 17:56:14
This will be an effort to identify patents that Microsoft has, and to find workarounds for those.
The introduction is here:
http://linuxpatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/introduction-post-patent-day-project.html
This is an effort to highlight "one day, one patent". Please join me in finding these elusive patents. I have an inaugural patent listed, so we can all get started on working on finding prior-art or removing the functionality:
http://linuxpatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/patent-5892904-code-certification-for.html
Jose_X
2009-07-05 22:19:31
Jose_X
2009-07-05 23:28:11
Maintaining periodic contact and paperwork with Microsoft to avoid losing the license is one example that is not reasonable and non-discriminatory when you consider many FOSS use cases and stakeholders, yet, for all I know, courts might have ruled these things to be reasonable and non-discriminatory practice among most patent licensors/ees. Dotnet is their area to exploit.
>> There’s about as much fact to M$’s so called “reasonable” license as there is about UFOs and Hollywood movies.
Microsoft and mono supporters saying that mono is safe appear to want the dotnet products to be bought up by us before these things have been cleared up.
Of course, we can't forget about patent trolls, especially those closely related to Microsoft: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/01/patent-racketeering-myhrvold/comment-page-1/#comment-69063
This isn't just about getting a reprieve from Microsoft because Microsoft can leverage their large investments (patents) protecting their investments (dotnet work) through third parties.
KiL
2009-07-06 01:16:10
I personally somehow miss Gnome Do, but found to my surprise that even Google Desktop Search is a nice replacement (there are others, but I didn't like them).
eet
2009-07-06 07:20:48
Congratulations, that is a great solution. Being so afraid of what scary things Microsoft might do against free software that you willfully use proprietary software by a corporate giant.
/shakes head
Jose_X
2009-07-06 11:19:21
http://opensource.org/node/445 >> On the alarm front, I heard specific confirmation of a storyline I've been following, which is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is basically telling governments: if you want contributions/investments from us, then you'll give Microsoft cabinet-level access to inform policy, and you'll use Microsoft products.
Talk about abusing nonprofits, free software, ... just name it ... in order to advance their private interests.
eet
2009-07-06 13:56:07
Carlos
2009-07-06 14:22:39
My dear José, dude, you can't be FUCKING serious when you say something like that, specially when you have tried, sometimes without success, to prove something.
Dude, put it in perspective: change a free impl and use a 100% propietary one instead, just becase "that's how bad MS is?"?
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
I always try to be a little respectful (as opposed to you, who seem to enjoy using negative terms such M$), but you need to read what paranoia is.
I won't read your comments if you include things like: "this is how ms is" or "RMS said" or "incompatible with GPL".
PD - Dude, "specific confirmation"? Come ooooooooooooooon. Dude, plain FUD, FUD, FUD. And paranoia, of course.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-06 14:23:03
No, Jose, that's how monomaniacally obsessive you folks are. In your quest to escape the grips of your Great Satan, you embrace the very proprietary software you profess to abhor. Those who hunt monsters have indeed become monsters themselves!
As for the rest, that "specific confirmation" seems remarkably nonspecific. Did it come from a small bird? The voice of God, perhaps?
Jose_X
2009-07-06 17:23:07
Carlos, perhaps you misread what I wrote. I was quoting someone else. I don't use "M$", but I don't mind those that do. There is good reason to see Microsoft as primarily concerned with making money. .. Dude, if you don't want to read comments about incompatibilities with the GPL then don't. That's your choice.
FWIW, I was not being specific over incompatibilities with the GPL, but I had the following basic idea in mind:
From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [.. this link is currently to GPLv3] >> If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
>> My dear José, dude, you can’t be FUCKING serious when you say something like that
Dude, be more specific.
I was not being 100% serious because eet was not being 100% accurate.
[David "Lefty" Schlesinger] >> As for the rest, that “specific confirmation” seems remarkably nonspecific.
You would have to ask M Tiemann. I don't think he or I were claiming to pass on that "specific confirmation". He blogged that he got specific confirmation he was looking for. I linked to his comment. Now you know you can call him up if you want to know more details.
I have read numerous times of the B&M Foundry giving out significant payments towards Microsoft software. If this isn't Bill taking money from his left pocket to place in his right (more or less), please explain.
Michael was writing about actually having this sort of left to right pocket action become a requirement (formally or informally).
I am not stating Michael is correct, but I assumed he was likely mostly correct.
Does anyone here think that the decisions over software donations by the B&M Foundation are made with no regard to what would benefit Microsoft [directly or even indirectly]. It's tough to prove anything without something "juicy", but I would be curious to know if someone here thinks that what benefits Bill through his other investments is not being considered by the B&M Foundry .. Foundation?
>> No, Jose, that’s how monomaniacally obsessive you folks are. In your quest to escape the grips of your Great Satan, you embrace the very proprietary software you profess to abhor. Those who hunt monsters have indeed become monsters themselves!
No embracing of proprietary here.
However, I am not above using a piece of proprietary software if I thought the alternative would have a worse effect all around. For example, I don't like google proprietary software and just haven't found a need for it, but I have used, use, or would use nvidia closed source drivers and adobe closed source flash plugins. I also have created and leverage data that is likely stored on proprietary servers running proprietary software [eg, when dealing with various companies].
Making certain compromises is very difficult to avoid at times or makes it easier to break Microsoft's widespread and very strong proprietary lock-in [I'm not just talking about myself, but about compromises others might strike.]
Short-term compromise to help resolve a larger issue.
As to how using mono helps Microsoft, that has been stated over and over (eg, http://np237.livejournal.com/24790.html?view=179158#t179158 ).
Hey, I'll just post that comment here in its entirety (I wrote it).
Jose_X
2009-07-06 17:25:16
>> However the Debian policy with patents is to put them in a trash and pee on them
This stream of energy can be channeled in the direction of the US Supreme Court which will address (software) patents later on this year. If you (the reader) care about (eg) mono and having users/devs/biz keep their rights and choices, you should try to write something up for the event.
This online comment talks about latches and weakening your case by allowing patent infringements: http://forum.freeadvice.com/patents-104/statute-limitations-patent-infringement-349619.html . The news is both good and bad.
We know people seek damages way after they know of violations (or else they keep their eyes/ears shut). This has happened many times before, in fact, I think it is standard practice. With respect to Microsoft, some have been saying that the reason they have not replied to those seeking a license is because of bureaucracies. That's an excuse for them to have lagged.
The comment does suggest that in some cases the burden of justification shifts dramatically to the plaintiff if they go beyond 6 years. This is good but bad because it still leaves so much room open, especially if plaintiff+proxies have truckloads of patents being churned out each year. You always have new patents available for every one that becomes difficult to enforce in court and win.
This patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7017162.html is an example of one where you might get into trouble as you start to expand your use of mono into application domains (even if you avoid aspdotnet since this patents attempts to cover other similar uses). It shows that the threats lie beyond using mono itself to actually doing interesting things while using it.
So Microsoft gets a bunch of years lead time over its competitors. They can sit on the patents and selectively choose to use them here or there.
It might make sense for Canonical to be aggressive and public about their use of mono and force Microsoft's hand, but there is still an awful lot of advantages, time, and FUD that Microsoft gains when you go play on their turf.
Hopefully the SCOTUS will neuter Microsoft. If not, at least mono devs will be able to move to C++, Java, vala, and many other things.
>> It is stealing customers from their best and most advanced product, their lead development framework.
I think it is a great idea to go after MSdotnet developers, but growing the dotnet market helps the company most heavily vested in dotnet and current provider of the most functionality around dotnet. They have many years to work with *for each patent they hold.* The patents might not affect some core software devs directly, but growing mindshare means many customers (employing in-house devs) will get letters and offers saying they should move to the protected dotnet or face litigation for infringing on many patents. The customers will have a lot invested in dotnet (making a move to java or something else uncomfortable and costlier than ideal), and many will not risk a huge lawsuit on what will be clear violations (since the patent descriptions and actual technology are so similar).
So anyone trying to move into Microsoft's market (as Canonical might like to do) while using dotnet/clones will have their work cut out for them in terms of convincing customers to avoid Microsoft. Will Canonical indemnify all of their customers? How much leverage will they yield and how costly will it be to go up against Microsoft on dotnet patents? It's painful to fight a strong enemy on their terms. The end result you might eventually realize is that you should back off or deal under terms very favorable to them. It's one thing for a large company to fight off a few patents at a time. It's another to have potentially thousands to fight off at once and coming at you from many different proxies.
Of course, the situation improves a lot if software patents lose their legal status.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 17:37:37
Microsoft gets developers to invest in dotnet (or clones) and users to get used to those applications. Microsoft can be persuasive in getting many businesses or other users to move to or to stay on the real MSdotnet. These groups are already used to the apps or have invested lots of code supporting it. Microsoft holds the patent cards. Microsoft's implementations (besides hiding lockin extensions and bugs) have a lead time in functionality over competitors. Anyone that gets too successful with a competing platform or alternative will have to answer to the piper in some way. "Taxes" of these sort can keep competitors in check and even drive them out of business (especially when combined with other monopoly levers). All dotnet/mono/etc FOSS apps are likely to be extended to work with extra functionality on Windows.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Basically, growing dotnet makes Microsoft stronger at the cost of whoever else services the competing technologies. And what really counts is relative strength. Time spent on dotnet is time not spent elsewhere.
When it comes to cloning, Monopolysoft is not like the old UNIX vendors. Monopolysoft is craftier, less tolerant of competition, and has more weapons (eg, software patents).
So yes, a little proprietary here or there, in order to avoid strengthening Microsoft, is likely a good move. Usually proprietary can be avoided, but before strengthening Monopolysoft's grip, I'll accept some select pieces of proprietary from third party sources.
eet
2009-07-06 19:11:17
And that is precisely where you go wrong.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 21:14:21
We make assumptions all the time. Don't penalize me over being open about some of the assumptions I am making and why. It's OK to assume the sun will rise the next day or to trust people that have said they have made some measurements, studied the situation, made heavy calculations, and convinced themselves of the inevitableness of the next sunrise.
I choose to give value to certain hearsay more than to other, and I'm not claiming I have evidence of an open and shut case.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-06 19:19:24
What would you like them to do? Hire the Goodyear Blimp? Have "I use Mono!" tattooed on all Canonical employees foreheads? It's no secret that Mono is widely used, and not just by Canonical.
Why don't you guys simply find a distribution that you and Richard Stallman can agree on, and you go your way and Canonical can go theirs?
By the way, I was present at Richard's keynote here at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit. The general consensus here that it was a thoroughly shameful display.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 21:19:16
I don't think we use the same distro(s), you'll be disappointed to hear.
Richard likes a distro he can feud with much more than I do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richarddawson.jpg
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-06 19:12:52
I don't have to ask anyone anything, you're the one passing along unsubstantiated rumors, rumors with which you are continuing to waste my time. As for the rest, justify things however you like, but the inconsistencies in the positions being espoused here have gone beyond ludicrous.
You folks must check under your beds before you turn out the lights to make sure Microsoft isn't under there.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 21:42:06
Then don't ask and don't waste your time. If you decide you care about information someone has related to the topic mentioned above then ask that person. No one is dragging you into court to hear anything by anyone. I presume you view that person to be a liar or confused. That's fine.
End of that subthread.
>> but the inconsistencies in the positions being espoused here have gone beyond ludicrous.
No need to be specific, of course, since these are your parting words.
Till next time... different time, different place, but very possibly same topic ( http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/28/verdict-on-mono-responses/comment-page-1/#comment-68833 ) ..
>> You folks must check under your beds before you turn out the lights to make sure Microsoft isn’t under there.
No, I don't do that, but I would get a kick knowing you turn out the lights every night in your house only after checking for traces of Roy by the fireplace: coal for you again this year for being naughty like Novell.
JohnD
2009-07-07 01:38:13
rene levesque-caline
2009-07-07 02:53:02
Please.... You enjoy wasting my time with your predictable piffle lite and you know what I usually do? Scroll over your posts since you have nothing of value to offer. You are eet in a different costume. (well, youre not illiterate at least)
Youre raison d'etre is to come and bitch and whine so if you dont want to waste time, dont. But no, you will be back like a bad rash and still waste your time, then you'll blame someone else for it. Sounds like an addiction problem there buddy boy. Some people are addicted to meth, some to online porn and I guess you can get addicted to Boycottnovell.com as well.
RCL
eet
2009-07-06 22:05:30
I choose to give value to certain hearsay more than to other, and I’m not claiming I have evidence of an open and shut case. [/i] You don't make any sense, Jose.
You are trusting an unknown source because you like what he/she says ('certain hearsay'); you DO NOT know that sources reliability, you do not even know its identity. And this hasn't got anything to do with the predictability of natural phenomena ('It’s OK to assume the sun will rise the next day')...
Please stop waisting our time.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 22:59:42
I'm familiar with Michael Tiemann (at least through online presence). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tiemann
>> And this hasn’t got anything to do with the predictability of natural phenomena
The sun example was an extreme case to show that we always place some amount of trust in others and in indirect experiences (hearsay).
eet
2009-07-07 04:29:42
Are you deliberately playing dumb ? Michael Tiemann is not your source but he's only saying he knows something through an unknown source.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 23:31:36
>> I have some good news to announce: Microsoft will be applying the Community Promise to the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specs.
Shane Coyle
2009-07-07 09:57:16
I'm sure there will be bickering and nitpicking about defining 'covered implementations' or whatever, but perhaps all the noise reverberating around the community over this for some time actually had a positive outcome.
Perhaps.
Roy Bixler
2009-07-07 15:35:39
Shane Coyle
2009-07-07 18:32:19
Shane Coyle
2009-07-07 19:21:56
Miguel pointed to this zdnet article as the prior terms, but I can't believe he just skimmed over the section that explained just how incompatible with the GPL they were.
JohnD
2009-07-07 21:53:56
Shane Coyle
2009-07-07 22:20:19
I've said before that I believe Mono has always been Free Software that seemed to go further than the ECMA spec, which (until just now) no one knew for sure what the RAND-RF terms were, and I specifically inquired about the ability to comply with the GPL and MS' unknown terms (which I thought most of Mono has been distributed under for all this time, am I wrong?).
I also don't really care what MS' terms are, just that they are publicly known, I'm not a license snob and I don't even hate proprietary software.
I readily applaud this move, now we have factual info on the licensing and patent issue in regards to the ECMA specs. You can implement exactly the spec, no more no less, and you're covered. Fine, just want to know the rules.
But, it's also instructive that no one really knew the rules before today. Or, at least, I find that part interesting.
JohnD
2009-07-08 01:35:46
Jose_X
2009-07-08 05:52:12
Microsoft does not need patents to abuse the market. They already benefit from dotnet/mono adoption by leading the charge on dotnet and running a closed source feature-rich monopoly where their undocumented extensions and bugs create interop issues for challengers. They "should" yield on patents everywhere. http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-07-06-026-35-OS-MS-LL-0003 and http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10280924-16.html .
The new announcement also doesn't address the patent trolls who buy Microsoft's dotnet patents. We know two major players from Microsoft's recent past are major patent trolls. And to repeat, we know Microsoft looks towards patents as a means to fight off FOSS and Linux. They gain by creating as many API/interfaces/specs that infringe on their patents. Third party trolls provide a way around all of these promises of them not to sue.
It also doesn't address that the mono devs can't deviate from the required elements of the spec (while keeping the patent pledges) if they thought a different path from the spec (and in conflict with it) would result in a superior approach.
As a special case of not covering extensions, their pledges don't cover future versions of the ECMA standards, either.
All of these issues are repeatedly brought up on this site. In fact, almost always when I talk about patent issues, I consider that core mono might already be quasi-protected or outright protected through some sort of promise.
With so many weapons accessible, one might think that it is the company's paranoia (the famous mentality Gates has talked about) which would be responsible for them not having made this move earlier.
And note one more thing. Microsoft's move (though I still think it is unofficial at this point in time) comes on the heels of people reacting badly to Ubuntu's mono moves. Eg, http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009070400635OSUB . Ubuntu has the potential to help mono spread, but only if Microsoft cooperates enough to pacify many developers and people who help Ubuntu spread. Maybe this is just coincidence (I doubt it). Maybe it is the straw that broke the camel's back. Who knows?
>> What I find interesting is that many people read about RAND etc and chose to look for ways that MS work it to it’s advantage instead of taking it at face value.
I find it interesting that you find this normal behavior interesting.
What does face value mean? If there is one thing Microsoft and its multiple armies of lawyers have done in the past is to exploit loopholes very well. Look at their stock options income tax benefit exploitation/mastery ( http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html ). Look at how Gates avoided paying taxes when realizing huge profits from MSFT (near its high point) as he moved it to a vehicle he controls and uses to noticeably help his pharm and software investments (the B&M Foundation) while preserving his principal. Look at what Microsoft did to Spyglass with what was to become Internet Explorer (what loophole! it's allowed by the contract). Look at how they turned an academic environment that works almost exclusively through full consensus (ISO) into a laughing stock institution shown to be extremely vulnerable to vote stuffing. The list of times and ways in which Microsoft has exploited loopholes or outsmarted their adversaries is very long.
It's not just Microsoft that takes advantage of loopholes, of course, but they do that quite a bit and quite nicely if they think they will benefit overall. Many would simply call this smart. I mean, if the contract allows it, why not? Even if it is unexpected or was likely to have been overlooked. Even if it is "unethical", right? [This is a mentality some use routinely to conduct business -- it's especially true of those that feel safe from prosecution or losing market share or sales.]
Hey, didn't at least one Microsoft exec say that their licensing of the ECMA specs was not compatible with the GPL or something like that?
JohnD, if you cannot figure out why we would not give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, you should watch out because you are ripe for exploitation.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-07 00:42:03
rene levesque-caline
2009-07-07 02:55:05
And you'll be right there moaning and bitching because you are what you are.
JohnD
2009-07-07 01:39:38
eet
2009-07-07 04:34:15
JohnD
2009-07-07 19:18:13
Jose_X
2009-07-08 06:02:36
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/01/mono-poll-on-rms/comment-page-1/#comment-69143