What have we been up to?

It is up to the patent holder to prove a patent violation. Linus holds no patents (that I know of), so it is not up to him to prove that it violates none of the hundreds of millions of current patents and patents pending.

Then again, the entire premise of patenting the novel use of a device, rather than the device itself, is suspect.

> Linus holds no patents (that I know of), so it is not up to him to prove that it violates none of the hundreds of millions of current patents and patents pending.

Miguel does not hold any patents either, so it's not his responsibility to prove that Mono does not violate any patents, yet that is what Ridcully wants.

ridcully --

The "full of yourself" refers to your belief that those users are blind, lacking your gift to see the danger ahead.

There are no secrets about mono's pedigree. My dog probably knows about it. Nobody is trudging blindly ahead.

Ridcully - With TxtEdMacs you have to take him with a grain of salt and humor at the same time..he means no damage, just a good laugh and a point or two..please do not take something he said that hurt to heart. He probably did not mean it. I have known him for some time and I know he is not picking on you at all. He is just being TxtEdMacs. The last thing I want you to think is that I allow people to to just 'make fun' of others in tne forums..I don't.

But if you want to make fun of Dinotrac well..I'll let you..;-)

Just kidding Dino..lol!

> ...it's not his responsibility to prove that Mono does not violate any patents, yet that is what Ridcully wants.

Yeah. Expecting anyone to state that any piece of software is completely free of patents is a pipe dream. Even people who have done their homework can and have still run afoul of patent trolls. That's not a valid reason not to use Mono. Nor is Mono any more susceptible to patents than any other software. It's only the noted ill will of the primary patent holder that's the concern. And if Microsoft's involvement is enough to raise concerns (which in my case it is), you don't even need to bring the patent issue into the mix. Merely noting their ownership and control of .Net is enough. There are also valid technical reasons both to like and not like Mono, but there's room for disagreement among otherwise reasonable people concerning them.

jdixon --

Who declared Friday to be "Inject a little sanity into the mix" day?

TxtEdMacs, what tapestries you weave.

Ridcully, I believe he reinforced your concerns with the statement:

"If Microsoft's survival and profits are at risk, there will only be one answer ... destroy the opposition."

Interesting, demanding proof of a negative, better idea since you seem incensed about it, prove that it is true. Proving a positive is eminently easier than proving a negative. I could care less either way, just that the demand seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Basically all I see is "Miguel, I have no proof but prove me wrong anyways". Always a good way to open a reasoned logical discussion.

Risks outweigh the benefit. No thanks. An end user most likely will never see any direct conflict with MS. A company very well may have the rug pulled out if they depend on a mono app with no alternative (read: in-house developed .NET-type app to run on Linux) and suddenly are told they can no longer make changes/improve the code.

If it's covered by an agreement between MS and Novell, it's still not covered for the rest of us peons.

> Who declared Friday to be "Inject a little sanity into the mix" day?

I have the occasional good day, Dino. :)

>I have the occasional good day, Dino. :)

I'm just floored. All this time and I never knew!

jd && dino,

Beginning to wonder now if by chance you two shared adjacent padded cells*. Though I have found that I have agreed much more often with dino than I have in the past, to me whenever he uses sane I see it as a Red Flag**.

YBT

* Though I do routinely respect jd's arguments and opinions, except when he trashes my money wagon.

** Not necessarily implying the commie Linux Distribution of the same name.

>Though I have found that I have agreed much more often with dino than I have in the past,

See? You do possess the capacity for intellectual awakening and growth!

Either that or you have been sleep posting again dino ;)

In my dreams, az!

Quoting:Interesting, demanding proof of a negative

I'd say more like disproving a positive. In this case, the "positive" is the demonstrated history of Microsoft's business tactics. Look at the trail of destroyed businesses Microsoft has left in its wake, for starters. Add to that the selective enforcement of "anti-piracy" measures (their term), the refusal/inability to put real security into Windows systems, and the "men in black" who make sure computer makers bow to Microsoft's will.

Microsoft, and Miguel de Icaza, must disprove our concerns that we could be the recipients of a repeat performance.

Until we have proof that the same will not happen to all FOSS packagers/distributors, present and future, who include Mono in their default installations, I see no reason to have any C#/Mono programs on my computer.

Why are we pressing Miguel for this? Because he is Microsoft's point man (tool) for spreading C#/Mono propaganda into the FOSS communities, and generating "good will" with the packagers/distributors.

> ...if by chance you two shared adjacent padded cells*.

Only our analyst knows for sure, txt. :)

gus I'm sorry since no one has proved a positive, then demanding a refutation of a positive is still demanding that one proves a negative. Proving a negative being a much more daunting task than supplying unquestionable proof of a positive.

Quoting: Is Mono encumbered in any way by Microsoft patents that potentially can be exercised by Microsoft at some time in the future ?

Please may I answer that one (rather simple):

"Somewhere between maybe and probably".

What I actually wonder is this: What if Novell goes bankrupt? Will Linux / SLES users still be 'immune' to patent claims from Microsoft?

Like said by others, you only have to look at DaimlerChrysler and TomTom to see how Microsoft uses its 'IP' to extract money out of companies when selling MS Software to them isn't an option / is not profitable enough. The good thing here is, when companies slowly shift their business model from 'selling products' to 'selling their old IP' it normally means that company will disappear somewhere in the next two decades.

> Will Linux / SLES users still be 'immune' to patent claims from Microsoft?

As long as the agreement is in effect, it should still be binding in Microsoft, regardless of Novell's status. From memory, I believe there is an expiration date on the agreement.