- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
And There You Have It: You Need Novell (Not Just .NET) to Run Moonlight
|
|
|
Comments (106)
What do you thing of this?
47 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:Perhaps you know something I don't but last I checked, microsoft as a company does not like having competitors, and invest a lot of time and energy into trying to cut them off at the knees.
We've already agreed, on another thread that Microsoft has no good will towards Linux, or indeed any other competitor. It's a given that Microsoft will try to use Moolight for devious ends. But i's also a given that they will attempt to use any other technology for devious ends. Nothing has changed Moonlight neither makes Microsoft's ill intententions a greater or a lesser threat.
One thing that is certain though, is that if the FOSS community doesn't implement Moonlight, or something like it, there will be a large enough body of work that is based on Silverlight that will not work on Linux, giving the "I won't use Linux because it lacks.............." crowd yet another excuse not to move to Linux. On the other hand the existence of Moonlight removes that objection. As I've already pointed out, if the uptake of Linux is sufficient to reach critical mass, then Microsoft would cut their own throat to mess with the protocols/licenses etc, and if the uptake of Linux doesn't then it won't matter.
There are several possible reasons why Microsoft has helped the implementation of Moonlight, in no particular order
the uptake of desktop linux is greater than we know, but Microsoft has a better idea than the community
Miguel implemented Moonlight far faster than Microsoft anticipated, and Microsoft doesn't really have any patentable technology in it.
Microsoft are desperate to eat into the Flash market, because they can't control Flash.
All of the above. (there may be others, but I think evil intentions are a given)
If the Linux desktop market is growing faster than we suspect, it's reasonable to assume that Microsoft want a part of it, the deals with Novell, Xandros, Linspire are probably evidence of that.
The fact that they are allowing Novell to bundle the Microsoft CODECs in with Moonlight in an exclusionary manner demonstrates an effort to control Moonlight.
But Moonlight can only be controlled by Microsoft in so far as Novell or any other Linux/FOSS developer is willing to concede the issue over Microsoft CODEcs. There is certainly nothing that would stop any other FOSS developer from implementing Free CODECs and bundling those, and also bundling the Win32 CODECs outside of the US.
Microsoft may want to gain a monopoly, if they don't already have one. They may even be seeking to maintain their current monopoly, but all of this depends on people continuing to buy into the Microsoft OS, far more than it depends on them taking market share from Adobe. Using Moonlight to eat into the Flash usage on Linux is not going to gain them much in the way of market share, they could do it just as well not supporting Linux with their product. But having Moonlight on Linux does make Linux a more attractive option for those considering moving from Windows. So on balance, I see Moonlight as a greater advantage for Linux than the fact that Microsoft are making their CODECs available via Novell is a detriment.
Tracyanne: I actually agree with you for the most part - but IMHO we need to be really careful in dealing with a dangerous animal like microsoft. My crystal ball is a bit cloudy, so I can't tell you for sure how this will play out, and it could well turn out that linux comes out stronger as a result of this, but it would be a mistake to look to silverlight as our new standard.
It's IMHO important to keep our eyes wide open going forward, and fight to ensure that viable alternatives exist, and that we don't simply agree to hand over the reins of this buggy to microsoft.
It's IMHO important to keep our eyes wide open going forward, and fight to ensure that viable alternatives exist, and that we don't simply agree to hand over the reins of this buggy to microsoft.
Quoting:>You could also say that DotGNU is an implementation of the ECMA's .Net standard and Mono is an implementation of Microsoft's .Net standard.
You could say that, but you would be wrong. Mono is very clearly an implementation of the ECMA standard. Apparently, it also implements additional APIs.
And ECMA's standard + those additional APIs = MS's .Net standard. I'm not wrong. We're saying the exact same thing.
My beef is not with what's in ECMA, but what's in all those additional APIs and libraries (and anything that depends on it, like Moonlight) that Mono is reimplementing to make it fully compatible with MS's implementation.
>My beef is not with what's in ECMA, but what's in all those additional APIs and libraries (and anything that depends on it, like Moonlight) that Mono is reimplementing to make it fully compatible with MS's implementation.
Is it correct, then, that you also disapprove of Samba and WINE?
Is it correct, then, that you also disapprove of Samba and WINE?
Quoting:One thing that is certain though, is that if the FOSS community doesn't implement Moonlight, or something like it, there will be a large enough body of work that is based on Silverlight that will not work on Linux, giving the "I won't use Linux because it lacks.............." crowd yet another excuse not to move to Linux.Tracyanne, I really don't understand your logic angle. Sileverlight/Moonlight just have been released and there isn't much implementation yet. What is the rush?
Why do you want to help MS take off with this technology and leave out what is available from Adobe?
Flash has much bigger implementation currently, add to that the new release coming out soon with very nice new features, why do you want to abandon it?
You keep saying if this and that don't exist on Linux, we will not have adopters. Well let me break it for you, Linux didn't have many of the stuff it has now, yet there have been many adopters. Guess what, we didn't need any thing from MS.
FOSS is continually improving, look at the DM (GNOME & KDE). Look and the razzle-dazzle that CompizBeyrl can do. We didn't need anything from MS either..
So what is up with FOSS have to have MS technology to flourish?
OK, let's assume Silverlight became popular and FOSS have to have it, fine, that can be done later if it is necessary. For now, I don't see the urgency.
Apply the same to Mono please.
mod parent up (insightful +5)
>So what is up with FOSS have to have MS technology to flourish?
Sigh.
This is not about FOSS's ability to flourish. FOSS is flourishing now...with one notable exception.
This is about reaching out to ordinary users and their desktops. If Silverlight gets no traction, it won't matter to anybody. Of course, if Silverlight gets no traction, Moonlight won't matter, either, for good or for bad.
If, however, Silverlight gets traction, the absence of Moonlight or something that does what Moonlight does becomes Yet Another Thing that Linux Can't Do. Ordinary users have a hard time seeing a desktop as "better" when there are things they want to do but can't.
Sigh.
This is not about FOSS's ability to flourish. FOSS is flourishing now...with one notable exception.
This is about reaching out to ordinary users and their desktops. If Silverlight gets no traction, it won't matter to anybody. Of course, if Silverlight gets no traction, Moonlight won't matter, either, for good or for bad.
If, however, Silverlight gets traction, the absence of Moonlight or something that does what Moonlight does becomes Yet Another Thing that Linux Can't Do. Ordinary users have a hard time seeing a desktop as "better" when there are things they want to do but can't.
Quoting:Why do you want to help MS take off with this technology and leave out what is available from Adobe?
I don't. On the other hand the technology is there, implemented as Free software, and from what I understand the implementating of it was relatively trivial. I'm merely arguing that Moonlight is not evil, which seems to be the case many are trying make. It's just technology, it's what you do with it that matters.
Quoting:Flash has much bigger implementation currently, add to that the new release coming out soon with very nice new features, why do you want to abandon it?
I don't. On the other hand Macromedia/Adobe have never really been big supporters of Linux. Maybe this will impel them to become truly OS agnostic, and even supply proper tools for Flash development on Linux, because Moonlight will provide FOSS/Linux with development tools.
Quoting:You keep saying if this and that don't exist on Linux, we will not have adopters. Well let me break it for you, Linux didn't have many of the stuff it has now, yet there have been many adopters. Guess what, we didn't need any thing from MS.
You are quite correct, we don't need anything from Microsoft. But Moonlight for all it's Microsoft beginnings, in Silverlight, isn't a Microsoft application, it's a FOSS application.
What we need are applications, and drivers, and documentation, and mind share, Most of those we already have, or are getting, mindshare could be better though.
Quoting:FOSS is continually improving, look at the DM (GNOME & KDE). Look and the razzle-dazzle that CompizBeyrl can do. We didn't need anything from MS either..
Yes GNOME thanks, in part , to Mono, and Miguel.
Quoting:So what is up with FOSS have to have MS technology to flourish?
Pardon
Quoting:OK, let's assume Silverlight became popular and FOSS have to have it, fine, that can be done later if it is necessary. For now, I don't see the urgency.
Nor do I, but Moonlight is here now, do you propose that Miguel and his team unprogram it, so we can do it later?
Quoting:Apply the same to Mono please.
Mono also is here now, and very useful too, so it seems, from some of the articles I've read.
Quoting:Is it correct, then, that you also disapprove of Samba and WINE?
They were not created under a deal with Microsoft.
Quoting:Yes GNOME thanks, in part , to Mono
Why does everone keep bringing that up? There is no Mono in GNOME and for the foreseeable future there never will be Mono in GNOME. Miguel can shout all he wants, but he's no longer a GNOME lead and current management doesn't want to have it.
All that ever happened was that Mono had GNOME bindings early on, while it took a lot longer for it to grow KDE bindings. How surprising with Miguel leading Mono.
Quoting:They were not created under a deal with Microsoft.
Nor was Moonlight. Microsoft became involved after the fact, and only to the extent that they made their CODECs available via Novell under and exclusionary deal.
>They were not created under a deal with Microsoft.
Neither was mono. Mono has been under development for years, long before the deal with Microsoft was hatched. At some point, you really do have to care about the facts.
Neither was mono. Mono has been under development for years, long before the deal with Microsoft was hatched. At some point, you really do have to care about the facts.
Quoting:and only to the extent that they made their CODECs available via Novell under and exclusionary deal.OKay, and what is that deal going to benefit the normal non-Novell-Linux users?
Quoting:Neither was mono. Mono has been under development for years, long before the deal with Microsoft was hatched. At some point, you really do have to care about the facts.Before or after is irrelevant and not important. But what makes you so sure that Mono, among other things, didn't have anything to do with making the deal?
Quoting:This is not about FOSS's ability to flourish. FOSS is flourishing now...I think that is what I said in my post. With some of MS inadvertent help but NOT its technology.
Quoting:with one notable exception.So, you are saying FOSS needs MS technology to help it flourish on the desktop. Aren't you? And why would we want MS technology, that is not widely used yet, and participation where Flash/Flex is already widely used and almost, if not the De facto standard.
This is about reaching out to ordinary users and their desktops.
We all agreed that MS can't be trusted and MS doesn't want to see FOSS flourishing and wish it can kill it right now and for ever, so why help MS make .Net & Silverlight dominate the Web? WHY!? Shazam, never mind, I guess I know. It is the bags of money, isn't it?
Well, not on the expense of FOSS. Never, Never ever.
> OKay, and what is that deal going to benefit the normal non-Novell-Linux users?
Oh gee, let me think. That depends on whether a "normal" user might ever want to view a site using SilverLight. That normal user might appreciate being able to do so. Seriously, Abe. Your disdain for the facts is getting tiresome. You know darned well that Moonlight and the Microsoft codecs will not be limited to Novell users.
>Before or after is irrelevant and not important.
Depends on the argument. Some people have been claiming that mono was in some way a product of the Microsoft-Novell deal. It just ain't so.
>But what makes you so sure that Mono, among other things, didn't have anything to do with making the deal?
Never tire of that penchant for making up your own reality, do you? I have no idea if mono played any role in making the deal. Neither do you.
>And why would we want MS technology, that is not widely used yet, and participation where Flash/Flex is already widely used and almost, if not the De facto standard.
Maybe for the same reason that we use other MS technology now. How about all those Xine and Mplayer users with their w32codec packages, eh? You are certainly free never to view a wmv video, but others may choose to do differently.
Even you may eventually realize that getting major desktop share requires getting a lot of desktop users. Limiting growth to those who share you own rigid views and preferences ain't likely to do the trick.
Oh gee, let me think. That depends on whether a "normal" user might ever want to view a site using SilverLight. That normal user might appreciate being able to do so. Seriously, Abe. Your disdain for the facts is getting tiresome. You know darned well that Moonlight and the Microsoft codecs will not be limited to Novell users.
>Before or after is irrelevant and not important.
Depends on the argument. Some people have been claiming that mono was in some way a product of the Microsoft-Novell deal. It just ain't so.
>But what makes you so sure that Mono, among other things, didn't have anything to do with making the deal?
Never tire of that penchant for making up your own reality, do you? I have no idea if mono played any role in making the deal. Neither do you.
>And why would we want MS technology, that is not widely used yet, and participation where Flash/Flex is already widely used and almost, if not the De facto standard.
Maybe for the same reason that we use other MS technology now. How about all those Xine and Mplayer users with their w32codec packages, eh? You are certainly free never to view a wmv video, but others may choose to do differently.
Even you may eventually realize that getting major desktop share requires getting a lot of desktop users. Limiting growth to those who share you own rigid views and preferences ain't likely to do the trick.
Quoting:You know darned well that Moonlight and the Microsoft codecs will not be limited to Novell usersAnd where are those users going to be downloading the CODECS from? MS sites? What kind of agreement these users have to agree to? Do you have any idea what are the terms?
Quoting:I have no idea if mono played any role in making the deal. Neither do you.True, but it is a possibility, wouldn't you say? But, knowing MS history and track records, I would say it is very probable and I wouldn't discount it. I would rather speculate to be prepared than be surprise and caught of guard.
Quoting:Maybe for the same reason that we use other MS technology now. How about all those Xine and Mplayer users with their w32codec packages, eh? You are certainly free never to view a wmv video, but others may choose to do differently.Some are using w32codec because they have to and they can legally do that in there own countries. Others can't or don't want to, and that is why FOSS has the OGGs and trying hard to over come the domination of MS in the market. So why do we want to add more obstacles to overcome when there are other options in place to avoid doing that? It just doesn't make sense.
Quoting:Your disdain for the facts... Limiting growth to those who share you own rigid views and preferences ain't likely to do the trick.Those facts you are referring to are nothing but status quo, status quo can be changed for the better.
I am not forcing anyone to take my views and believe there are many others who share them already, I also happen to believe that they are the best way to deal with MS shenanigans and be safe from its domination and treachery.
>Those facts you are referring to are nothing but status quo, status quo can be changed for the better.
Gosh, I guess we can all live better lives if we free ourselves from the facts.
Hey look, everybody! I'm thin again! And I can fly! And Angelina Jolie just left Brad Pitt for me!
Hey look! Britney Spears can sing!
Gosh, I guess we can all live better lives if we free ourselves from the facts.
Hey look, everybody! I'm thin again! And I can fly! And Angelina Jolie just left Brad Pitt for me!
Hey look! Britney Spears can sing!
Hey I just read Microsoft's "Get the facts" site.
Goshdurnit...how could I have been so wrong. I think I need to start believing everything that's in print now.
Goshdurnit...how could I have been so wrong. I think I need to start believing everything that's in print now.
> Britney Spears can sing!
Well, yes. She can. Whether she can sing well is another matter entirely. However, people who live in glass houses, etc., so I'll stay silent on the matter.
Well, yes. She can. Whether she can sing well is another matter entirely. However, people who live in glass houses, etc., so I'll stay silent on the matter.
@Dino,
Quoting:Gosh, I guess we can all live better lives if we free ourselves from the facts.You seem to enjoy your moonwalk, Don't let me disturb you.
Hey look, everybody! I'm thin again! And I can fly! And Angelina Jolie just left Brad Pitt for me!
Hey look! Britney Spears can sing!
Quoting:Others can't or don't want to, and that is why FOSS has the OGGs and trying hard to over come the domination of MS in the market
And "FOSS" can keep right doing so with OGG in Moonlight.... oh look another venue for pushing OGG.
Quoting:What kind of agreement these users have to agree to? Do you have any idea what are the terms?
What are the terms now? You get to use the Codecs for personal use, on one computer. Or perhaps you are referring to the coda that states you promise to stop using Linux after 6 months and buy a Windows Vista computer.
Quoting:I have no idea if mono played any role in making the deal. Neither do you.
True, but it is a possibility, wouldn't you say?
Lots of things a re possible, I'm more interested in what's probable.
FUD is as FUD does
19 earlier comments in the full thread.
Apology accepted.
o/~ sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.....
Quoting:Tell that to the people/companies that see a .net clone as an easy means of moving their .net applications to Linux, or the lack thereof as a reason to stay with Windows.Easy may be, but I am not sure it is. There are many issues that need to be resolved simply because of features and capabilities that are available on Windows but not on FOSS platform. Mono doesn't bring into FOSS all the things that are out side .Net but part of Windows.
If a company thinks .Net is best for them and loves .Net so much should keep using Windows. Plain and simple.
Again, FOSS doesn't have to go out of its way and risk its objectives just to gain more adopters. If a company doesn't think FOSS has what it needs or wants, it should stay with windows.
Quoting:Of course Microsoft has ill intentions where it comes to Linux and FOSS, they have ill intentions towards everyone, and especially, in this case, Macromedia and Flash/Flex.Ill intentions and what have you, why bother. Again, how many do actually think it is worth the trouble? I certainly don't think it is. Keeping up with .Net is a major effort and cost money. I guess looking at it from Novell's perspective, it makes sense to do that since it keeps support revenues coming for them.
Quoting:It's not, however, their ill intentions that matter, so much as how Linux and FOSS, and indeed everyone else, can take advantage of their moves... It's just like chess, only the stakes are higher. One things that certain, pretending it ain't so doesn't work, and nor does building barricades, and nor does trying to destroy Novell..I don't believe that FOSS is out to play games with MS, it just doesn't have to. FOSS tries hard to interoperate with others, but if it is going to be nothing but trouble and headache, it is not worth it or necessary. You are right, the stakes are high, and that is a good reason to stay out of MS contaminations.
No one is building barricades, we are just building filters to keep FOSS healthy by keeping filthy dirt out, That is all.
>If a company thinks .Net is best for them and loves .Net so much should keep using Windows. Plain and simple.
Hmm. So, using mono to do a job because, as a Linux technology, it has superior serial I/O handling to .Net on Windows would be bad? Good thing an acquaintance of mine didn't know that, or he'd have lost the chance to make some money.
Hmm. So, using mono to do a job because, as a Linux technology, it has superior serial I/O handling to .Net on Windows would be bad? Good thing an acquaintance of mine didn't know that, or he'd have lost the chance to make some money.
>I don't believe that FOSS is out to play games with MS
Gosh, you think?
FOSS is free and open source software. That ain't some company. FOSS people are not monolithic, either. They pursue many things for many reasons. Some pan out, some don't. C'est la vie.
Gosh, you think?
FOSS is free and open source software. That ain't some company. FOSS people are not monolithic, either. They pursue many things for many reasons. Some pan out, some don't. C'est la vie.
Quoting:Hmm. So, using mono to do a job because, as a Linux technology, it has superior serial I/O handling to .Net on Windows would be bad? Good thing an acquaintance of mine didn't know that, or he'd have lost the chance to make some money.
I am not willing to go in circles here. The acquaintance of yours should have gone with this approach instead.
http://www.stevencox.com/2007/08/net-to-linux-co.html
He would have served his client better, given them peace of mind, advocated FOSS, and still made money.
Assume Mono didn't exist, and your acquaintance was asked by his client to improve performance and extend scalability for future load, what do you think he would do? Or better yet, what would you do? Assume he suggested to his client to move to FOSS and assured them of better performance, reliability, etc... without .Net clone, don't you think the client would go for it? Has he tried?
You are missing the point Dino. Mono is being promoted as a GPLed FOSS software, yet De Icaza says you have to download it from Novell to be sure you are protected against any MS patents.
That is not appropriate.
Quoting:FOSS is free and open source software. That ain't some company. FOSS people are not monolithic, either. They pursue many things for many reasons. Some pan out, some don't. C'est la vie.
So, what is your point other than you speak a little of French.
>The acquaintance of yours should have gone with this approach instead.
Ah, the almighty Abe knows more than a very experienced developer who actually had the specs, knew the problem, and knew the client. Yeah, that should tell everybody what they need to know.
>Mono is being promoted as a GPLed FOSS software,
Umm, that's because it is.
> yet De Icaza says you have to download it from Novell to be sure you are protected against any MS patents.
I think you're confusing Moonlight and Mono. Maybe not.
Even so, isn't this old news? Microsoft and Novell entered into an agreement whereby Microsoft promised not to sue Novell customers, opensuse users, etc. -- those that got their stuff from Novell.
Don't care about that? Get it from somebody else.
Really, Abe, for somebody who pretends to understand free software, you don't seem to know what it means.
Ah, the almighty Abe knows more than a very experienced developer who actually had the specs, knew the problem, and knew the client. Yeah, that should tell everybody what they need to know.
>Mono is being promoted as a GPLed FOSS software,
Umm, that's because it is.
> yet De Icaza says you have to download it from Novell to be sure you are protected against any MS patents.
I think you're confusing Moonlight and Mono. Maybe not.
Even so, isn't this old news? Microsoft and Novell entered into an agreement whereby Microsoft promised not to sue Novell customers, opensuse users, etc. -- those that got their stuff from Novell.
Don't care about that? Get it from somebody else.
Really, Abe, for somebody who pretends to understand free software, you don't seem to know what it means.
Quoting:Umm, that's because it is.Who gave it bill of health, you or De Icaza? I think there are many more people who think otherwise, or at least not sure about it because Novell/De Icaza can't confirm it. Or is it just because MS explicitly excluded Mono from their covenant to Novell?
Quoting:I think you're confusing Moonlight and Mono. Maybe not.May be I am. May be it is old news, but it still doesn't change the facts, does it?
Even so, isn't this old news?
Quoting:Microsoft and Novell entered into an agreement whereby Microsoft promised not to sue Novell customers, opensuse users, etc. -- those that got their stuff from Novell.
Don't care about that? Get it from somebody else.
Well, Is Mono included or not? If it is included, why does it have to be if it is GPLed?
Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents?
Novell has the responsibility to make sure whether the technology they are "copying" and releasing as GPLed code doesn't have any patents.
Quoting:Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents?
Which makes me wonder, will Mono/Moonlight be GPL2 or GPL3?
>Well, Is Mono included or not? If it is included, why does it have to be if it is GPLed?
I guess for the same reason that all of Linux is covered.
>Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents?
I don't know about any other part of Novell, but, the mono folks say this in their FAQ:
Mono is a community project, and as such, we will continue to implement the policy of not integrating knowingly infringing code into Mono.
I guess for the same reason that all of Linux is covered.
>Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents?
I don't know about any other part of Novell, but, the mono folks say this in their FAQ:
Mono is a community project, and as such, we will continue to implement the policy of not integrating knowingly infringing code into Mono.
Quoting:
And we will continue to follow the steps outlined in the previous topic if code that potentially infringes is found: finding prior art, finding different implementation techniques, or if none of those are possible, removing the code from Mono.
Quoting:And we will continue to follow the steps outlined in the previous topic if code that potentially infringes is found: finding prior art, finding different implementation techniques, or if none of those are possible, removing the code from Mono.
If I can do whatever I want using clean FOSS code, why would I want to use code that smells so stinky and not worth touching or getting close to afraid of fainting?
>If I can do whatever I want using clean FOSS code, why would I want to use code that smells so stinky and not worth touching or getting close to afraid of fainting?
I wasn't aware that you had audited their code or that of other FOSS projects.
I wasn't aware that you had audited their code or that of other FOSS projects.
Quoting:I wasn't aware that you had audited their code or that of other FOSS projects.I didn't, but I know how to put 2+2 = 4
> I didn't, but I know how to put 2+2 = 4
Well, I'd say it's actually more like Microsoft + whatever = don't touch with a ten foot pole. Not that I disagree, mind you.
Well, I'd say it's actually more like Microsoft + whatever = don't touch with a ten foot pole. Not that I disagree, mind you.
>I didn't, but I know how to put 2+2 = 4
Very good. Next we'll work up to 3 + 3.
Then, if you do well, maybe ... maybe... logic.
I'm not optimistic about that, however.
Very good. Next we'll work up to 3 + 3.
Then, if you do well, maybe ... maybe... logic.
I'm not optimistic about that, however.
Quoting:Microsoft + whatever = don't touch with a ten foot pole.You nailed it.
Quoting:Very good. Next we'll work up to 3 + 3.Don't make it any harder Dino. Otherwise I might have to ask you for help
>Don't make it any harder Dino. Otherwise I might have to ask you for help
I'm just trying to be kind. Your own statements make it clear that you can't quite handle 1 + 1.
After all, you said:
So, anything .Net can do, FOSS can do.
(That's 1, if you're counting)
So, it would appear that you are very concerned that Mono incorporates Microsoft patents.
(That's 1 + 1)
But wait --
Patents are about novel ideas reduced to practice. Unlike copyrights, it doesn't matter whether you copied the code or came up with it on your own. No Chinese wall can save you from patent infringement.
So...
Gosh...
You're concerned that .Net does something that FOSS cannot do because .Net takes advantage of patents not available to FOSS projects unless...
You believe that FOSS projects infringe on those patents, too...
and you believe that everybody should infringe on those patents because everybody who uses infringing software also infringes on the patent...
or, maybe you just don't care about patent infringement, but then
you wouldn't care about any potential patent infringement in mono, but...
Circuits failing. This does not compute.
1 + 1 = 0
I'm just trying to be kind. Your own statements make it clear that you can't quite handle 1 + 1.
After all, you said:
Quoting: Again, I don't see anything that .Net offers that FOSS does {SIC) already offer. This link might give a clue.
So, anything .Net can do, FOSS can do.
(That's 1, if you're counting)
Quoting: Mono is being promoted as a GPLed FOSS software, yet De Icaza says you have to download it from Novell to be sure you are protected against any MS patents.
Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents?
Novell has the responsibility to make sure whether the technology they are "copying" and releasing as GPLed code doesn't have any patents.
So, it would appear that you are very concerned that Mono incorporates Microsoft patents.
(That's 1 + 1)
But wait --
Patents are about novel ideas reduced to practice. Unlike copyrights, it doesn't matter whether you copied the code or came up with it on your own. No Chinese wall can save you from patent infringement.
So...
Gosh...
You're concerned that .Net does something that FOSS cannot do because .Net takes advantage of patents not available to FOSS projects unless...
You believe that FOSS projects infringe on those patents, too...
and you believe that everybody should infringe on those patents because everybody who uses infringing software also infringes on the patent...
or, maybe you just don't care about patent infringement, but then
you wouldn't care about any potential patent infringement in mono, but...
Circuits failing. This does not compute.
1 + 1 = 0
Actually, IIRC under the letter of GPL2 (not in spirit though), Novell is able to implement patented MS technology into Mono and release it under GPL2, thanks to the Novell-MS deal. There's no explicit patent grant under GPL2 like there is under GPL3. Which is why I'm interested what (L)GPL Mono will be released under.
The patent protection racket that excludes mono only applies to Novell's end-users, not Novell itself.
The patent protection racket that excludes mono only applies to Novell's end-users, not Novell itself.
>Novell is able to implement patented MS technology into Mono
No, they are not. If you release it under GPL2, you must offer everybody a patent license. The flap over the Novell deal involved the agreement from Microsoft not to sue users of Novell software for infringing Microsoft patents. it's not really a patent license in the traditional sense, and that is why GPLV3 was amended.
No, they are not. If you release it under GPL2, you must offer everybody a patent license. The flap over the Novell deal involved the agreement from Microsoft not to sue users of Novell software for infringing Microsoft patents. it's not really a patent license in the traditional sense, and that is why GPLV3 was amended.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Talk about not paying attention.
Have you been asleep the last 5-6 years? Remember a little nasty called Windows Media Player? Remember how much of the internet used to be made for it? How it looked like everybody was going to go there?
Then came flash, with the ready ability to bring video to just about everybody. Microsoft is doing Silverlight because the WMP strategy is falling apart. If they do to Silverlight what they did to WMP, it will fall apart too. The web is a place of big business these days. Businesses want to reach MORE people, not fewer.
In case you hadn't noticed.