- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected
|
|
|
Comments (113)
93 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:Where do you get that from?
There are no Microsoft extensions in Mono, the code is pure Free Open Source, licensed under 1 or another of 3 different Free licenses.
Mono *implements* the extensions Microsoft made to the ECMA standard in .Net. If you're going around and calling me dishonest, at least try to keep up with the discussion and not just the last post. We were talking about who is implementing what technology. And it's right there in the Mono FAQ.
Quoting:You are being utterly dishonest here and should be ashamed of yourself. You're asking Tracyanne to show you the patents that mono does not infringe?
Tracyanne says that Mono isn't violating any MS patents by implementing MS's extensions to the .Net standard. Fine. Show me. And the patent clauses in the MS-Novell deal don't count because Mono was excluded from that. So either there's another patent covenant in play that covers whatever may be in MS's extensions, or the patents MS has are known and someone checked to make sure Mono isn't infringing.
Point is, nobody knows whether Mono is infringing on MS patents by implementing the extensions. Only Microsoft knows and they don't tell us about it.
And quit calling me dishonest. You don't see me attacking you either.
> Then your opinion is probably uninformed,
Well, the fact that I do not work as a programmer doesn't mean I haven't programmed, merely that it's been quite a while. I also tend to read quite a bit. So maybe we could settle for semi-informed.
Well, the fact that I do not work as a programmer doesn't mean I haven't programmed, merely that it's been quite a while. I also tend to read quite a bit. So maybe we could settle for semi-informed.
> It is of absolutely no importance if discussing the merits of free developers exercising their will to create and use it.
Yep. Whether I, Abe, Sander, or anyone else has any use for Mono is completely beside the point. Miguel and others are free to develop and use it as they see fit.
Yep. Whether I, Abe, Sander, or anyone else has any use for Mono is completely beside the point. Miguel and others are free to develop and use it as they see fit.
And on that even I can agree.
Quoting:Tracyanne says that Mono isn't violating any MS patents by implementing MS's extensions to the .Net standard. Fine. Show me.
First tell me how I can show you something that isn't there. I expect that sort of argument from a religionist not a technologist.
Quoting:Mono *implements* the extensions Microsoft made to the ECMA standard in .Net.
And SaMBa implements the extensions Microsoft made to the SMB/CIFs standard.
>Tracyanne says that Mono isn't violating any MS patents by implementing MS's extensions to the .Net standard. Fine. Show me.
No, Sander. That is you lying, plain and simple. She never said that Mono isn't violating any MS patents. She couldn't say that because she doesn't know. In that regard, she is like Apache developers, Postgresql developers, and Linux users like me and you. We don't know.
What she did say is that implementing Microsoft extensions does not mean infringing Microsoft patents. That's a very different statement. What your purpose is in twisting it around the way you did eludes me.
BTW - Traceyanne is not the one who called you dishonest. I am. I called you dishonest because that is what you are being. Unable to make a coherent and consistent argument for the patent dangers of mono that doesn't apply equally to other software projects, you are trying to twist the conversation and demand that somebody prove the negative?
Give me a break.
No, Sander. That is you lying, plain and simple. She never said that Mono isn't violating any MS patents. She couldn't say that because she doesn't know. In that regard, she is like Apache developers, Postgresql developers, and Linux users like me and you. We don't know.
What she did say is that implementing Microsoft extensions does not mean infringing Microsoft patents. That's a very different statement. What your purpose is in twisting it around the way you did eludes me.
BTW - Traceyanne is not the one who called you dishonest. I am. I called you dishonest because that is what you are being. Unable to make a coherent and consistent argument for the patent dangers of mono that doesn't apply equally to other software projects, you are trying to twist the conversation and demand that somebody prove the negative?
Give me a break.
Well, fact is, nobody knows if Mono (or SaMBa for that part) infringes on any patents at all, and the fact that we are discussing it here shows there's doubt enough for a lot of people for not using Mono (or SaMBa). The fact that Microsoft doesn't speak up on it proves it hasn't made up it's mind whats better: Enforce their IP and earn money in that way, or spread the .NET platform and earn money in that way. Probably they want to keep their options open.
As far as I can say, ECMA doesn't have strict rules when it comes to its standards 'not infringing patents' compared with ISO. To this day, lawyers still can't say if ECMA376 (OOXML in popular language) contains enforceable Microsoft IP or not. Fact is, countries like Japan are still not sure, neither are they sure about the MS' covenants not to sue (which probably also surrounds .NET, but I'm not sure).
So ECMA is no guarentee at all, and people are 'afraid' of those patents since nobody's sure. It seems, in the case of SaMBa they're less afraid, probably because SaMBa is older. MS' complaining about third party infringements of the SMB protocol is not something Microsoft is going to do, because that will earn them another multi-million euro fine from the EC (now, why didn't anybody notice that as of yet?) So, at least in Europe, people can be rather sure Microsoft isn't going to enforce it's IP when it comes to the SMB protocol. However, with the .NET portfolio we're just not sure.
And please remember, calling each other liars is exactly what Microsoft is hoping to reach with its FUD-strategy. Now, we don't want to help them, do we?
As far as I can say, ECMA doesn't have strict rules when it comes to its standards 'not infringing patents' compared with ISO. To this day, lawyers still can't say if ECMA376 (OOXML in popular language) contains enforceable Microsoft IP or not. Fact is, countries like Japan are still not sure, neither are they sure about the MS' covenants not to sue (which probably also surrounds .NET, but I'm not sure).
So ECMA is no guarentee at all, and people are 'afraid' of those patents since nobody's sure. It seems, in the case of SaMBa they're less afraid, probably because SaMBa is older. MS' complaining about third party infringements of the SMB protocol is not something Microsoft is going to do, because that will earn them another multi-million euro fine from the EC (now, why didn't anybody notice that as of yet?) So, at least in Europe, people can be rather sure Microsoft isn't going to enforce it's IP when it comes to the SMB protocol. However, with the .NET portfolio we're just not sure.
And please remember, calling each other liars is exactly what Microsoft is hoping to reach with its FUD-strategy. Now, we don't want to help them, do we?
>As far as I can say, ECMA doesn't have strict rules when it comes to its standards 'not infringing patents' compared with ISO.
Neither ECMA nor ISO policies matter so much as US, EU, and other governmental bodies. Both the EU and US FTC have taken a position that submitting an open standard that requires infringing one's own patents can result in fines and forfeiture of the right to enforce those patents.
>MS' complaining about third party infringements of the SMB protocol is not something Microsoft is going to do, because that will earn them another multi-million euro fine from the EC
How do you figure? The EU allows for protection of IP. The fines against Microsoft were based in antitrust and have nothing to do with Microsoft's freedom to enforce it's IP rights.
>And please remember, calling each other liars
is, one hopes, rarely required. Passions can twist your outlook so much that you lose the ability to see it for yourself. In such a case, the only hope may be to call a spade a spade - even when talking to people who are otherwise reasonable and decent folk.
Neither ECMA nor ISO policies matter so much as US, EU, and other governmental bodies. Both the EU and US FTC have taken a position that submitting an open standard that requires infringing one's own patents can result in fines and forfeiture of the right to enforce those patents.
>MS' complaining about third party infringements of the SMB protocol is not something Microsoft is going to do, because that will earn them another multi-million euro fine from the EC
How do you figure? The EU allows for protection of IP. The fines against Microsoft were based in antitrust and have nothing to do with Microsoft's freedom to enforce it's IP rights.
>And please remember, calling each other liars
is, one hopes, rarely required. Passions can twist your outlook so much that you lose the ability to see it for yourself. In such a case, the only hope may be to call a spade a spade - even when talking to people who are otherwise reasonable and decent folk.
Quoting:In such a case, the only hope may be to call a spade a spade
It is not. It just kills the discussion. I refuse to participate in a discussion where people think they have to revert to calling me names.
>It is not. It just kills the discussion.
In such cases, the discussion has likely been killed already, as inputs and processing unit must be sufficiently open to justify the term.
In such cases, the discussion has likely been killed already, as inputs and processing unit must be sufficiently open to justify the term.
Quoting:The fines against Microsoft were based in antitrust and have nothing to do with Microsoft's freedom to enforce it's IP rights.
Theoretically maybe, but in practice, the first implies the second: The EC is at the moment deciding how much Microsoft may ask for it's IP when it comes to SMB (amongst others), which means though the fines are based on something else, they touch Microsofts freedom how to enforce its IP.
So, trying to summarize things which I learned in this thread, and to keep this discussion on topic:
-Mono, C# and .NET are technically rather good, -Mono is free software, and the people behind it do good work, -There's a disagreement for how far Mono and Microsofts .NET are compatible (I understand) -it's not sure whether Mono, C# or .NET are covered by enforceable Microsoft patents, -it's not sure whether software patents are valid at all, which may vary per region, -A lot of people are afraid of the patent thread and therefore aim their 'fear' in the form of (negative) energy at Mono instead of at the patent system, -There's disagreement how SMB/SaMBa and .NET IP differ from each other.
hkwint -
Not a bad summary.
Not a bad summary.
I'd agree with dino on that, with the additional comment. It's in Microsoft's interests to keep the implied threat of patents over Mono, as this will slow the uptake of Mono.
>It's in Microsoft's interests to keep the implied threat of patents over Mono, as this will slow the uptake of Mono.
A counter argument could be made that it's not in Microsoft's interest to let any threat hang over mono, as the availability of mono may help the uptake of .Net, most of which will be on Windows.
A counter argument could be made that it's not in Microsoft's interest to let any threat hang over mono, as the availability of mono may help the uptake of .Net, most of which will be on Windows.
I think you are wrong there dino. I beleive this because mono enables the use of .NET applications on Linux and Unix, thus enabling the uptake of Linux/unix, and outside of Microsoft's control.
>I think you are wrong there dino.
Could be, but interoperability seems to be a big deal these days, and a .Net platform that only works on Windows isn't very interoperable and isn't going to go head-to-head with Java in very many places at all.
Could be, but interoperability seems to be a big deal these days, and a .Net platform that only works on Windows isn't very interoperable and isn't going to go head-to-head with Java in very many places at all.
I don't have anything I can point to, and say see, but what I'm seeing is this. Microsoft is making a show of interoperability, but any interoperability they do is of the type that furthers their needs - for example the document conversion agreements with Novell are really about funnelling any ODF document into OOXML, and keeping MS Office as the defacto standard, they fought tooth and nail to enable SMB/CIFS interaoperability on their terms, not the EU's. They've belately offered to help , by supplying test rigs, the development of Moonlight, but at the same time they've maintained a silence on whether Mono can be attacked with patents - fighting Flash is good (and Moonlight is a consumer thing). There's a lot of little things, I haven't managed to pull together properly, that lead me to believe that on the whole Microsoft want to slow the uptake of Mono the platform, because they don't control it.
>Microsoft is making a show of interoperability, but any interoperability they do is of the type that furthers their needs -
Without question. Trouble is, for Microsoft, that lots of people want real interoperability. That means that "making a show" will wear out its welcome and Microsoft's business will suffer. The roost has grown too big for them to rule.
It's great to be the 800lb gorilla, but less great when there's room for the little guys to duck out of your way.
Without question. Trouble is, for Microsoft, that lots of people want real interoperability. That means that "making a show" will wear out its welcome and Microsoft's business will suffer. The roost has grown too big for them to rule.
It's great to be the 800lb gorilla, but less great when there's room for the little guys to duck out of your way.
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
You're right, I suspect.