- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open Source Rocks The World!
|
|
|
Comments (81)
61 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:Let's face it, he's spent a lot of time inundated in Microsoft technology over the last few years. That'll bend anybody's mind.
Agreed. But hopefully you do understand that therefor I trust him less than some objective outsider in keeping Mono free of any possible patent traps that MS may have laid out? This is exactly why I have far less of a reservation against DotGNU.
I understand what you are saying but think you are way off-base.
Patents and affection for the technology are two very different things.
We can adore patented items -- most of us do, whether we realize it or not -- without wanting to infringe on their patents. I believe Miguel is justifiably proud of mono. But, to my knowledge, the project's policy's with regard to patents have not changed and Miguel is not the only person watching out for such things. For that matter, I would bet that Novell's legal folks check in from time to time.
Patents and affection for the technology are two very different things.
We can adore patented items -- most of us do, whether we realize it or not -- without wanting to infringe on their patents. I believe Miguel is justifiably proud of mono. But, to my knowledge, the project's policy's with regard to patents have not changed and Miguel is not the only person watching out for such things. For that matter, I would bet that Novell's legal folks check in from time to time.
@Tracyanne,
Let me put this way. You like .Net and you insist on using it believing there is no risk in doing so. Fine, that is yours and others proactive. OTOH, many others don't feel comfortable with your assessment. Those others are happy and dandy using pure FOSS to do what they need to do. So, please don't try convincing everyone otherwise.
You claim SAMBA uses the same methods. No it doesn't, SAMBA doesn't use cloned libraries, it has its own API, on a different platforms than Windows, to talk to the API on Windows, it is an interface not libraries. They are different beasts.
You claim SAMBA uses Windows technology, no it does not, it just interfaces without Windows networking and it is all legal now the documentation has been release.
You claim that Mono is only using a free ECMA/ISO standards. Like Sander said, the libraries are not part of the standard and being a standard doesn't guarantee they are clean of any patents. Some people don't really care about using it because they can use other available technologies that they are more assured about them not having any patents. Why do you insist on convincing everyone otherwise?
Many others feel more safe by not using Mono, especially when there are other technology and tools they can use to accomplish what they want. I guess we agree to disagree. End of discussion.
I have couple questions for you
If Mono is pure FOSS, why doesn't De Icaza join forces with DotGNU group?
If De Icaza's idea is to use such a wonderful technology, why does he keep trying to keep compatibility with Windows .Net and risk the possibility of infringing on hidden patents? That makes no sense to me.
This is your opinion, others feel just the opposite.
Come on Dino, we are mature people here. Liking something isn't enough to must have it.
We all like and want gifts. Adjusted to our times, a wise man told us "Beware Of Geeks Baring Gifts".
Let me put this way. You like .Net and you insist on using it believing there is no risk in doing so. Fine, that is yours and others proactive. OTOH, many others don't feel comfortable with your assessment. Those others are happy and dandy using pure FOSS to do what they need to do. So, please don't try convincing everyone otherwise.
You claim SAMBA uses the same methods. No it doesn't, SAMBA doesn't use cloned libraries, it has its own API, on a different platforms than Windows, to talk to the API on Windows, it is an interface not libraries. They are different beasts.
You claim SAMBA uses Windows technology, no it does not, it just interfaces without Windows networking and it is all legal now the documentation has been release.
You claim that Mono is only using a free ECMA/ISO standards. Like Sander said, the libraries are not part of the standard and being a standard doesn't guarantee they are clean of any patents. Some people don't really care about using it because they can use other available technologies that they are more assured about them not having any patents. Why do you insist on convincing everyone otherwise?
Many others feel more safe by not using Mono, especially when there are other technology and tools they can use to accomplish what they want. I guess we agree to disagree. End of discussion.
I have couple questions for you
If Mono is pure FOSS, why doesn't De Icaza join forces with DotGNU group?
If De Icaza's idea is to use such a wonderful technology, why does he keep trying to keep compatibility with Windows .Net and risk the possibility of infringing on hidden patents? That makes no sense to me.
Quoting:Miguel and Novell were totally independent of MS before they signed the deal, and, truthfully, are still independent of Microsoft@Dino,
This is your opinion, others feel just the opposite.
Quoting:you're talking about the person RMS himself entrusted to start the GNOME project. Miguel is a technology buff who really like what he saw in...Time changes and people change a lot more.
Come on Dino, we are mature people here. Liking something isn't enough to must have it.
We all like and want gifts. Adjusted to our times, a wise man told us "Beware Of Geeks Baring Gifts".
>Come on Dino, we are mature people here.
Sure, but ti would be nice if you would stay somewhere around reality. Paranoia is, well, paranoia.
> Liking something isn't enough to must have it.
If you are attempting to attribute that sentiment to me, I again suggest that you make the tiniest effort to stay within shouting distance of reality.
Sure, but ti would be nice if you would stay somewhere around reality. Paranoia is, well, paranoia.
> Liking something isn't enough to must have it.
If you are attempting to attribute that sentiment to me, I again suggest that you make the tiniest effort to stay within shouting distance of reality.
Quoting:Like Sander said, the libraries are not part of the standard and being a standard doesn't guarantee they are clean of any patents.
I didn't say the latter part. Or didn't mean it anyway. Any part of .Net that's with ECMA/ISO should be free enough to implement. If MS has a submarine patent in there, a lot of legal enteties would start playing whack-a-mole with Microsoft.
I said that you should be wary of hidden patents in the stuff that Mono implements but which are *not* part of ECMA/ISO.
>If MS has a submarine patent in there,
Strictly speaking, there aren't true submarine patents any more. In one sense, all patents start out as submarines because patents aren't made public until they are granted, but...
the term actually applied to patents whose applicants kept them perpetual pending by adding/modifying claims and generally jerking around the PTO. That could work to a company's advantage because the expiration clock started ticking when the patent was granted. Now the clock starts when you apply for the patent. Jerking the PTO around just reduces the amount of time that you can enforce a patent.
Strictly speaking, there aren't true submarine patents any more. In one sense, all patents start out as submarines because patents aren't made public until they are granted, but...
the term actually applied to patents whose applicants kept them perpetual pending by adding/modifying claims and generally jerking around the PTO. That could work to a company's advantage because the expiration clock started ticking when the patent was granted. Now the clock starts when you apply for the patent. Jerking the PTO around just reduces the amount of time that you can enforce a patent.
Quoting:Paranoia is, well, paranoiaNo paranoia here. Personally, I simply don't need to use Mono. Thanks to FOSS, I have many other choices.
Quoting:If you are attempting to attribute that sentiment to me,...No, I wasn't. That was directed towards De Icaza in love with .Net technology.
>That was directed towards De Icaza in love with .Net technology.
In that case, it fits.
In that case, it fits.
Quoting:I didn't say the latter part. Or didn't mean it anyway. Any part of .Net that's with ECMA/ISO should be free enough to implement.Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate you said that. My own personal opinion is, being a standard doesn't assure it is not tied to or has no patents. OOXML is a perfect example.
> My own personal opinion is, being a standard doesn't assure it is not tied to or has no patents.
Well, that's a given. Those participating in the standard process are supposed to admit to any patents they have dealing with the standard, but that's only binding on the participants, not outsiders. And most standards processes don't require that the standard be patent free, merely that the patents be available on "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.
Well, that's a given. Those participating in the standard process are supposed to admit to any patents they have dealing with the standard, but that's only binding on the participants, not outsiders. And most standards processes don't require that the standard be patent free, merely that the patents be available on "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.
> My own personal opinion is, being a standard doesn't assure it is not tied to or has no patents.
A standard has no patents. Implementations of that standard may or may not use patented technology.
But...here's a key point:
If it is not possible to implement a standard without reliance on patented technology and that fact was not disclosed by the standard's sponsor/promoter/submitter/whatever, regulatory bodies in both the EU and US have shown a willingness to foreclose enforcement of the patents in question. This is what happened to Rambus.
A standard has no patents. Implementations of that standard may or may not use patented technology.
But...here's a key point:
If it is not possible to implement a standard without reliance on patented technology and that fact was not disclosed by the standard's sponsor/promoter/submitter/whatever, regulatory bodies in both the EU and US have shown a willingness to foreclose enforcement of the patents in question. This is what happened to Rambus.
> ...regulatory bodies in both the EU and US have shown a willingness to foreclose enforcement of the patents in question.
As I understand the process Dino, that's only true if they were a participant in the process. Someone who had no part in the process could still have a applicable patent which the standard body did not catch, and it would still be enforcible. Is that your understanding also?
As I understand the process Dino, that's only true if they were a participant in the process. Someone who had no part in the process could still have a applicable patent which the standard body did not catch, and it would still be enforcible. Is that your understanding also?
Dino, JDixon,
Thanks, very enlightening information. But still, "shown a willingness" might not be good enough to some.
Quoting: Those participating in the standard process are supposed to admit to any patents they have dealing with the standard...In OOXML case, is the ECMA considered the participant since they submitted that standard to ISO, or is Microsoft considered the participant even though the ECMA submitted the standard to ISO on their behalf?
Guys --
ECMA does not initiate standards. Standards are submitted to it. Microsoft absolutely was a participant.
ECMA does not initiate standards. Standards are submitted to it. Microsoft absolutely was a participant.
Dino, can you answer this one too? I'm curious if there's any precedent.
Quoting:Someone who had no part in the process could still have a applicable patent which the standard body did not catch, and it would still be enforcible. Is that your understanding also?
Quoting:You like .Net and you insist on using it believing there is no risk in doing so.
No I use .NET because I have no other choice. I would prefer to use Mono, and on Linux, but the reality is there is as yet no decent development tool to do so commercially.
Quoting:You claim SAMBA uses the same methods. No it doesn't, SAMBA doesn't use cloned libraries, it has its own API, on a different platforms than Windows, to talk to the API on Windows, it is an interface not libraries. They are different beasts.
Exactly the same as Mono. The mono libraries are interface compatible with the .NET libraries.
Quoting:If Mono is pure FOSS, why doesn't De Icaza join forces with DotGNU group?
How would I know, perhaps they have a different focus, why are there so often so many FOSS projects that do the same thing?
Quoting:If De Icaza's idea is to use such a wonderful technology, why does he keep trying to keep compatibility with Windows .Net and risk the possibility of infringing on hidden patents? That makes no sense to me.
DotGnu doesn't free OSS projects written in .NET, Mono does, makes perfect sense to me. Without Mono the very large and very active OSS community that depends on .NET is locked into Microsoft Windows. Check out the Code Project http://www.codeproject.com/ for example, that's a huge codebase, all of which is locked in to Microsoft Windows (but for Mono). There's a hell of a lot of very active OSS stuff going on in the Windows world, and most of it written in.NET. Microsoft would like to keep it that way, and the fear loathing and general paranoia of the Linux community works very very well at ensuring that Microsoft keeps that lock in very tightly in place.
The problem isn't some possible patent in Mono, that's a possibility in every single peice of FOSS code that goes into Linux - the fact that the majority of FOSS Linux users developers ignore that fact won't make it go away - and Mono is no more problematic in that area than any other FOSS project. So if you fear patent infringement so much stop using Linux, and pay for a license to use Microsoft's Operating System (you'll be safe then).
Sander -
Yes, but that is the case with all software.
The notion of an "applicable patent" is something you need to be careful with, though. The most likely situation is that somebody will implement the standard in a way that violates a patent claim, not that the standard cannot be implemented without violating the claim. The solution would then be to change the implementation to one that doesn't infringe the patent.
Yes, but that is the case with all software.
The notion of an "applicable patent" is something you need to be careful with, though. The most likely situation is that somebody will implement the standard in a way that violates a patent claim, not that the standard cannot be implemented without violating the claim. The solution would then be to change the implementation to one that doesn't infringe the patent.
That I understand as well. But what happens if the standard can only be implemented by violating the patent, and the patent in question is held by a non-party to the standard? That's the case I'd like to see answered. As long as you can work around the patent it's no issue. But what if you can't?
>That I understand as well. But what happens if the standard can only be implemented by violating the patent, and the patent in question is held by a non-party to the standard?
Then the non-party cleans up if people actually implement the standard.
Then the non-party cleans up if people actually implement the standard.
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
Stockholm effect?
Let's face it, he's spent a lot of time inundated in Microsoft technology over the last few years. That'll bend anybody's mind. Remember the last line of my post: