6 ms·

Re Mono: Microsoft is not suing Google for patents on operating systems but instead pressures the handset manufacturers using Android. Is there a guarantee th

by berntb 16y ago

Re Mono: Microsoft is not suing Google for patents on operating systems but instead pressures the handset manufacturers using Android. Is there a guarantee that a customer can use Mono for commercial applications, without a shake down from Microsoft?

nyellin 16y ago
* Mono is backed by Novell and not Google * From the Mono Licensing FAQ [1]: "Microsoft has announced that the ECMA standards for C# and the CLI are covered under the Community Promise patent license. Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose." * The Novell-Microsoft agreements provide further protection for companies that choose to use Mono. [1] * Many companies are using Mono for commercial purposes. There is a list at http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono * Notably, Linden Studios uses Mono for Second Life servers. (See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono) [1] http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents
- gnosis 16y ago
  There's been some criticism of Microsoft's "Community Promise", such as this: http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ and http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono and of Mono in general: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
  - kprobst 16y ago
    > techrights.org That's where I stopped reading, but I'll say this: Nowhere in the FSF's critique of the MCP is it mentioned whether or not the promise itself is legally binding. From a bunch of people who are supposed to be legal experts. What does that tell you?
    - gnosis 16y ago
      Whether this "Promise" is actually worth much depends on much more than just the question of its legal legitimacy, as you'd have learned if you actually bothered to read the articles. But, as far as that particular issue is concerned, as the techrights article points out, "It may become legally binding ... if used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually need to be tested in court /first/."
      - tzs 16y ago
        That "argument" makes no legal sense.
      - kprobst 16y ago
        Yes well, I could have used the same argument against the GPL back in the day. And really, I don't need to read through an article by someone who declared the Mono project "dead" a few months ago because he couldn't find the SVN repository. Or spams Reddit endlessly. Not to mention the years of insults and ideological attacks on various FOSS people. In any case, you might want to look up the legal term estoppel.
        gnufreex 16y ago
        Mono pushers keep repeating estoppel meme but nobody ever explained how estoppel would apply to Mono. Microsoft never promised anything more than ECMA spec. They made clear they are not giving anything more. Yet, we know that even basic bits of Mono overstep ECMA http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/more-mono-misinformation-meticulously-dematerialized/ http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/more-mono-misinformation-m... So please stop repeating estoppel meme, it is nonsense. Also, attacking all people who show the world truth about Mono shows you have no arguments. Reddit was spammed by Mono pushers who were impersonating other people.
        kprobst 16y ago
        I did a search on techrights.org of your username and it seems you're one of the regulars there. I guess paranoia pays off sometimes. The "gnosis" account that posted on this same thread is a, um, friend of yours, I take it? In any case, sorry, but I'm not going to argue this issue with the likes of you. You may have a point somewhere, perhaps, but anyone associated with that blog has about as much credibility vis-a-vis Mono as Rush Limbaugh does when he talks about... well, anything. I bid you adieu sir. Good luck.
  - nyellin 16y ago
    In the professional Linux community, almost everyone views Mono-haters as nutters/trolls. If you have real concerns about Mono, I suggest that you contact Miguel de Icaza directly. Email: miguel@gnome.org Twitter: @migueldeicaza (http://twitter.com/#!/migueldeicaza http://twitter.com/#!/migueldeicaza) Blog: http://tirania.org/blog/index.html http://tirania.org/blog/index.html
    - gnufreex 16y ago
      Well, I am professional and I see Miguel De Icaza as Microsoft zealot and nutter/troll. Person that is "psyched" (see http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-guru-miguel-de-icaza-psyched-abou http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-guru-... )about Nokia going Wp7 can't give unbiased opinion about anything connected to Micorosft, especially anything that he is actively pushing... and he pushes .NET more than Mono these days.
      - foljs 16y ago
        > Well, I am professional and I see Miguel De Icaza as Microsoft zealot "Microsoft zealot". Yes, you are very professional. As in, (possibly) paid for your programming work. Your statement above however, and especially the choice of words, is not a professional statement. It's an amateurish rambling fit for a spotty teenager that would get you fired from most professional environments. Oh, and your handle: "gnufreex". Yes. Very professional. Then again, even contract killers are professionals...
  - tzs 16y ago
    You lost all credibility by citing techrights (AKA boycott novell).
    - gnosis 16y ago
      "Argumentum ad Hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."
      - yock 16y ago
        Your character wasn't attacked, your credibility was. It's perfectly legitimate to question your credibility if the questioner believes your source to be biased. An ad Hominem attack would be calling you stupid for linking the biased source. That didn't happen.
        gnosis 16y ago
        The ad hominem was made against techrights, not against me. I didn't even make an argument. I just linked to a few articles that criticized Microsoft's "Promise". Did tsz address the substance of techrights' argument? No. He just smeared them by implying that merely citing an article by them would make me lose credibility. That is a perfect example of an ad hominem. Attacking me was more of a case of shooting the messenger.
        kprobst 16y ago
        > smeared them If you do a Google site search on that blog you'll see that the term 'smear' is used endlessly and quite carelessly by the author. It's interesting to see that you use it in the same way - and like the author I don't think you understand very well what the term means. I sure hope "gnosis" isn't one of the various aliases the guy allegedly uses across the internet, including on Slashdot where he became a bit of a legend for maintaining dozens of them.
  - georgieporgie 16y ago
    > http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono ...The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. ... This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it... It seems as if they are passing off wild speculation as inevitable fact. What is to prevent MS from using its portfolio of patents on any given project? Is a free C# implementation infringing on more patents? The supporting links just looked like general anti-patent pages.
tzs 16y ago
IP in Mono falls into several categories. 1. There is stuff covered by the ECMA/ISO standards. This is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise, which is legally binding. This stuff is safe from Microsoft. 2. There is a lot of .NET stuff that Microsoft has released under the Apache 2 license, which includes a patent pledge. If any of this stuff is implemented in Mono, it is safe. 3. There is stuff in .NET that is not covered by the standards, and has not been released by Microsoft under a license that includes a patent pledge. Mono has independent implementations of the interfaces of some of these things. There is no Microsoft patent pledge covering these parts, and Microsoft may have patents on their own implementations. These patents would cover specific methods used in the implementation, not the interface. The risk from #3 is small. Most important, it is about the same as the risk if you use that functionality in a non-Mono system. For example, I believe that there is an XML parsing library included in category #3. If Microsoft has a patent covering some particular technique of implementing an XML parser, there is no reason to believe that the people who implemented Mono's XML handling are any more likely to have infringed it than the people who implemented Java's XML handling, or Ruby's XML handling, or Python's XML handling, and so on. Also, most of the things in #3 are things specifically related to Windows programming, so you'll only find them in .NET programs that were written for Windows. If you are writing for Linux, you don't need those things. Even if you want your programs to run on both Windows and Linux, you can do that without using the category #3 stuff. For instance, instead of using WinForms, use GTK#. If Microsoft did decide to sue someone over their patents that cover the category #3 items that aren't Windows-specific, it is doubtful they would go after Mono. Microsoft has done enough to support and encourage the development of Mono that they would have a big estoppel problem to surmount if they wanted to sue over Mono. It would make a lot more sense to sue over Java or Python, where they would not face the estoppel issues. Remember, as I noted earlier, the category #3 patents are as likely to be infringed by those as Mono.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  My understanding is that Microsoft hired the IronPython developer full-time for a period of years. I think that it's only natural that MS would target Mono if they felt it was a threat. Right now it is in their interest to support Mono because it introduces more people to C# and MS feels that this is good for the long-term health of their platforms. They are also able to iterate quickly enough that Mono (and Moonlight, the Mono-based Silverlight implementation) is always playing "catch-up" and the cool kids are all going to want to use the official implementations with the Cool New Stuff before it makes it into Mono two years later. Mono developers can easily become Windows developers, and the likelihood of that happening is not that low if a given hacker falls on hard times and needs a job. This hacker will then buy Windows and Visual Studio (or get his company to buy them, either way works), probably multiple times. Hence, supporting Mono makes sense for now. If Mono ever becomes a threat to Windows' dominance instead of a help, MS is going to go after it hard and try to kill it, just as they go after anything else perceived to threaten Windows or Office. Mono will be targeted because it makes things that used to be Windows-specific accessible on other platforms, destroying Microsoft's lock-in, leveling the playing field and making Microsoft an undesirable option. This is not something MS likes, and they will do everything possible, including patent suits if possible, to get Mono out of the way if they have to. They have already postured for it with their indemnification deals for Novell customers. The same applies to WINE, although Microsoft for the moment just never mentions this because they're never asked about it, and they don't want people to find out about it and discover that they don't need Windows to run Windows applications. There is no benefit to promoting WINE like there is with promoting C# and other MS-centric languages.

by berntb 16y ago

nyellin 16y ago

* Mono is backed by Novell and not Google * From the Mono Licensing FAQ [1]: "Microsoft has announced that the ECMA standards for C# and the CLI are covered under the Community Promise patent license. Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose." * The Novell-Microsoft agreements provide further protection for companies that choose to use Mono. [1] * Many companies are using Mono for commercial purposes. There is a list at http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono * Notably, Linden Studios uses Mono for Second Life servers. (See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono) [1] http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents

gnosis 16y ago
There's been some criticism of Microsoft's "Community Promise", such as this: http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ and http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono and of Mono in general: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
- kprobst 16y ago
  > techrights.org That's where I stopped reading, but I'll say this: Nowhere in the FSF's critique of the MCP is it mentioned whether or not the promise itself is legally binding. From a bunch of people who are supposed to be legal experts. What does that tell you?
  - gnosis 16y ago
    Whether this "Promise" is actually worth much depends on much more than just the question of its legal legitimacy, as you'd have learned if you actually bothered to read the articles. But, as far as that particular issue is concerned, as the techrights article points out, "It may become legally binding ... if used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually need to be tested in court /first/."
    - tzs 16y ago
      That "argument" makes no legal sense.
    - kprobst 16y ago
      Yes well, I could have used the same argument against the GPL back in the day. And really, I don't need to read through an article by someone who declared the Mono project "dead" a few months ago because he couldn't find the SVN repository. Or spams Reddit endlessly. Not to mention the years of insults and ideological attacks on various FOSS people. In any case, you might want to look up the legal term estoppel.
      - gnufreex 16y ago
        Mono pushers keep repeating estoppel meme but nobody ever explained how estoppel would apply to Mono. Microsoft never promised anything more than ECMA spec. They made clear they are not giving anything more. Yet, we know that even basic bits of Mono overstep ECMA http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/more-mono-misinformation-meticulously-dematerialized/ http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/more-mono-misinformation-m... So please stop repeating estoppel meme, it is nonsense. Also, attacking all people who show the world truth about Mono shows you have no arguments. Reddit was spammed by Mono pushers who were impersonating other people.
        kprobst 16y ago
        I did a search on techrights.org of your username and it seems you're one of the regulars there. I guess paranoia pays off sometimes. The "gnosis" account that posted on this same thread is a, um, friend of yours, I take it? In any case, sorry, but I'm not going to argue this issue with the likes of you. You may have a point somewhere, perhaps, but anyone associated with that blog has about as much credibility vis-a-vis Mono as Rush Limbaugh does when he talks about... well, anything. I bid you adieu sir. Good luck.
- nyellin 16y ago
  In the professional Linux community, almost everyone views Mono-haters as nutters/trolls. If you have real concerns about Mono, I suggest that you contact Miguel de Icaza directly. Email: miguel@gnome.org Twitter: @migueldeicaza (http://twitter.com/#!/migueldeicaza http://twitter.com/#!/migueldeicaza) Blog: http://tirania.org/blog/index.html http://tirania.org/blog/index.html
  - gnufreex 16y ago
    Well, I am professional and I see Miguel De Icaza as Microsoft zealot and nutter/troll. Person that is "psyched" (see http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-guru-miguel-de-icaza-psyched-abou http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-guru-... )about Nokia going Wp7 can't give unbiased opinion about anything connected to Micorosft, especially anything that he is actively pushing... and he pushes .NET more than Mono these days.
    - foljs 16y ago
      > Well, I am professional and I see Miguel De Icaza as Microsoft zealot "Microsoft zealot". Yes, you are very professional. As in, (possibly) paid for your programming work. Your statement above however, and especially the choice of words, is not a professional statement. It's an amateurish rambling fit for a spotty teenager that would get you fired from most professional environments. Oh, and your handle: "gnufreex". Yes. Very professional. Then again, even contract killers are professionals...
- tzs 16y ago
  You lost all credibility by citing techrights (AKA boycott novell).
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "Argumentum ad Hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."
    - yock 16y ago
      Your character wasn't attacked, your credibility was. It's perfectly legitimate to question your credibility if the questioner believes your source to be biased. An ad Hominem attack would be calling you stupid for linking the biased source. That didn't happen.
      - gnosis 16y ago
        The ad hominem was made against techrights, not against me. I didn't even make an argument. I just linked to a few articles that criticized Microsoft's "Promise". Did tsz address the substance of techrights' argument? No. He just smeared them by implying that merely citing an article by them would make me lose credibility. That is a perfect example of an ad hominem. Attacking me was more of a case of shooting the messenger.
        kprobst 16y ago
        > smeared them If you do a Google site search on that blog you'll see that the term 'smear' is used endlessly and quite carelessly by the author. It's interesting to see that you use it in the same way - and like the author I don't think you understand very well what the term means. I sure hope "gnosis" isn't one of the various aliases the guy allegedly uses across the internet, including on Slashdot where he became a bit of a legend for maintaining dozens of them.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  > http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono ...The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. ... This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it... It seems as if they are passing off wild speculation as inevitable fact. What is to prevent MS from using its portfolio of patents on any given project? Is a free C# implementation infringing on more patents? The supporting links just looked like general anti-patent pages.

tzs 16y ago

IP in Mono falls into several categories. 1. There is stuff covered by the ECMA/ISO standards. This is covered by the Microsoft Community Promise, which is legally binding. This stuff is safe from Microsoft. 2. There is a lot of .NET stuff that Microsoft has released under the Apache 2 license, which includes a patent pledge. If any of this stuff is implemented in Mono, it is safe. 3. There is stuff in .NET that is not covered by the standards, and has not been released by Microsoft under a license that includes a patent pledge. Mono has independent implementations of the interfaces of some of these things. There is no Microsoft patent pledge covering these parts, and Microsoft may have patents on their own implementations. These patents would cover specific methods used in the implementation, not the interface. The risk from #3 is small. Most important, it is about the same as the risk if you use that functionality in a non-Mono system. For example, I believe that there is an XML parsing library included in category #3. If Microsoft has a patent covering some particular technique of implementing an XML parser, there is no reason to believe that the people who implemented Mono's XML handling are any more likely to have infringed it than the people who implemented Java's XML handling, or Ruby's XML handling, or Python's XML handling, and so on. Also, most of the things in #3 are things specifically related to Windows programming, so you'll only find them in .NET programs that were written for Windows. If you are writing for Linux, you don't need those things. Even if you want your programs to run on both Windows and Linux, you can do that without using the category #3 stuff. For instance, instead of using WinForms, use GTK#. If Microsoft did decide to sue someone over their patents that cover the category #3 items that aren't Windows-specific, it is doubtful they would go after Mono. Microsoft has done enough to support and encourage the development of Mono that they would have a big estoppel problem to surmount if they wanted to sue over Mono. It would make a lot more sense to sue over Java or Python, where they would not face the estoppel issues. Remember, as I noted earlier, the category #3 patents are as likely to be infringed by those as Mono.

cookiecaper 16y ago
My understanding is that Microsoft hired the IronPython developer full-time for a period of years. I think that it's only natural that MS would target Mono if they felt it was a threat. Right now it is in their interest to support Mono because it introduces more people to C# and MS feels that this is good for the long-term health of their platforms. They are also able to iterate quickly enough that Mono (and Moonlight, the Mono-based Silverlight implementation) is always playing "catch-up" and the cool kids are all going to want to use the official implementations with the Cool New Stuff before it makes it into Mono two years later. Mono developers can easily become Windows developers, and the likelihood of that happening is not that low if a given hacker falls on hard times and needs a job. This hacker will then buy Windows and Visual Studio (or get his company to buy them, either way works), probably multiple times. Hence, supporting Mono makes sense for now. If Mono ever becomes a threat to Windows' dominance instead of a help, MS is going to go after it hard and try to kill it, just as they go after anything else perceived to threaten Windows or Office. Mono will be targeted because it makes things that used to be Windows-specific accessible on other platforms, destroying Microsoft's lock-in, leveling the playing field and making Microsoft an undesirable option. This is not something MS likes, and they will do everything possible, including patent suits if possible, to get Mono out of the way if they have to. They have already postured for it with their indemnification deals for Novell customers. The same applies to WINE, although Microsoft for the moment just never mentions this because they're never asked about it, and they don't want people to find out about it and discover that they don't need Windows to run Windows applications. There is no benefit to promoting WINE like there is with promoting C# and other MS-centric languages.