Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moonlight, Microsoft Patent Covenant Updates

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Your definition of "Linux friendly" is relative. Actually, I'm not sure "Linux friendly" can be defined.

    About Linux you said what I said, Linux is a kernel released under the GNU GPL licence (which means you have to know what is a kernel and what is the GPL license).

    About Mono:
    Computer programming is the process of writing, testing, debugging/troubleshooting, and maintaining the source code of computer programs. (wikipedia).

    Now this said, you'll understand that the language used to program is a detail of the process of writing. A shitty C++ software will always be shitty, and a shitty C# software will always be shitty. Now if there is a developer, a smart one, that knows how to write software and only knows C#, would you tell him you don't want his wonderfull app because it's made with a GPL software called Mono?

    So the point is, if you don't want GPL software then that's fine. I want all GPL softwares.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by deeceefar2 View Post
      Notably missing from that is Netflix. I wonder if this increased collaboration will include Netflix and the advanced media streaming required to support it, or if that is still off the table. I want to switch to use boxee with linux not windows.
      Go read the comments on his blog. He replies to this question twice. First question asks how Roku can do Netflix on Linux but we can't - his reply states that the MS PlayReady DRM necessary to use Netflix is licensed such that it's available for embedded systems but not general-purpose Linux systems. The other reply flatly states that it is very unlikely that PlayReady DRM is going to be available for Linux.

      So I guess the NBC Football and Olympics content the blog post says they are focusing on don't use PlayReady (or any?) DRM. Or they are working to fully support all the non-DRM aspects of those applications.

      I just don't believe MS will ever willingly license any of their DRM solutions for general-purpose use on Linux. 'Legal' access to premium content is one of the major advantages they hold over Linux - why in the world would they give that up?

      Given this, from an end-user perspective I wonder why anyone cares about Moonlight, and why a whole team at Novell gets paid to spend time developing it. Who uses it? What for?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
        Your definition of "Linux friendly" is relative. Actually, I'm not sure "Linux friendly" can be defined.

        About Linux you said what I said, Linux is a kernel released under the GNU GPL licence (which means you have to know what is a kernel and what is the GPL license).

        About Mono:
        Computer programming is the process of writing, testing, debugging/troubleshooting, and maintaining the source code of computer programs. (wikipedia).

        Now this said, you'll understand that the language used to program is a detail of the process of writing. A shitty C++ software will always be shitty, and a shitty C# software will always be shitty. Now if there is a developer, a smart one, that knows how to write software and only knows C#, would you tell him you don't want his wonderfull app because it's made with a GPL software called Mono?

        So the point is, if you don't want GPL software then that's fine. I want all GPL softwares.
        I'm sorry but it is not that simple. In countries where software patents are enforced, the GPLv2 protects you against nothing. Mono may be GPL, but if it infringes on Microsoft patents, users can still be forced to pay license fees and distributors can be forced to pay penalties.

        Of course, Novell doesn't care because they have a cross-patent agreement with Micrsoft. Miguel himself said that the he has no concerns about Mono patents because Novell are covered. This doesn't cover Ubuntu or Fedora or MyHomeMade distro. Let's say Mono extend their dev base by getting Red Hat and Mandriva to distribute it. They get the benefits of the open source dev methodology, but then 1 year later Microsoft files suits against Ubuntu, Mandriva, and Red Hat for patent infringement. Novell walk away scot free with all the additional developement, because they are covered by their patent agreement.

        This is completely against the spirit and purpose of the GPL. If we are allowed to distribute the copyright work, but not allowed to the distribute the "business methodology" that the work is based on, we are essentially not allowed to distribute the work.

        That is why GPLv3 included sections that prevents the distribution of code covered by exclusive patent licensing from third parties.

        Comment


        • #19
          Season's greetings

          Seems Microsoft wants its slaves back. Novell's conduct will make even baby jesus cry.

          I wonder why Miguel is wasting his talent on something that will never work. well, maybe now he is just an employee of Novell (and allies).

          Does he still have a crush on MS?

          I hope rms gets cloned many, many times (we will need em all!)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
            Your definition of "Linux friendly" is relative. Actually, I'm not sure "Linux friendly" can be defined.
            Maybe it's hard to define, but MS did almost nothing for Linux while AMD did more (or even much more and it probably doesn't want to see Linux dead).

            About Linux you said what I said, Linux is a kernel released under the GNU GPL licence (which means you have to know what is a kernel and what is the GPL license).
            Yes, it's a kernel, but many people who say "Linux" mean entire OS which follows some philosophy.

            About Mono:
            Computer programming is the process of writing, testing, debugging/troubleshooting, and maintaining the source code of computer programs. (wikipedia).

            Now this said, you'll understand that the language used to program is a detail of the process of writing. A shitty C++ software will always be shitty, and a shitty C# software will always be shitty. Now if there is a developer, a smart one, that knows how to write software and only knows C#, would you tell him you don't want his wonderfull app because it's made with a GPL software called Mono?
            This is clear and it wasn't my point. The point is Mono implements C# language which is controlled by MS and thus supports it. If MS will give me a nice GPL application which won't force me to support they language it would be cool and I would be grateful.

            So the point is, if you don't want GPL software then that's fine. I want all GPL softwares.
            I want only GPL software, but it mustn't support MS controlled language.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
              Now if there is a developer, a smart one, that knows how to write software and only knows C#
              If developer only knows C#, then I would disagree that he is a smart developer

              Comment


              • #22
                http://www.the-source.com/2009/12/ne...venant-coming/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  I want only GPL software, but it mustn't support MS controlled language.
                  Or any other company.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X