Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Moonlight, Microsoft Patent Covenant Updates

  1. #11

    Default

    Btw. I wouldn't believe in a single Icaza's word. He's pro MS fanboy who praises MS initiatives (or MS related) like one above or CodePlex and MS OOXML. He's not trustworthy.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    hehe pity
    Maybe he just disagrees that the absence of God is fortunate...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    577

    Default

    First, learn the existance of idioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom .

    Second, you haven't replied to my statement demonstrating the fanboyism that resides in you.

    Third, kraftman defines AMD linux friendly. Go study some history from ~2007 and behond.

    Fourth, there is nothing wrong in making money out of Linux. Linux is a kernel released under the GNU GPL licence. Nothing more nothing less. If microsoft somehow shares their "work" the only thing you can do is shut up and accept the cooperation, because that is what all gpl fans want, there is no statement in the GPL license about innovation, but freedom. Freedom to use the software for any reason you want, even to clean your back and flush the toilet. Mono is released under the GPL license and this should be the only thing to care of.

    Fanboyism is the sick part of the Linux world.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yesterday View Post
    Maybe he just disagrees that the absence of God is fortunate...
    I don't agree there's no God, but it's not on the topic.

    @Bullettxt

    Third, kraftman defines AMD linux friendly. Go study some history from ~2007 and behond.
    Compared to MS they are Linux friendly.

    Fourth, there is nothing wrong in making money out of Linux. Linux is a kernel released under the GNU GPL licence. Nothing more nothing less.
    It's a kernel and it's also much more - Gnu/Linux for some, Linux distributions, philosophy etc.

    If microsoft somehow shares their "work" the only thing you can do is shut up and accept the cooperation, because that is what all gpl fans want, there is no statement in the GPL license about innovation, but freedom. Freedom to use the software for any reason you want, even to clean your back and flush the toilet. Mono is released under the GPL license and this should be the only thing to care of.
    Maybe there are some gpl fans who'll even buy MS trash if it's only released under GPL license, but there are also many people who use brains and don't buy such bull. I'd be happy if some morons wouldn't make Linux DE's (Gnome in this case) dependent on it. Make mono apps if you want, but don't force people to use/install/have it when they don't want this. If MS wants to make money on Linux it doesn't mean someone should help them doing this.

    Fanboyism is the sick part of the Linux world.
    It's also sick part of mono devs, its followers, ms world, apple world, gnome devs etc.
    Last edited by kraftman; 12-17-2009 at 06:24 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulletxt View Post
    Fourth, there is nothing wrong in making money out of Linux.
    Yup I agree. I make money out of Linux as well. So does RedHat etc. Even if MS wants to make money out of Linux I won't complain. If you undersstand that my complaints have to do about that while I didn't even mention it, then I can't do anything.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    577

    Default

    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote 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?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default 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!)

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •