Intel, Miguel de Icaza Comment On Nokia's Move

[BlackStar]

I don't think software patents were a major concern back then - totally different situation. And in fact there was a little company called SCO that did claim to own portions of Linux, if i recall correctly.

Patents are orthogonal to copyright license in most cases (although a few licenses do require patent grants). Software can be covered by patents and still be OSS - like ffmpeg, the linux kernel or Mono, for instance. However, software cannot be OSS if it's not available under an OSS license.

Qt was not available under an OSS license, originally, which is why GNOME was born in the first place.

There are clearly some legal issues that could pop up around Mono if they ever hit the jackpot - just like what happened to Java when Android sales went crazy. However, I doubt that Mono is ever going to be that big, which means it's probably safe.

Both Sun/Oracle and Microsoft issued patent grants for Java and .Net respectively. The difference is that Microsoft's grant allows extensions to the runtime, while Sun's grant didn't (plus, Sun made it impossible to obtain that license grant in the first place).

There are three open-source implementations of .Net I am aware of and Microsoft hasn't moved against any. Contrast that with Sun/Oracle who control the sole complete open-source implementation and have moved to destroy all other relevant ones (Apache Harmony and Dalvik).

Strange as this may sound, Microsoft has been much more open here.

Miguel's reaction to this whole thing strikes me as someone cheering about how great a tree is doing while the forest burns down around them. That tree is pretty awesome, but without the rest of the forest it's going to get mighty lonely.

Agreed, but I can understand where he is coming from. He has spent the past 7 years working on a technology that has been under constant attack from all sides, not for technical reasons but for political ones. Just check the amount of anti-Mono trolling on his very own blog, where he is called useless, a Microsoft sellout, a GNOME sellout and everything else you can imagine.

After 7 years, this technology proves its value, by offering something unique (portability among all desktop *and* smartphone platforms). He has every right to be excited about this - wouldn't you be, were you in his shoes?

[mrugiero]

Strange as this may sound, Microsoft has been much more open here.



Agreed, but I can understand where he is coming from. He has spent the past 7 years working on a technology that has been under constant attack from all sides, not for technical reasons but for political ones. Just check the amount of anti-Mono trolling on his very own blog, where he is called useless, a Microsoft sellout, a GNOME sellout and everything else you can imagine.

After 7 years, this technology proves its value, by offering something unique (portability among all desktop *and* smartphone platforms). He has every right to be excited about this - wouldn't you be, were you in his shoes?

The first piece of the quote: if mono is portable enough to run in more platforms than MS implementation of .NET, probably they like the idea of selling their IDE, which probably is easier to use (I'm talking about probability cause I'm not programmer, then I didn't use them), and that is business, it is not something that make the sales go down, but the opposite.
On the other hand, the use of Linux and other free (and non free too) alternatives to Windows, reduces the sales of Windows. I don't think many people will migrate to Windows just to use .NET apps, but probably a programmer WILL migrate to .NET if he feels more comfortable with it and can target his desired platform with it. And that means, MS will attack other OS'es, but will not attack something that makes portable the product of their technology.

About the second piece of quote, same supposition, mono makes really portable .NET.
In that case, if I am Miguel de Icaza, I will not give a shit if Nokia uses MeeGo, Android, WP7, or a shoe with a chip inside, because my work is portable enough to run in any of them.

[Joe Sixpack]

Alright, I'm not sure whether you are a troll or just plain misinformed.

You see, there's that little thing called Linux that is based on Minix which is a Unix clone. Now, neither Minix nor the original AT&T Unix were released under any of the licenses I mentioned. This didn't stop Linux from going GPL.

It's the same with Mono and .Net. The latter is closed-source technology; this doesn't stop the former from being released under a FSF-approved license.

Sigh. Forget it...

[Svartalf]

Alright, I'm not sure whether you are a troll or just plain misinformed.

You see, there's that little thing called Linux that is based on Minix which is a Unix clone. Now, neither Minix nor the original AT&T Unix were released under any of the licenses I mentioned. This didn't stop Linux from going GPL.

It's the same with Mono and .Net. The latter is closed-source technology; this doesn't stop the former from being released under a FSF-approved license.

Uh, you've got your info wrong as can be.

Linux isn't derived from Minix, for starters.

Linux is it's own kernel that originally had pieces of 4.4 BSD-lite and GNU software comprising it's distribution. I should know a bit about that...I've been around since nearly the beginnings of the OS doing stuff with it since the 0.9 kernels and watching it closely before that.

Your analogy's flawed from that starting point there.

We already know the story about AT&T and BSD... Not SysV code, and that got proven out with the SCOX trial. Not Minix code. Minix is good for teaching concepts, but it's not as useful for things like massive servers or embedded systems like we see with Linux. There's really nothing of use there for anyone and all Minix was used for was a development environment to kick-start the compilation work for the OS.

If you're going to accuse someone of being a troll or misinformed, it helps to have your own facts straight...

[mrugiero]

Uh, you've got your info wrong as can be.

Linux isn't derived from Minix, for starters.

Linux is it's own kernel that originally had pieces of 4.4 BSD-lite and GNU software comprising it's distribution. I should know a bit about that...I've been around since nearly the beginnings of the OS doing stuff with it since the 0.9 kernels and watching it closely before that.

Your analogy's flawed from that starting point there.

We already know the story about AT&T and BSD... Not SysV code, and that got proven out with the SCOX trial. Not Minix code. Minix is good for teaching concepts, but it's not as useful for things like massive servers or embedded systems like we see with Linux. There's really nothing of use there for anyone and all Minix was used for was a development environment to kick-start the compilation work for the OS.

If you're going to accuse someone of being a troll or misinformed, it helps to have your own facts straight...

I know your data is correct, but is irrelevant. As far as I know (and please correct me if I am not), both are clones of another piece of software (in the sense the clone and the cloned shares the idea, but not code nor design), and neither one or another uses code from the "cloned" software. So, the fact that Linux does not use Minix nor UNIX code, just probe the analogy as valid.
Obviously, every thing I said in this post, is valid ONLY if my assumption that mono does not use any code of MS is true, else, you are completely right :P

[smitty3268]

Patents are orthogonal to copyright license in most cases (although a few licenses do require patent grants). Software can be covered by patents and still be OSS - like ffmpeg, the linux kernel or Mono, for instance. However, software cannot be OSS if it's not available under an OSS license.

Yes, i think everyone knows this. You're missing the point.

Both Sun/Oracle and Microsoft issued patent grants for Java and .Net respectively.

Yep, that's part of my point there.

The difference is that Microsoft's grant allows extensions to the runtime, while Sun's grant didn't (plus, Sun made it impossible to obtain that license grant in the first place).

If you really don't think that a bunch of smart lawyers could find a loophole somewhere, then you haven't had very much experience with them. Which is a good thing!

There are three open-source implementations of .Net I am aware of and Microsoft hasn't moved against any. Contrast that with Sun/Oracle who control the sole complete open-source implementation and have moved to destroy all other relevant ones (Apache Harmony and Dalvik).

Can you tell me what Oracle has done to the alternative Java implementations? I know they've refused to actively help by certifying them, but I hadn't heard of them actually going after them until Google. That seems to be about the same situation with Mono.

He has every right to be excited about this - wouldn't you be, were you in his shoes?

Oh, sure. If I spent years of my life focusing on one project, I'm certain I'd be a huge cheerleader about it while ignoring anything that gets hurt by it as well. That's just human nature.

[BlackStar]

Can you tell me what Oracle has done to the alternative Java implementations? I know they've refused to actively help by certifying them, but I hadn't heard of them actually going after them until Google. That seems to be about the same situation with Mono.

Oracle bullied IBM to abandon Apache Harmony, pretty much destroying that project. Additionally the Java test suite cannot be used outside of OpenJDK, which means that Apache can't certify their Java implementation - opening them to patent lawsuits (the patent grant only applies to certified implementations.)

There's a lot of backstory to this, ultimately resulting in Apache resigning from the Java Community Process. It's fascinating and it reveals exactly what control freaks Sun/Oracle are.

Oh, sure. If I spent years of my life focusing on one project, I'm certain I'd be a huge cheerleader about it while ignoring anything that gets hurt by it as well. That's just human nature.

Who is being hurt here? Nobody is forcing you to use Mono or .Net. There are so many alternatives that one more doesn't really make a difference one way or another - except to those who choose to use it.

@Svartalf: Minix was the reason why Linus started working on Linux. They don't share code but they are both Unix clones.

The analogy is valid in that Mono clones .Net without using its code. (It redistributes a couple of OSS libraries developed by Microsoft but these are not part of the core framework).

[mrugiero]

Who is being hurt here? Nobody is forcing you to use Mono or .Net. There are so many alternatives that one more doesn't really make a difference one way or another - except to those who choose to use it.

I think you misunderstood. He is talking about who is getting hurt by the agreement between Nokia and MS, which benefits de Icaza's project, not about someone getting hurt by mono itself.

[RealNC]

I'm sure that M. de Icaza is now overwhelmed with joy that his precious .NET/Mono/C# on WP7 cannot be used for Open Source software on the WP Market, since OS has been banned there.

Yeah, sure, "de Icaza, the Open Source supporter." RMS was right. He is a traitor for supporting that crap.

[BlackStar]

I'm sure that M. de Icaza is now overwhelmed with joy that his precious .NET/Mono/C# on WP7 cannot be used for Open Source software on the WP Market, since OS has been banned there.

Yeah, sure, "de Icaza, the Open Source supporter." RMS was right. He is a traitor for supporting that crap.

Mono doesn't run on WM7, so I don't see how he "supports that stuff".

The problem lies solely with Microsoft in this case: if you wish to write software for WM7, you have to use C#. end of story. If you wish to write C++, you are wasting your time bashing Miguel or Mono - neither has control over this. Your best bet is to bugger Microsoft (email, snail mail, devrel) or simply boycott them.