GNOME & Mono Made Love At Microsoft Last Week

[Larian]

Make MS prove it's patent free or make Icaza to ship patent free bits, make it community driven and make MS to keep their dirty hands out of Gnome and entire Linux and I'll shut up when comes to this part. Mono is in the same language team as java (compared to C/C++/Qt). It's not a secret java is simply dead on desktops, so while mono is similar you should have a clue why it's having a rough time to get more attention on Linux desktops - on Windows .Net is driven by MS. If java will be favored then I can understand your frustration, but it's not. I found strange to convince others how great some language is. People usually use what they know and what they like, so if they don't like mono it's not anti-mono crowd problem, but maybe those who stands behind mono, perhaps? C, C++, Python, mono they're all available in repositories, so what's the problem?

Oh THIS.

There are more logical fallacies flying between RealNC and directhex than is appropriate for good mental health. The point here isn't that you're just a booster for Mono and Microsoft hasn't sued people over it (that I'm aware of). The point is that Microsoft simply hasn't earned my trust. Quite the opposite in fact. Everything they touch when it comes to Linux should be gone over with a fine toothed comb because they've shown us time and again that they're untrustworthy, sneaky shits. Until Microsoft can prove that Mono isn't laden with some patent bomb that they can break off in our ass down the road, it is prudent to avoid it.

At the very least I'd like a sworn statement in court from them that they couldn't sue for its use if they wanted to - or words to that effect. If we could get that, then I'd be a lot happier about Mono. This isn't a hatred of Microsoft, it's a fear of Microsoft. They destroy their partners and have a history of leveraging their marketshare to quash projects with their "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" tactics. It hasn't worked every time (OpenGL anyone?), but it wasn't for lack of trying. Trusting Microsoft invites headache. Blindly trusting them is downright fucking idiotic.

So to those who insist on accusing everyone who's not liking this mad dash to embrace Mono of hating Microsoft, you've got the wrong emotion. It's fear. I'm sorry you decided to spend so much time working on a Mono app and you feel like we're just tearing down your work, but that's your fucking problem. It's no different than complaining about how you hand-coded your latest widget in some version of assembly when you could have used a higher level language like C ++; you brought that pile of shit on yourself. Some of us fear Microsoft for the same reason we don't trust dogs that are known to bite.

Unless Mono is verified patent-free and licensed under some version of the GPL (and I don't know if it is or not), I think RealNC has a point. But he still makes terrible arguments.

[directhex]

So mono does have stuff that's non-standard and possibly not covered by the patent promise? :S
That's where I've read the most concerns about.

Correct.

It would be awesome if the license could cover patent grants, but the copyright on the software is not microsoft's, they're not the owners on mono... you can't give a patent grant on stuff that's not yours, unless you have a license (and right to sub-license with that one).

Correct.

Although some libraries bundled with Mono are by Microsoft, and do include patent grants - specifically the Dynamic Language Runtime, IronPython, IronRuby, IronJava, F#, Razor template engine, ASP.NET MVC 1-4, HTML Agility Pack, and AJAX Library. I don't think I've missed anything.

Oh, additionally, the embedded version of Microsoft.NET, the Micro Framework, is under a GPLv3-compatible license with patent grant included (Apache 2.0). Mono doesn't use any MF code, though.

Microsoft would never-ever-ever-ever-ever-ever-ever-ever make such agreement (it would be TOO GOOD to be actually true), and that leaves me thinking

I think it's reasonable for them to be cautious about what they do - an "accidental" patent release could mean millions or billions of dollars of inadvertent risk in unrelated areas. So the process they've been taking is to cover full libraries they've cleared (like the DLR), and to work to add more and more code to the ECMA335 spec (compare the size of the first and sixth editions of ECMA335). Sadly, standards committees are slow to move. But it *is* being worked on - the 6th edition of ECMA335 is only a couple of weeks old.

[bwat47]

Oh THIS.

There are more logical fallacies flying between RealNC and directhex than is appropriate for good mental health. The point here isn't that you're just a booster for Mono and Microsoft hasn't sued people over it (that I'm aware of). The point is that Microsoft simply hasn't earned my trust. Quite the opposite in fact. Everything they touch when it comes to Linux should be gone over with a fine toothed comb because they've shown us time and again that they're untrustworthy, sneaky shits. Until Microsoft can prove that Mono isn't laden with some patent bomb that they can break off in our ass down the road, it is prudent to avoid it.

At the very least I'd like a sworn statement in court from them that they couldn't sue for its use if they wanted to - or words to that effect. If we could get that, then I'd be a lot happier about Mono. This isn't a hatred of Microsoft, it's a fear of Microsoft. They destroy their partners and have a history of leveraging their marketshare to quash projects with their "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" tactics. It hasn't worked every time (OpenGL anyone?), but it wasn't for lack of trying. Trusting Microsoft invites headache. Blindly trusting them is downright fucking idiotic.

So to those who insist on accusing everyone who's not liking this mad dash to embrace Mono of hating Microsoft, you've got the wrong emotion. It's fear. I'm sorry you decided to spend so much time working on a Mono app and you feel like we're just tearing down your work, but that's your fucking problem. It's no different than complaining about how you hand-coded your latest widget in some version of assembly when you could have used a higher level language like C ++; you brought that pile of shit on yourself. Some of us fear Microsoft for the same reason we don't trust dogs that are known to bite.

Unless Mono is verified patent-free and licensed under some version of the GPL (and I don't know if it is or not), I think RealNC has a point. But he still makes terrible arguments.

Yeah, there are certainly some valid concerns regarding the MS/mono/patent relationship and I wouldn't call myself a mono evangelist by any means, but there is no reason for the militant anti-mono attitude I've seen all over the linux community, there's no reason to ostracize and flame developers for their language choice.

[Larian]

Yeah, there are certainly some valid concerns regarding the MS/mono/patent relationship and I wouldn't call myself a mono evangelist by any means, but there is no reason for the militant anti-mono attitude I've seen all over the linux community, there's no reason to ostracize and flame developers for their language choice.

Flaming developers is in poor taste, yes. Being militant about avoiding Mono, not so much. As I explained above, some of us are afraid Microsoft will continue being Microsoft and swoop in with a patent bomb. We don't need that in our life. Mono is not in any guise essential software, and there is no reason that I can see to invite trouble.

[directhex]

Until Microsoft can prove that Mono isn't laden with some patent bomb that they can break off in our ass down the road, it is prudent to avoid it.

How do you prove a negative?

At the very least I'd like a sworn statement in court from them that they couldn't sue for its use if they wanted to - or words to that effect. If we could get that, then I'd be a lot happier about Mono.

They've never been in court over this stuff, so how would they end up making a sworn statement to that regard?

What we have is the text on http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifi...e/default.aspx - it's almost word for word the language that Oracle uses for ODF. It's the sale language that covers their possible patent claims over RFC 2821, 3207, 4616, 2246, 2251, 2256, 2617, and 2529, to name a tiny subset of the covered specifications under either the Microsoft Community Promise or Open Specification Promise.

Take it or leave it. It's more than we had a few years ago, it's more than we have for most of the specifications we implement.

So to those who insist on accusing everyone who's not liking this mad dash to embrace Mono of hating Microsoft, you've got the wrong emotion. It's fear.

At least you can be honest about that, which is more than others in this thread, such as RealNC, can manage.

Unless Mono is verified patent-free

How does one prove that Python or Vala are patent free? There's just an implicit assumption that implementing this one thing by Microsoft means it must violate patents, and if you're not implementing anything by anyone who isn't Microsoft then it's impossible for it to infringe on Microsoft patents. As if the very existence of a patent promise is proof of danger.

I have flood insurance, this doesn't mean my house is underwater.

licensed under some version of the GPL (and I don't know if it is or not), I think RealNC has a point. But he still makes terrible arguments.

Mono's runtime is under LGPLv2. Mono's class library is under MIT. Various other libraries bundled in Mono's source are under their own licenses, such as Apache 2.0, Ms-PL, GPLv2. It doesn't change anything unless Microsoft contributed code under the (L)GPL to something they later make patent claims over, for the reasons TheBlackCat mentioned.

[vertexSymphony]

Correct.



Correct.

Although some libraries bundled with Mono are by Microsoft, and do include patent grants - specifically the Dynamic Language Runtime, IronPython, IronRuby, IronJava, F#, Razor template engine, ASP.NET MVC 1-4, HTML Agility Pack, and AJAX Library. I don't think I've missed anything.

Oh, additionally, the embedded version of Microsoft.NET, the Micro Framework, is under a GPLv3-compatible license with patent grant included (Apache 2.0). Mono doesn't use any MF code, though.



I think it's reasonable for them to be cautious about what they do - an "accidental" patent release could mean millions or billions of dollars of inadvertent risk in unrelated areas. So the process they've been taking is to cover full libraries they've cleared (like the DLR), and to work to add more and more code to the ECMA335 spec (compare the size of the first and sixth editions of ECMA335). Sadly, standards committees are slow to move. But it *is* being worked on - the 6th edition of ECMA335 is only a couple of weeks old.

Those are interesting pieces of information ... the problem is, if the situation **gets regularized**, how do we change community attitude towards mono? :S (I share the concerns until we are covered)

[TheBlackCat]

How do you prove a negative?

I answered this question already and you ignored it: by putting the entire .Net framework under the community promise.

What we have is the text on http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifi...e/default.aspx - it's almost word for word the language that Oracle uses for ODF. It's the sale language that covers their possible patent claims over RFC 2821, 3207, 4616, 2246, 2251, 2256, 2617, and 2529, to name a tiny subset of the covered specifications under either the Microsoft Community Promise or Open Specification Promise.

That doesn't cover everything. We have been through this already.

How does one prove that Python or Vala are patent free?

Python and Vala were not developed by a company that has destroying Linux as an official corporate goal. That puts them in a slightly different starting place.

As if the very existence of a patent promise is proof of danger.

It provides that Microsoft has patents on some parts of .Net, meaning it is not outlandish to fear they might have patents on other parts, patents that they have not put under any sort of promise.

[bwat47]

As I explained above, some of us are afraid Microsoft will continue being Microsoft and swoop in with a patent bomb. We don't need that in our life. Mono is not in any guise essential software, and there is no reason that I can see to invite trouble.

While I can see reason for some concern, this just seems like a "slippery slope" fallacy to me. Microsoft has shown no signs of patent agression towards mono, and if anything have been somewhat friendly to it (with the admittedly half-assed "community promise"). I find it highly unlikely MS is secretly planning to patent-bomb mono, and we don't even know how successful they'd be or how large of an impact it would have if they hypothetically tried that. Distros aren't exactly building mission critical stuff around mono anyway (many don't even include it in the default install). So what if programs like banshee or tomboy use mono? worse case scenerio for users of those apps and ms releases some mythical patent-bomb, is they switch to an alternative app in the future? I can understand not wanting mono being heavily integrated in distros by default, but I don't get why so many people freak out when any random app happens to use mono, its paranoia fueled over-reaction. By all means, don't use mono apps if you don't like it, but there's no reason to hate on a mono hackfest

[TheBlackCat]

Microsoft has shown no signs of patent agression towards mono, and if anything have been somewhat friendly to it (with the admittedly half-assed "community promise").

Isn't that exactly how "embrace, extend, extinguish" works? From my understanding, Microsoft has a long history of being "somewhat friendly" to things in order to destroy them.

So what if programs like banshee or tomboy use mono? worse case scenerio for users of those apps and ms releases some mythical patent-bomb, is they switch to an alternative app in the future?

Users are probably okay. Companies, not so much.

I can understand not wanting mono being heavily integrated in distros by default, but I don't get why so many people freak out when any random app happens to use mono, its paranoia fueled over-reaction. By all means, don't use mono apps if you don't like it, but there's no reason to hate on a mono hackfest

I think the problem is, how many "random apps" will it take before it becomes to much of a risk?

[directhex]

I answered this question already and you ignored it: by putting the entire .Net framework under the community promise.

I covered this in my reply to vertexSymphony.

That doesn't cover everything. We have been through this already.

But you're ignoring the main thrust of my argument. Are SSL and IPv6 (to name a couple of examples) at risk of patent litigation or not?

And if not, are you saying that Mono's core is fine, but only leaf libraries like WinForms are not?

Python and Vala were not developed by a company that has destroying Linux as an official corporate goal. That puts them in a slightly different starting place.

That really doesn't matter, from a patent perspective. There's nothing preventing Microsoft from filing a patent with .NET in mind, which inadvertently can be affected by other languages doing similar things. There's only so many ways to write a garbage collector.

Actually, the funny thing is, Python or Vala would be *worse* in this scenario. Mono's core is covered under a patent grant from Microsoft - can you say the same about Python? Has anyone checked to ensure Python isn't implementing any basic object oriented framework stuff to which Microsoft have patent claims? Or any other hostile patent holders like Oracle?

The answer to both of those is "no" by the way. We just assume Python is fine, and keep using it on an assumption powered by hope and dreams.

And that's fine - because we have Free Software, and if someone comes up with a patent, then you just work around the patent. Bam, job jobbed. The kernel still exists despite patent claims against it, because as soon as vague threats get substantiated, the code in question gets changed, and the patent nullified. People don't afford the same process to Mono because it's all a bullshit excuse.

It provides that Microsoft has patents on some parts of .Net, meaning it is not outlandish to fear they might have patents on other parts, patents that they have not put under any sort of promise.

It also assumes that Mono's implementation of things would necessarily violate any .NET patents, which is a false assumption. Do I need to cite Freetype here?