As It Stands, Ubuntu Has No Issues With Mono

[BlackStar]

the point is. why should we take the risk?
this is different from some unknown patent that may be infringed by the kernel. this is a well defined piece of software that we can just leave out.

i haven't used C# but is it so much better than, say, Python?
to me it looks like yet another interpreted language. why bother?

What difference does it make? It is a sad fact that virtually every non-trivial application infringes on *some* patent. When things like mouse clicks, scrollbars or "methods that retrieve data from the internet upon user request" can be patented, you understand that the whole system is broken and ridiculous. Hell, even *Microsoft* is asking for patent reform!

Besides, the US is not the whole world (shocking, I know!) Most of us simply *don't care* whether Microsoft holds a freaking .Net patent in the US. (Ok, I lied: we do care, because we want you to use our software. Stop being sissies and fix your patent system! )

Other than that, C# is a JIT-compiled, statically typed, object oriented language with functional capabilities. Python is an interpreted, dynamically typed, multiparadigm language. Pretty different beasts - neither is intrinsically "better" than the other.

But even if they were the same old thing, it still wouldn't matter: developers like C# and create some awesome stuff with it. That's all that counts.

[tormod]

Show me one time where M$ has *ever* tried to create a standard for the good of all? Their only interest, and they've stated numerous times, is to reap profit later on.

What, a company not doing things for the good of all? Just trying to make profit, now or later? I am shocked.

Welcome to the world. Google for "capitalism" to catch up.

[Ex-Cyber]

I thought most of the .net stack was opened after standardization.

Fundamental parts like the C# language and the Common Language Infrastructure are standardized, as are most of the basic APIs (e.g. console and file I/O). My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that any patents that Microsoft has over these components have a royalty-free license for anyone using them to implement the spec. However, the .NET Framework as a whole contains much more that is proprietary, and .NET applications aimed at Windows users routinely use these components. Mono has implemented some of these in the interest of greater cross-platform compatibility, which AFAIK is where the patent concerns and the Novell/MS deal start to come in. However, it doesn't follow that just because Mono implements a proprietary interface that they are infringing MS patents, and the stated policy of the Mono project is to avoid using patented implementation methods. Still, some are concerned that conflict is inevitable as Mono and the .NET Framework continue to evolve.

[Yfrwlf]

Patent and other issues aside, M$ loves it because it is building on their platform which they control. They are NOT an open standards body with equal love towards all platforms. How comfortable would you be if M$ took over (and they have at least partially..) a standards body which was important to Linux? They are far from neutral, obviously, so Linux .NET will always trail behind Windows .NET.

Show me one time where M$ has *ever* tried to create a standard for the good of all? Their only interest, and they've stated numerous times, is to reap profit later on. They funded Novell with their patent coupons to help create this Linux .NET knockoff for one reason alone: to get even the GNU/Linux developers working for them and their M$ platform.

As someone with a lot of experience with M$, I'll take my chances with other standards bodies that are actually platform-neutral. Or in other words, help promote actual *standards*.

[krogy]

the point is. why should we take the risk?
this is different from some unknown patent that may be infringed by the kernel. this is a well defined piece of software that we can just leave out.

i haven't used C# but is it so much better than, say, Python?
to me it looks like yet another interpreted language. why bother?

[deanjo]

Ubuntu has always been the one brave enough to step into the grey area.

This is what I don't get, Novell does the work and development but Ubuntu gets credit? It's starting to sound like apparmor all over again.....

[FunkyRider]

Ubuntu has always been the one brave enough to step into the grey area. Win32 Codecs fellas? Supporting Mono is not strange at all since their primary objective is to grab markets, which needs a distribution that is usable no matter what.

[krazy]

Did you look at the ECMA website? Both Microsoft and HP agreed to license patents on a non-discriminatory basis depending on the needs of the one requesting it.

Hmm, I hadn't seen that, but RAND licensing doesn't change what I said. The CSIRO wifi patents were also RAND licensed.

Also, the definition of "Reasonable" varies widely. Wikipedia has an interesting discussion, and there are some more interesting comments here.

Additionally, one of the inventors of the CLR states that the patents are available "royalty free and otherwise RAND" basis for the purpose of implementing C# and the CLR.

The legal agreement you linked above doesn't say royalty free. Unfortunately that guy's opinion is legally irrelevant.

[King InuYasha]

I'm sorry but that's simply not the case. A good example of this is the CSIRO wifi patent case. A wireless communication technique was patented by the CSIRO and was incorporated into the standard for 802.11a and 802.11g. Earlier this year, over a dozen companies which made use of these techniques, most using their own implementation, reached a settlement with the CSIRO for about $1 billion over unpaid royalties. The companies included Hewlett-Packard, Asus, Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, 3Com, Buffalo Technologies, Microsoft, and Nintendo, and now the CSIRO are considering other targets (see the link above).

Now the difference here is that the CSIRO made clear from the start that if their technology was included in a standard then people who implemented it would have to pay royalties. In Microsoft's case, they are encouraging use of their tech while saying "don't worry guys, we won't sue.."

With their history, why should anyone believe them?



Sorry, but that statement is also completely incorrect. The Halloween docs are just one publicly known example of MS discussing targeting linux. Ever heard of "embrace, extend, extinguish"?

One 'gem' from those docs (written in 1998) is this quote (emphasis mine):



Now re-read that last line, recall that this is taken from a confidential internal Microsoft memo, and tell me again why anyone should trust patented tech that Microsoft 'gives' the community? If you would like to see the context, see the full document linked above.

Given all this, I think the FSF's statement is quite conservative. I'd be advising people to avoid mono like the plague.

Did you look at the ECMA website? Both Microsoft and HP agreed to license patents on a non-discriminatory basis depending on the needs of the one requesting it.

Additionally, one of the inventors of the CLR states that the patents are available "royalty free and otherwise RAND" basis for the purpose of implementing C# and the CLR.

[krazy]

The lack of nuance is simply astounding.
When something is standardized, one can interface with it freely. While Microsoft may have patents in the implementation of .NET, Mono has a different implementation that achieves the same standard, and it's perfectly legal.

I'm sorry but that's simply not the case. A good example of this is the CSIRO wifi patent case. A wireless communication technique was patented by the CSIRO and was incorporated into the standard for 802.11a and 802.11g. Earlier this year, over a dozen companies which made use of these techniques, most using their own implementation, reached a settlement with the CSIRO for about $1 billion over unpaid royalties. The companies included Hewlett-Packard, Asus, Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, 3Com, Buffalo Technologies, Microsoft, and Nintendo, and now the CSIRO are considering other targets (see the link above).

Now the difference here is that the CSIRO made clear from the start that if their technology was included in a standard then people who implemented it would have to pay royalties. In Microsoft's case, they are encouraging use of their tech while saying "don't worry guys, we won't sue.."

With their history, why should anyone believe them?

Nor have Microsoft ever undertake specific action to a major FOSS project (maybe companies, but not projects).
If you're basing 'evil' on marketing claims, a succesful OS and legal support, then there's something wrong with your definition. Microsoft ain't pretty, granted, but they're not in business to make our lives as Linux users difficult.

Sorry, but that statement is also completely incorrect. The Halloween docs are just one publicly known example of MS discussing targeting linux. Ever heard of "embrace, extend, extinguish"?

One 'gem' from those docs (written in 1998) is this quote (emphasis mine):

The Linux community is very willing to copy features from other OS's if it will serve their needs. Consequently, there is the very real long term threat that as MS expends the development dollars to create a bevy of new features in NT, Linux will simply cherry pick the best features an [sic] incorporate them into their codebase.

The effects of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.

Now re-read that last line, recall that this is taken from a confidential internal Microsoft memo, and tell me again why anyone should trust patented tech that Microsoft 'gives' the community? If you would like to see the context, see the full document linked above.

Given all this, I think the FSF's statement is quite conservative. I'd be advising people to avoid mono like the plague.