Conversation
Notices
-
Oracle's importance to Java's future overstated - http://bit.ly/aZxvbM fork, fork, fork... #java #oracle
-
@magneito well, that rather depends on whether these are included: http://bit.ly/dcvnUU
-
@glynmoody Every line in the mono code base complies with the FSF's definition of free. Patents are another issue, and don't change licenses
-
@magneito it's the patents that worry me: they are a digital sword of Damocles, hanging over anyone that uses the affected code...
-
@glynmoody If the patents in Mono worry you, why don't the (putative) patents in the kernel worry you?
-
@magneito by definition, they make it non-free: they are *monopolies*, which are about restricting what people can do
-
@lefty because they are putative: at the moment it's just FUD
-
@glynmoody Well, so _you_ say. Microsoft says they're there, and has expressed its intention to defend them on numerous occasions.
-
@glynmoody They've similarly expressed their intention _not_ to sue over Mono. It seems your concerns might be inverted.
-
@lefty microsoft has provided no proof; it has also *not* sued Linux over this. it's not "me" saying it, it's a logical response to facts
-
@lefty it's called trust: I've been observing and writing about Microsoft for 30 years. their track record is not good: Netscape, OOXML...
-
@glynmoody You seem to be a little selective in your beliefs as to their likely actions. The kernel quite arguably infringes _some_ patent.
-
@lefty I don't think so: as I say, I've observed a consistent pattern across 3 decades: anything is justified in order to win
-
@lefty but I agree, it's likely, given the patent thickets in sw; but the point is, it's not something the kernel hackers have decided to do
-
@glynmoody If anything is justified, why not tie up the kernel in lawsuits....? You seem to feel they're just "biding their time" on Mono.
-
@glynmoody Not being privy to the contents of the collective minds of "the kernel hackers", I can't say what they "decided" or on what basis
-
@lefty there are too many big companies with too many patents that can be used against MS for the kernel to be attacked; mono is vulnerable
-
@glynmoody "Vulnerable" according to whom? Not Canonical's legal staff, apparently. And if it's such a problem, why isn't "DOT GNU" as well?
-
@lefty OK, I'll rephrase it: I don't think Linus decided to re-implement stuff for which patents had been claimed
-
@glynmoody Grand. That accounts for 1 of the over 33,000 contributors to the kernel. Lack of intention just makes infringement non-willful.
-
@lefty DotGNU probably is - maybe that's why the last update on it is 6 June 2009
-
@lefty why not invoke Novell, they seem pretty happy with Microsoft's patents too...
-
@lefty I get the impression his voice carries more weight than most
-
@glynmoody "DOT GNU" still a GNU project and thus, supported by the FSF. How is it _not_ a "risk" if Mono is such a clear one?
-
@lefty er, I just said maybe it is, but pointed out it hasn't been updated recently - maybe RMS changed his mind
-
@glynmoody You're missing my point: its mere presence—endorsed, as it were, by the FSF—shows a clear inconsistency in their position.
-
@lefty I'm just drawing up a letter to RMS on this to find out...
-
@glynmoody I'd be thrilled to hear a response, but I predict you won't get one.
-
@lefty now sent. if I get a response, I'll post it on my blog: http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/
-
-
@glynmoody perhaps this will be useful before you email RMS (more than listening to @lefty) http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/faq.html
-
@ruiseabra I seem not to be finding "How is DOT GNU somehow _not_ at risk of violating Microsoft patents if Mono so clearly is?"
-
@ruiseabra does that answer the question of current status? can't see it... already sent off email, but thanks...
-
@glynmoody Also, RMS has plenty times told he has no problem with with many C# and dotNET, you have to look at how Mono and dotGNU differ.
-
@lefty dotGNU (at least when I first heard of it) had those issues in concern at it's design. Mono not.
-
@lefty dotGNU, and Mono if you remove the patent encumbered parts, are relatively useless in practice.
-
@ruiseabra You miss my point: if Mono is a "danger", then DOT GNU _must_ be an equal danger. Yet the FSF endorses it.
-
@glynmoody I don't get why existing patents against MS could stop attacks against kernel Linux but not Mono. Please clarify?
-
@lxoliva because companies like IBM care about the kernel - products use it; they don't care about Mono, 'cos they don't use it much/at all
-
@glynmoody so it's not just that patents exist that can halt MS's attacks, it's also who holds them. that makes more sense to me ;-) tks
-
@glynmoody indeed. Writing new sw for Mono is not bad, but it's unnecessarily risky.
-
@glynmoody Last comment in here: http://is.gd/dhFoc (123 says: July 14, 2009 at 1:18 pm) summarizes well what @rms has said in plenty emails
-
@glynmoody You can also check this email to W3C from dotGNU leader, summarizing well how it differs from Mono: http://is.gd/dhFzi
-
@glynmoody in particular the paragraph beginning with «Since the DotGNU project is committed to using the GNU GPL(...)»
-
@lefty It's hard to miss points which are themselves so lost in webs of misleading (and sometimes contradictory) information.
-
@ruiseabra This seems straightforward: either it's "dangerous" or it's not. You can't both damn and endorse it depending on where it lives.
-
@lefty well, fortunately that isn't the vector they analyse, it is the vector you analyse, though.
-
@ruiseabra That's absurd. How can they claim that Mono is "dangerous" at all? It's not too "dangerous" to be a GNU project.
-
@glynmoody, links of interest on #Mono, #DotGNU & #MSFT patent issue: From @rms: ur1.ca/6d0x ur1.ca/7hj1 From me: ur1.ca/7d6n ur1.ca/0kc34
-
Strange that ppl assume an organization would not respond on an issue when that very org has already published multiple essays on subject.
Kat Walsh likes this. -
@bkuhn The problem is maybe that some ppl have different views on the matter and each side seems to reiterate the same points over and over.
-
@fheinz This makes no sense. If a language is inherently "risky", it's risky no matter _what_ you do with it, right?
-
@lefty You are correct. Mono is useful to run SW that has already been written, not so much to write new software. And it's not a language.
-
@lefty Just for the record: No one from the FSF ever told dotGNU would not be subject to patent risks AFAIK
-
@fheinz Fine, C# is the language, and RMS has raised use of _that_ as an issue. How is it an issue for new software, but not old software?
-
@ovidius But if Mono is "dangerous", isn't dotGNU equally dangerous? Isn't it confusing, at least, to endorse one and decry the other?
-
@lefty AFAIK the FSF does not endorse any of them anymore.
-
@lefty it's not an issue for old software because you're not writing it.
-
@lefty You can't do anything about the risk for that software, but you can avoid it for new software.
-
@fheinz What possible relevance does that have? Do you think "somebody else wrote it" gives you a pass for patent infringement?
-
@lefty hence: using Mono to run existing SW is useful, when you have no choice, but writing new SW for Mono is incurring unnecessary risk.
-
@fheinz But it's the _same risk_, there's no difference. If it's "acceptable" in one instance, then it's acceptable, period.
-
@lefty I'm afraid you are mixing two issues: writing Mono, and writing on Mono. I don't do either, nor do I use it, BTW.
-
@lefty It's not a matter of "acceptable" or not. It's a matter of "is it wise?"
-
@lxoliva exactly...it's all very Machiavellian, I'm afraid....
-
@rbanffy indeed - thanks for that help
-
@ruiseabra thanks, I'll take a look at all that
-
@fheinz That still begs the question. If it's "unwise" to use it for new code, it's equally "unwise" to use it for existing code.
-
@bkuhn thanks, I'll study those carefully
-
@lefty of course it was unwise to use it in the first place! But if it's already written, there's not much you can do about it.
-
@fheinz Of course there's something "you can do about it". You can rewrite it from scratch, in a "safer" language.
-
@fheinz Again, if it was "unwise in the first place", and it's still "unwise", why is there an FSF project to support this unwisdom?
-
@lefty oh come on, you can find all about the history on the net Miguel has even a blog post on this ...
-
@lefty It's good to have a free .NET implementation. It's not optimal to write original code for it. See http://ur1.ca/6d0x
-
@lefty sure you can reimplement it, if you have the means. Or you can use another program (that's what I do). Mono is a last resort.
-
@lefty last resort as in "if everything else fails, ok, there's Mono". I think of Mono as an alternative to WINE.
-
@lefty I don't get it: how do you support past unwisdom without access to a time machine?
-
@fheinz By providing an aid to ongoing present potential infringement, I suppose. I'm not the one arguing against Mono.
-
@ovidius It's not a question of the history: it's the ongoing incoherence of it all.
-
@fheinz I'm not sure I've noticed the strident outcry against Wine any place...
-
@lefty I'm not arguing against Mono either. I'm arguing against developing new software on it. Quite a difference.
-
@lefty I'm afraid I'm having trouble getting my message through. Of course Mono is useful in the same way WINE is.
-
@lefty but of course, I don't see anyone dumb enough to develop to the Windows API because they can run it on WINE
-
@lefty if you are worried about end-user liability for infringement, you may have a point, but not one to which there is any viable answer.
-
@fheinz Isn't "end-user liability" the specific concern being raised about Mono, though...?
-
@lefty not by me. The problem I see is another: let me put it in "slashdot business model" format
-
@lefty 1) I invest a lot of time building an app on Mono
-
@fheinz 2) later down the road, MS uses its Patent Portfolio from Hell to sue Mono out of existence
-
@lefty 2) later down the road, MS uses its Patent Portfolio from Hell to sue Mono out of existence
-
@lefty 3) my app suddenly has no platform, I must re-write it from scratch
-
@lefty 4) Profit?????
-
@lefty that's too risky to me, I'd rather write my stuff on a less risky platform.
-
@fheinz So you make a rational decision not to use Mono. What that got to do with strident demands to e.g. remove it from Ubuntu, though...?
-
@fheinz That's fine, it's your decision. Some won't allow others their _different_ decision, however. See, e.g., the idiocy around "gnote".
-
@lefty Sorry if I seem strident to you... I thought I was being perfectly reasonable and civil
-
@lefty I do not demand that Ubuntu remove Mono, but I think it is an unwise decision for them.
-
@lefty and as a matter of fact, I remove Mono from any distro I use. If it doesn't provide a good experience without it, it's not for me.
-
@lefty I think Gnote is doing the right thing: provides useful functionality without dependency on Mono. What you suggested!
-
@fheinz Except that's not at all why it was written, and that sort of politicization inclined the author to give up on it in disgust.
-
@lefty "Political is not a
-
@lefty 1) "Political" is not a bad word 2) wanting to have a desktop that is based on low-risk platforms is perfectly rational
-
@fheinz maybe some people are on a jihad against Mono. I just don't want to use it, and I'd like my distros to not force it on me.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the