Conversation

Notices

1. Ali Gündüz Free Software Foundation , Free Software

   Am I the only one seeing a slight discrepancy of @RMS statements between http://ur1.ca/6d0x and http://ur1.ca/6dis ? !fsf !freesoftware

   Saturday, 27-Jun-09 13:11:06 UTC from Gwibber
   • Aaron Toponce Free Software

     @gnufs no, i see a major discrepancy. don't distribute #mono but do? don't write C# code but do? #tomboy sucks but i'ts #gpl? !freesoftware

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 13:16:23 UTC
   • mikankun Free Software Foundation

     @gnufs He's talking talking about the risks faced by including mono by default. He never says not to use it. Just don't depend on it. !fsf

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 14:50:44 UTC
   • Ali Gündüz Free Software Foundation , Free Software , mikankun

     @mikankun but on http://ur1.ca/6dis @RMS is for default inclusion of patented !freesoftware.imho his perl of wisdom: http://ur1.ca/6dqt !fsf

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 16:51:37 UTC
   • Björn Schießle

     @gnufs IMHO there is a difference between passive elements (accessing existing content) and active elements (creating new content/software)

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 18:01:06 UTC
   • mikankun

     @gnufs difference is that MS could in the future prevent use of the language for free software and kill off all free software written in it.

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 19:36:16 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Free Software Foundation

     @gnufs No, different contexts. Patent risks are different depending on whether you're using or distributing the sw, what it's for, etc. !fsf

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 22:57:10 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Free Software Foundation

     We know #Microsoft plans to attack free software with patents because they've said so. Implementing MS tech carries special risks. !fsf

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 23:17:39 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson GNU's Not Unix , Free Software Foundation

     Should the !GNU system support #NTFS? Yes. Should the GNU system _depend_ on NTFS? No. Same with #Mono or any other #Microsoft tech. !fsf

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 23:18:29 UTC
     jorgejbe likes this.
   • theuser GNU's Not Unix , Linux , Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd But #NTFS is an independent layer, it can be replaced by any other fs, but you cant compile C#-code with g++ !gnu / !linux

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 23:21:49 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson GNU's Not Unix , theuser

     @theuser Don't understand you. You can't read an #NTFS drive with the ext3 kernel module, either. !gnu

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 23:42:36 UTC
   • theuser GNU's Not Unix , Linux , Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd Nearly all software will work on ext3 and on ntfs, but some software only works with .net !gnu !linux

     Saturday, 27-Jun-09 23:54:20 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson theuser

     @theuser Bad analogy maybe. The point I was trying to make was about general dependencies, not platforms for compiling/running software.!gnu

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:05:57 UTC
   • Aaron Toponce GNU's Not Unix , theuser

     @theuser what are you talking about? .net is not a #filesystem. it's a runtime environment. you're comparing apples and oranges. !gnu

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:12:45 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson GNU's Not Unix

     The question we have to ask is "what will be the consequence for us and our users when #Microsoft makes good on their patent threats?" !gnu

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:17:10 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson GNU's Not Unix

     If we allow people to run their own C# programs, but do not depend on it ourselves, any negative consequenses will be the fault of MS. !gnu

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:19:46 UTC
   • Aaron Toponce Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd then we either pull it, or fork it. honestly, what are we worried about? however, _most_ of #mono is based on #ecma .net standards

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:19:56 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson GNU's Not Unix

     If important parts of !GNU depend on #Mono, then we've fallen into an entirely foreseeable trap and we bear at least part of the blame.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:23:09 UTC
   • Aaron Toponce Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd #fud

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:23:34 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Free Software Foundation , Richard Stallman Political Notes

     It's not a matter of "here @rms supports inclusion of patented software, and here he doesn't". !fsf

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:25:46 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Free Software Foundation

     Ethics demands consideration of the consequences of your actions with every action, not blind adherence to rules. !fsf

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:28:19 UTC
     Tim Goh likes this.
   • Matthew Davidson Aaron Toponce

     @atoponce This isn't my #FUD, it's Ballmer's FUD. http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3513440381.html

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:34:56 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Aaron Toponce

     @atoponce Are you volunteering to do the work of reimplementing all #Mono-dependant software in #GNU when the time comes?

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:41:15 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Aaron Toponce

     @atoponce #ECMA means nothing. They only require RAND terms on patented tech, still enough to make it non-free. http://ur1.ca/6e7w

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 00:44:24 UTC
   • Aaron Toponce GNU's Not Unix , Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd 1) !gnu is shipping and developing dotGNU and Portable.NET 2) AT&T hasn't gone after us for C++, have they? 3) still #fud

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 05:05:26 UTC
   • Pandark Aaron Toponce

     @atoponce #Microsoft picked up the art of #FUD […] and used it as a primary #marketing tool much as IBM had in the previous decade.(from WP)

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 05:45:59 UTC
   • Michael B. Trausch Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd And? Unless there is a patent number, it's moot. Patents *CAN BE WORKED AROUND* in software.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 05:54:14 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Aaron Toponce

     @atoponce See http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono for why _implementing_ C# is good, but _depending_ on C# is dangerous...

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 07:48:25 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Aaron Toponce

     @atoponce AT&T have not AFAIK promised/threatened to target free software over patents. Microsoft have, repeatedly.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 07:51:35 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Michael B. Trausch

     @mtrausch Great! Can you work around the MP3 patents for us? I'm surprised nobody has done it already if it's as easy as you suggest.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 10:57:38 UTC
   • Michael B. Trausch Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd How is a patent on an algorithm comparable to a a runtime environment? How much do you know about patent law, anyway?

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 15:03:17 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Michael B. Trausch

     @mtrausch A compression algorithm isn't much like a runtime environment. That's your point: any software patent can be worked around.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 21:31:12 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Michael B. Trausch

     @mtrausch As you're saying there's no problem and clueless n00bs like RMS should shut up, I assume your legal credentials are impressive.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 21:37:06 UTC
   • Michael B. Trausch Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd Nowhere did I say that. I *did* say that s/w patents can be worked around by (a) modifying/removing code, or (b) invalidation.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 23:13:27 UTC
   • Michael B. Trausch Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd Only a fool would call RMS a “clueless n00b”. Note, your words, not mine. Emotionally-charged arguments are not necessary.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 23:14:00 UTC
   • Michael B. Trausch Matthew Davidson

     @freemjd No, my point was in the context of Mono. If you read further into it, that is not my fault.

     Sunday, 28-Jun-09 23:14:30 UTC
   • Matthew Davidson Aaron Toponce , Michael B. Trausch

     @mtrausch @atoponce Have to concede that #140 chars is insufficient for a useful outcome from a difference of opinion. Blog post to follow.

     Monday, 29-Jun-09 04:26:50 UTC