OSNews

Six years ago 64 Mb of ram was quite standard on most new computers, and they would run Windows or Linux just fine. I'm surprised now that people regard 64 Mb of ram the same way I would regard 16 Mb.

Sure 64 Mb isn't much for a desktop or laptop today, most stock computers come with 256 Mb of ram or more, but you don't really need that much for something like mono anyway. Hey there's j2me running on Palms with far less ram than that after all.

So, hows the license issue with MONO going ? Is it solved now ?

There was never a problem with the license, all of Mono is licensed unter the terms of the GPL, LGPL and MIT-License. All three are great Free Software licenses.

Well how about the licensing terms for all the patent-pending Microsoft IP in Mono? Have those terms been ironed out?

Dear lord, here we go again. An article about Mono on the 770 and all anyone can think about is MS patents.

Funny how it is almost always anonymous people who bring up this "problem" (one that exists for EVERY OS project, not just Mono btw).

I think OSNews should simply ban anonymous comments...I bet the comment section would be more enjoyable afterwards. Although there are some insightful anon. posts, but for the most part, anon posters are trolls.

>I think OSNews should simply ban anonymous comments...

Or, as an alternative to censorship, perhaps someone at Novell could addresses the licensing issues.

This has the advantage of also making Mono safe for use.

Your plan just sets developer's up to be used by Microsoft.

The people running Mono need to address the licensing issues or shut the project down.

Why can't Novell do something like they did with linux?


Agreed.
Mono should get the IP issue clarified or GET OFF THE LINUX PLATFORM.
If you don't understand what FREE means then you need to build your own OS and take your RISK with you.

Additionally, Mono should label it's site:
NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

You need to honestly step up to the plate and specify the RISKS involved with the use of Mono.

By the way, great name.
I get it: Mono: the linux infection.

Without mono the linux will dead or fall to hobbyos state in the next year. With or without patents.

there is absolutely no REAL RISK

there is a bunch of lofty possibly pie in the sky type of risk.

but that is inherent in everything including brushing your teeth this morning

Mr Troll, I don't see anywhere the fact that Novel _should_ address the licence issues. Currently we have NO problems. If you are afraid enough of Microsoft -or you, and all the trolls around are afraid of changing their current languages-, then stop trolling.

Everytime -my God, everytime- an article about Mono appears you ALWAYS appear with FUD comments. Always. It looks like something personal. Really. Get a life.

>Mr Troll

Great start with a flame.

>I don't see anywhere the fact that Novel _should_
>address the licence issues. Currently we have NO
>problems. If you are afraid enough of Microsoft -or you,
> and all the trolls around are afraid of changing their
>current languages-, then stop trolling.

Well, then I certainly won't use the technology and I will warn as many people as possible to the risk involved.

>Everytime -my God, everytime- an article about Mono
>appears you ALWAYS appear with FUD comments. Always.
>It looks like something personal. Really. Get a life.

How can you call this FUD? I cited the actual patent application in my post!!! You just responded with an off-topic flame.

Please, please, please do not continue posting the same old posts, asking the same old questions, spreading the same old FUD, and wasting mine and everyone else's time and bandwidth. Practically all peoples voting points must go on your posts just to drop them out of view from an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable web site.

Too true but then these comments would be boring if no one was allowed to flame or spread FUD. Its all part of the fun and banter that makes using and developing OSS really enjoyable. In fact I cant believe no one has yet mentioned Seth's blog post again!

a) The licensing issues have been resolved
b) The licensing issues have not been resolved
c) You don't care if at some point in the future, a large number of unsuspecting open source projects get hit with a takedown notice at the whim of Microsoft.


IMHO it is also true for most linux projects. Who know, the PHP, Python, Apahce, Samba, gcc, glibc, gtk, kde, mozilla, openoffice, wine, lazarus, gambas, kdevelop, etc doesn't hurt any M$ patents ? Propbably the most of linux projects can be sued by software patents...

I'm really so sick of hearing this argument. There is a gigantic difference between the fact that you might accidentally be infringing and knowingly infringing.

Of course you can always get hit by a car when crossing the street and of course that doesn't mean you should never leave your house but that does not mean you should cross at a blind corner with your eyes closed! Use the crosswalk or be very smart and careful!

Does this analogy make sense to you?! My god the "you might always be infringing" argument is so idiotic! I believe it only exists so short sighted mono fanboys can just go on without worring about how dumb they are being.

There is a gigantic difference between the fact that you might accidentally be infringing and knowingly infringing.

Can you "knowingly infringe" when you don't know for sure? :-)

Everybody keeps claiming that Microsoft might have patents on parts of .NET. For that matter, they might have patents on parts of the Linux Kernel (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/1338228&tid=155).

So should we stop using the Linux kernel now? Microsoft might have patents on it!

The fact is that Mono does not knowlingly infringe any patents, because Microsoft hasn't listed any actual patents it has that are required to implement the ECMA standards. The only way to know for sure would be to do a patent search, which is expensive. Further, doing a patent search and finding anything could make you liable for treble damages in any patent infringement suit, so it's actually better to just not know. Don't blame me, blame the SNAFU patent/lawsuit practies of the USA.

The patent situation is nearly identical between Mono and Linux. Neither group knows anything for sure, by design (to avoid treble damages).

Until someone brings forth specific patents that Mono/Linux/Apache/etc. actually infringes, nothing can be done. And until that point, raising the "but Microsoft might have patents" FUD against Mono is only a waste of time.

>The only way to know for sure would be to do a patent
>search, which is expensive.

OR you could do a Google search for ".NET patent" which is free and takes 0.38 seconds.

http://www.google.com/search?q=.NET+patent

This would lead you to: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984052.html -- ".Net patent could stifle standards effort"

The article links to a patent application entitled "Application program interface for network software platform", which seems reference such obscure things as System.Collections, System.Net.Sockets, System.Windows.Forms.

Well that was hard. Perhaps someone from Novell, preferable a patent lawyer, could address this patent application and how it affects Mono.

*PING*

No one from the Mono community has any comments on this?

let's try to give an answere, even if it doesn't make sense to answere the same questions again and again.

Let's focus on one example you have mentioned: System.Collections

First let me say that we are talking about software patents. Software patents has nothing to do with a specific implementation, software patents covers ideas completely independent from implementations, implementations are covered by copyright.

So look at System.Collections that are all basic things: lists, bit-arrays, hash-tables, and so on. Let's assume that MS has used a great idea to implement the System.Collections.Stack and have a patent on this idea. The Mono guys have implemented a System.Collections.Stack too without looking at the MS code. So we have two options:

1. They have implemented the "MS idea" which is patented.
2. They have implemented the stack by avoiding the "MS idea"

If option 2 is true we are done, no problem.
If option 1 is valid we have a problem if MS comes to us and says that we are using their patent. Than we have again two options:

1. We will find another way to implement the stack, than everything is fine.
2. We will not find another way to implement the stack.

If point 1 is true, the problem is solved.
If point 2 is true, we and all other programers have a problem. Because situation 2 would mean, that there is no way to implement a stack without violate a patent. This would mean that every stack, never mind if he is implemented in c#, python, c c++, java or any other language would violate the MS patent.

I hope you can see the point. In all the .Net libs there is nothing which is that new that there was nothing comparable in other language/toolkit libs. So either there is a way around the patent, you can contest the patent or everyone who do the same thing violate the patent.
And beside this few MS patents there are thousends of other patents were you have exactly the same problem.

Yes, it's a crappy situation but that's the situation for every programmer if he writes more than just a "hello-world-app" whether he uses c#, java, c++, c or any other language.

If google doesn't find any result for search "Python patent" it doesn't mean patent-safe Python.

For the love of all that's holy. Name one piece of open source software that you can guarantee doesn't break a patent of Microsoft...

Well, I certainly can name one piece of open source software that seems to be almost guaranteed break a patent of Microsoft.

The problem is that this one piece of software is being pushed by some very influential people as the preferred way of developing Linux desktop application thus jeopardizing all of those desktop applications.

Well, I certainly can name one piece of open source software that seems to be almost guaranteed break a patent of Microsoft.

It is not a too big difference. M$ have about 10 000 patents or more. If they want sue any FOSS (or any other) project, probably they can. And there is a Novell behind the mono with their own patents. It is also true for java and SUN, but who is behind the gcc, KDE, GNOME, PHP, Python, SAMBA, Perl, Apache, wine, etc ? And it is also true for smaller companies and their products: Qt is also can hurts any patent. Or your own commercial application...

If you don't know how many and what kind of patents have the microsoft you never will in safe with any FOSS product. The software patents are generally bad things, it is very good for big software giants like M$, IBM, SUN, etc but can kill any smaller company or project.

I agree with your points, so let's discuss how Qt is viral and controlled by the proprietary Trolltech.

> Emacs.

Would you even be able to use emacs with a touchscreen keyboard? One of the devs did get his bluetooth keyboard working with the 770, but I think using emacs without an external keyboard would be nearly impossible. Vim, on the other hand... :-)

Man, get out of here. Your insightful AND on-topic comments are way out of place on OSNews... What were you thinking?

> 1) The prototype Nokia 770 I used for the port arrived on Monday.
> It was sent to me by the nice folks at Nokia just a few days after I
> emailed them about the Mono port to ARM. So far they have been
> interested and supportive.

Did you get the 770 through the developer purchase program, or were they just really impressed by your work and sent you one out of respect? I'm just curious because I entered into the program a few weeks ago and haven't heard anything definite about whether I qualify, so I'd like to know for sure if I should stop keeping my hopes up

The difference is that Mono knowingly infringes MS patants, while it is not clear if the projects you mentioned do infringe MS patents.
It is not a too big difference. IMHO the M$ never will sue the mono project directly (and specially not the ECMA standard part of mono), because it is not too good advertisement for the company. Probably the M$ can kill any linux projects, but IMHO M$ doesn't want SCO-like repute. The small marionett-companies, like SCO IMHO far more dangerous for linux, but this companies can't sue the mono (or not more then any other project).

>IMHO the M$ never will sue the mono project directly
>(and specially not the ECMA standard part of mono)

So are you offering legal indemnification?

If MS were at some point to be granted injunctive relief shutting down my Mono-based OSS project (or seeking roylaties), how exactly would your "honest opinion" be of use to me?

So are you offering legal indemnification?

Is anybody can offer any similar thing to any FOSS project ? Who can offering legal indemnification for SAMBA, Wine, GCC, Python, linux kernel, etc ?