Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 17th May 2011 12:05 UTC
Mono Project Two weeks ago we covered the news that the Mono development team were let go kicked out by the new owners of Novel, Attachmate, apparently to move operations to Germany. Miguel de Icazza, founder of Mono, has taken this opportunity to break off on his own and has started a new company, Xamarin, to bring commercial .NET development products to iOS and Android.
Permalink for comment 473522
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: legal Problems are deep
by oiaohm on Wed 18th May 2011 08:04 UTC in reply to "RE: legal Problems are deep"
Member since:

The C# 4.0 language and the .NET 4 CLR have not yet been standardized by ECMA. As such, you would need to use C# 3.0 and CLR 2.0 if you want to be extra, extra paranoid. You can of course do this easily with Mono

Yes this shows how thick you are. The extentions past ECMA are spread through the code base because they are done before ECMA approve is done. Mind you if the draft of C# 4.0 langugage and other part had been released on the community promise site of MS the implementation of it could be done now legally.

Problem this has not been done. So really before implementing for all usage 4.0 should be waiting in the development tree for the ECMA process to complete. It has not been done this way.

1) Mono ships with a bunch of Microsoft (authored and copyright by Microsoft) code that is available under the Apache 2.0 license. This includes the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime), ASP.NET MVC, MEF (the Managed Extensibility Framework), IronRuby, IronPython, and F#. Apache 2.0 includes a patent grant.

Yes some of these items are fine. Some their is the mistake of extending. I am locking to ECMA but really there is not a legally valid version.

So yes a bundle of legally clear could be done. Of course every part would have to be legally clear.

2) Microsoft actively supports the Moonlight initiative (including the CLR 4 implementation) by donating the test suite that Microsoft uses for Silverlight internally and fully licensing the Microsoft media codecs.

This is part of the deal between Novell and Microsoft. So no this does not extend to the new company. Codecs were licensed to Novell. So yes your dead here because Microsoft licensed the codecs to Novell and Novell customers not to everyone. So to use those codecs they have to be sourced from Novell.

New deal will have to be struck on this for the new company. Yes one of those annoying traps Miguel De Icaza got to disregard while working at Novell and protected by the deals Novell had.

3) The entire .NET micro framework (up to version 4.1) is available under the Apache 2.0 license (again with a patent grant)

Smoke and mirrors. Its legal for me to use .Net micro framework. This is not Mono you download it from microsoft and its legally free and clear.

My point is mono is not legally safe. This needs to be addressed. Not sweep under carpet and hope it goes away.

4) Microsoft actively promotes the use of Mono. For example, they write tutorials in the F# Developer Center about how to use F# on Mono.

Invalid. Legally free and clear to be used by the Novell MS deal covered stuff. New company not covered by this deal. When deal expires toast again. Providing tutorials don't void patents. If it did h264 would not be patented. There are tutorials how to code that up as well. By the patent holders.

5) Miguel and his team have regularly present Mono and Mono solutions at official Microsoft developer conferences.

Again part of the Novell MS deal. Does not mean patent clear in any way shape or form. No different to the mp3 patent case where the developer of mp3 openly promoted the software for many years then asked for patents payments. I can invite a person to talk about H264 at a conference does not make its patents magically disappear.

6) Miguel himself was named a Microsoft MVP years AFTER staring the Mono project

Same Novell MS deal again. Google staff are not allowed to accept MVP. Why its award to people who help the profitability of Microsoft. Setting people up to be sued in future would be perfect grounds to grant a MVP. MVP is reason for fear not any form of magical protection.

7) Microsoft employees are around Mono all the time. For example, Scott Hanselman did a podcast about how the Hanselminutes iPhone app was written with MonoTouch. I saw Scott at a StackOverlow DevDays last year. The next speaker after him (Rory) did a demo of MonoDevelop and MonoTouch. After the conference, Scott did a podcast with Rory, Joel Spolsky, and Jeff Atwood. I know that Scott Hanselman is not the CEO of Microsoft but he is quite high-profile and this is just an example.

Again Novell MS deal. Again people don't mean clearance from patents. H264 examples again.

How about Attachmate? Well, they released Mono under an MIT/X11 license.

How dumb are you. MIT/X11 license contains no patent grants or transfers. So no legal coverage transferred from Attachmate to anyone else. Thank you Miguel De Icaza for systematically removing GPLv2/v3 from the mono code base to convert to MIT/X11. Yes wise selection would have been the Apache 2.0 license with patent grant. No not creating this legal nightmare. Now Miguel De Icaza is in the same boat I have been due to his actions.

Also, most of the Novell patents have been sold and are becoming part of the Open Innovation Network.

Not important due to the sale process none of these Novell patents can be used against Microsoft. Their defensive use is no more.

Finally, they fired the whole Mono team. Good luck getting a court to side with you in preventing them for using their skills to make a living unless you have some very specific copyright or patent claims. Those are not the droids we are looking for.

It will not be attachmate making the patent claims you can bet some troll company will be used. Simple fact here Mono team is not well funded at the moment. The process of trying to fight in court would run them out of funds. So judgment most likely will never be required. Microsoft did not fire the Mono team is quite free and clear to sue their asses off.

People hate Mono because .NET was invented at Microsoft. It is no more complicated than that.

If I was hating because of that I would also hate .NET Micro Framework What I don't. I would hate AJAX and other html basic technically invented by Microsoft what I don't.

Simple fact is Miguel De Icaza promised us a ECMA patent clear version over 2 years ago. He has not delivered on his promise.

If he delivered an ECMA+Apache 2.0 license stuff that is patent clear I would except that as tolerable out come. Gives us something safe to work with.

Do not expect me to be nice about mono until the legal issues are address. Other legally safe and clear .net frameworks I would not put up a single bit of resistance against using.

Smoke and mirrors don't work against me. Calling me a .net hater does not work either.

I am a law following person. Who likes my software legal with min future problems to come back and bite me.

Reply Parent Score: 2