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.
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.
So far not one person, including you, has rebutted the main point which is that MS still retains the right to charge a RAND fee or require licensing, both of which would kill gnome if mono were widely adopted.
NO ONE!
And what in gods name are you talking about when you say “EVERY” OS? *THAT* is FUD my friend. Explain to me how every single OS is *knowingly* using IP of other companies who still legally retain the right to charge a fee! If one such line of code were found anywhere in the linux kernel it would be removed immediately.
It is funny how all you defenders of mono just say the same crap:
1. this debate is boring
2. you guys hate MS
3. you are spreading fud
But no one, ever, explains why people worried about mono are wrong. That is really really annoying. If you are so right, and this is just FUD, then please explain to me why it is that I should not worry?
?
?
?
I’ve issued this challenge to people like you many times and no one has ever ever replied. Do you know why? Because you are wrong and you are incapable of logically defending the indefensible position that mono is safe. It simply is not. Everyone is beginning to see that, even you or else you would post more than FUD in response to well reasoned and intelligent concerns about mono’s legal status.
Miguel? Just answer everyone’s questions for god’s sake!
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.
If you don’t like mono, or have a problem with it, don’t use it, don’t get involved with it, and don’t comment on it. Just move on, and stop spoiling the ride for the rest of us.
I personally feel mono on the new nokia device is great. As I’ve always said – with mono comes RAD capabilities over and above pygtk. With mono comes a complete stack that takes the ownership of all the cumbersome tasks away from the developer so they can just focus on creating great apps.
Being able to run a remote beagle query against your pc(s) storing all your music, bookmarks etc would be brilliant
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!
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.
Sorry, but whenever these puff pieces comes up promoting Mono, these issues need to be raised.
Maybe with enough external motivation, somebody at Novell will get off their tails call up Microsoft and work out a global royalty free patent grant which is compatible with OSS licenses.
Thats all it would take to settle this. I think the fact that this hasn’t happened speaks volumes about the long term viability of Mono.
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.
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 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.
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.
I am not a patent lawyer, but the patent seems to imply they are patenting the API (software patents are such a nightmare combination of legal and tech lingo).
In order to work around the patent I would guess you will need to completely change the API of the Mono class library, in which case you will break all compatibility of Mono with .NET (and thus the concept of “moving” .NET applications to Linux falls apart) and you will break all existing Mono apps as everyone has to rewrite to the new API.
This patent (if granted) does not seem like something that has an attractive “implement around” option, in which case you are stuck with licensing it under whatever terms MS sees fit. To me, all of this makes Mono an insane idea at this moment.
I am not a patent lawyer, but the patent seems to imply they are patenting the API
no you can’t patent an API so that you can say: “System.Collections.Stack is patended an no one can have a function called System.Collections.Stack”
This has nothing to do with patents. On software patents you cover a specific idea completely independent if you call the fuction foo or bar and completely independent if you implement this idea in C, C++ or any other language.
If approved as is, the patent would cover application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow actions related to accessing the network, handling Extensible Markup Language (XML), and managing data from multiple sources. APIs are the hooks in software that allow applications to work with another system.
****
“It looks pretty broad,” said Jeff E. Schwartz, a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge. “It could be fairly significant.”
****
Meanwhile, Bruce Perens, a consultant and leader of the open-source movement, worries that Microsoft’s patents could shut out alternative software development. “Microsoft is being careful to patent every aspect of APIs related to .Net,” he said. “It’s preventing the open-source community from being involved in this area.”
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.
You really don’t get it. I think you would have a very hard time finding anyone who didn’t agree with you about the technical strengths of .net/mono. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone who wouldn’t be very excited about mono if it were not for the licensing issues.
So, instead of telling people they are boring and to shut up, why don’t you realize that *your* response to people’s concerns is entirely off topic and pointless and, yes, boring?
Everyone knows that but it is not what we are talking about. Seriously, no one is debating the potential for RAD in mono. No one. OK? So why don’t *you* quit bringing it up?
On the other hand, you tell people “if you don’t like it, don’t use it” but there is a battle to keep mono out of gnome being waged. A big part of that battle is about mindshare and misinformation (on the part of mono IMHO)
So, this is not, as you imply, about me downloading muine or not. This is about mono being integrated into the heart of gnome. This is about important new apps being developed in mono instead of other languages and then having gnome destroyed by microsoft.
So, if you don’t care about that, don’t tell people to shut up becuase you are on a thread that is about a gnome technology. It may be a tangential issue to you but it is not to many (obviously). Your comments however are *entirely* tangential and pointless in every regard plus they are extremely rude and stupid.
IMHO the Qt-based KDE is the biggest joke. The mainstream desktop environtment of the big, free, and open linux is based on strictly restricted (GPL isnstead of LGPL) very expensive (the unlimited version more expensive then the complete Visual Studio Professional with windows XP) commercial product…
I’m looking 770’s development since it’s announcement. I’m pretty impressed of what all these Gnome developer’s could do in such small time when they have fixed platform and a well designed UI (for these platform’s needs).
I’m really looking froward 770 and will probably buy one (I’ll just wait the real thing and see if basic things for portables, as USB charging and MSC support; and battery life). And as Mono and Java won’t be suited for core apps (mainly because of memory), they’ll probably provide lots of small and useful apps for tasks like syncing with desktops and web services and so on… It’s really great to see Mono being ported, and now running, in this device!
I just hope, by the 770 gets released, this device provide some kind of graphical sketch program (like Alias SketchBook for TabletPCs), so I can make simple storyboards and general sketches while away from home! I’m sure this kind of app won’t be in Java or Mono, but I’m sure there’s a hole to be filled by these VM/Soft Platforms! =]
I don’t know if the Mono guys count on any corporate spnsorship from Nokia – probably not – but they should be avare that Nokia wouldn’t touch Mono (or .NET for that matter). There is the deepest aversion for technologies and standards that MS has any control of, and expecially .NET.
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… 🙂
Microsoft, IBM and SUN have IP patents on code inside Linux, so when are you going to stop using Linux. Who knows, sometime in the future one of the big boys will whip out an IP and request royalties from all Linux users. In fact I would just give up and quit code or using computers altogether because pretty much any source you write or use is probably infringing on someone’s IP.
Why was my comment, “RE[5]: MONO license issue” modded down? I did not insult, lie, flame, nothing. All I did was ask for people to, instead of flaming and trolling, defend their points with logic and facts. For that I get censored.
You people are losers. You stink of George Bush Republicans and liars.
Instead of responding to the questions about the Mono patent issues, some people here obviously prefer to give those postings a bad score to make them disappear. or even ask to delete those postings or ban the authors. This is neither good nor does it convince me that those questions raise invalid points.
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…
Off-topic (you may vote this down), but why do you call these projects linux projects? None of them is Linux-bound. Open source is (much) broader than Linux!
I’m posting a few data points about the Mono port to the Nokia 770, hope people will find it useful in the middle of the troll posts. I’ll also try to reply to some of the questions raised in a few posts.
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.
Whether this means Mono will be included by default in the future is anybody’s guess. I’m pretty sure it won’t be included in the first release, because it is due for public release shortly. And that is a question you’ll have to ask Nokia, anyway.
A 2 MB tarball for a full-featured Mono+Gtk# framework is a quick download anyway:-)
2) The sample Gtk# apps I tested load pretty quickly, mostly on par with the other native apps included. This impressed me, since I was expective a slower startup.
We’ll improve startup time even further, so I’m confident Gtk# apps will be perfectly usable on the Nokia 770. If we’ll provide AOT support this will be even less of an issue.
3) As for the memory requirements: the version of mono included in the binaries tarball is the full-featured one. We have plans to remove some of the debug code and other stuff which is only ever useful for mono developers and reduce the size of some data structures to improve the memory footprint (the same changes will help mainstream mono usage, too). The point to take home is: the requirements are already reasonable, we’ll be able to reduce them quite a bit without removing features and if needed we could also provide a compact version of Mono with reduced features, but so far, given the capabilities of the Nokia 770 I don’t see a strict need for this.
4) Licensing: Mono is licensed under the LGPL, GPL and X11 licenses, depending on the parts (runtime, some compilers and tools, most of the assemblies, respectively).
5) Patents: the answer to the questions is in the Mono FAQ. People that ask repeatedly about them either can’t read or can’t understand and are completely ignorant of what patents are. Note the answers are the same you’d get from any free software project. Ask Red Hat about the Kodak patents on the JVM, ask the people writing the Linux kernel, ask any significant free software project. The only sane answer to patents is to:
a) work with the legislators so that sw patents are invalidated
b) don’t look for patents because it’s a waste of time until you’re made aware of a possible infrigment by the patent holder
c) if that happens, workaround the patent in the code, use different techniques, prove the patent invalid with prior art etc and as a last resource, remove the infringing feature.
There is no patent waiver for any free or proprietary software, get over it.
> 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
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…
The difference is that Mono knowingly infringes MS patants, while it is not clear if the projects you mentioned do infringe MS patents.
As long as the Mono developers or Novell cannot or do not want to clarify this situation, Mono should be avoided.
I personally do welcome people to mention the fact that Mono knowingly infringes MS patents because it seems this is the only way to force the Mono developers or Novell to clarify this situation.
Pretending there are no problems does not solve this situation and if people start to accept Mono and MS sues the Mono developers/Novell because of patent infringment, the whole OSS community is affected.
I don’t want to be part of a community where people knowingly infringe other people’s patents and just don’t care about it.
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?
I would really like to hear about how there is nothing to worry about and that Mono is built on a solid legal basis and that those using it will *never* have to pay a dime to M$.
If the Linux croud are stupid enough to make mono the preferred way of building desktop apps, then I hope Linux dies a slow, painful death when M$ comes knocking at their door. This will be an example to anyone in the OSS community that thinks it is ok to follow M$’s lead.
Not only that, but OSS Java is getting close…classpath is somewhere around 93% complete for JDK 1.4:
Submitted by 
that Nokie is investing in Eclips and J2ME
http://www.eclipse.org/org/press-release/20050919nokia.htm
that Nokia is investing in Eclips and J2ME..
http://www.eclipse.org/org/press-release/20050919nokia.htm
Just wondering how practical it is to run mono apps on a device that only has 64MB RAM.
Is there a special embedded stack for mono thats extremely lightweight on memory?
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… Is it possible to run fspot on it now?
So, hows the license issue with MONO going ? Is it solved now ?
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.
>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?
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.
I agree.
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?
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/
??
Maybe because they know they *can’t* defend Mono?
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.
repleace “next year” with “next 5 years”
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.
So far not one person, including you, has rebutted the main point which is that MS still retains the right to charge a RAND fee or require licensing, both of which would kill gnome if mono were widely adopted.
NO ONE!
And what in gods name are you talking about when you say “EVERY” OS? *THAT* is FUD my friend. Explain to me how every single OS is *knowingly* using IP of other companies who still legally retain the right to charge a fee! If one such line of code were found anywhere in the linux kernel it would be removed immediately.
It is funny how all you defenders of mono just say the same crap:
1. this debate is boring
2. you guys hate MS
3. you are spreading fud
But no one, ever, explains why people worried about mono are wrong. That is really really annoying. If you are so right, and this is just FUD, then please explain to me why it is that I should not worry?
?
?
?
I’ve issued this challenge to people like you many times and no one has ever ever replied. Do you know why? Because you are wrong and you are incapable of logically defending the indefensible position that mono is safe. It simply is not. Everyone is beginning to see that, even you or else you would post more than FUD in response to well reasoned and intelligent concerns about mono’s legal status.
Miguel? Just answer everyone’s questions for god’s sake!
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.
If you don’t like mono, or have a problem with it, don’t use it, don’t get involved with it, and don’t comment on it. Just move on, and stop spoiling the ride for the rest of us.
I personally feel mono on the new nokia device is great. As I’ve always said – with mono comes RAD capabilities over and above pygtk. With mono comes a complete stack that takes the ownership of all the cumbersome tasks away from the developer so they can just focus on creating great apps.
Being able to run a remote beagle query against your pc(s) storing all your music, bookmarks etc would be brilliant
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!
So are you saying that:
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.
Sorry, but whenever these puff pieces comes up promoting Mono, these issues need to be raised.
Maybe with enough external motivation, somebody at Novell will get off their tails call up Microsoft and work out a global royalty free patent grant which is compatible with OSS licenses.
Thats all it would take to settle this. I think the fact that this hasn’t happened speaks volumes about the long term viability of Mono.
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.
I am not a patent lawyer, but the patent seems to imply they are patenting the API (software patents are such a nightmare combination of legal and tech lingo).
In order to work around the patent I would guess you will need to completely change the API of the Mono class library, in which case you will break all compatibility of Mono with .NET (and thus the concept of “moving” .NET applications to Linux falls apart) and you will break all existing Mono apps as everyone has to rewrite to the new API.
This patent (if granted) does not seem like something that has an attractive “implement around” option, in which case you are stuck with licensing it under whatever terms MS sees fit. To me, all of this makes Mono an insane idea at this moment.
I am not a patent lawyer, but the patent seems to imply they are patenting the API
no you can’t patent an API so that you can say: “System.Collections.Stack is patended an no one can have a function called System.Collections.Stack”
This has nothing to do with patents. On software patents you cover a specific idea completely independent if you call the fuction foo or bar and completely independent if you implement this idea in C, C++ or any other language.
So how do you explain MS’s patent application?
Follow the links and take a look at it.
Are you a patent attorney, or have you discussed this with a patent attorney familiar with the MS patent application?
Some quotes from the CNet article:
****
If approved as is, the patent would cover application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow actions related to accessing the network, handling Extensible Markup Language (XML), and managing data from multiple sources. APIs are the hooks in software that allow applications to work with another system.
****
“It looks pretty broad,” said Jeff E. Schwartz, a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge. “It could be fairly significant.”
****
Meanwhile, Bruce Perens, a consultant and leader of the open-source movement, worries that Microsoft’s patents could shut out alternative software development. “Microsoft is being careful to patent every aspect of APIs related to .Net,” he said. “It’s preventing the open-source community from being involved in this area.”
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.
You really don’t get it. I think you would have a very hard time finding anyone who didn’t agree with you about the technical strengths of .net/mono. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone who wouldn’t be very excited about mono if it were not for the licensing issues.
So, instead of telling people they are boring and to shut up, why don’t you realize that *your* response to people’s concerns is entirely off topic and pointless and, yes, boring?
Everyone knows that but it is not what we are talking about. Seriously, no one is debating the potential for RAD in mono. No one. OK? So why don’t *you* quit bringing it up?
On the other hand, you tell people “if you don’t like it, don’t use it” but there is a battle to keep mono out of gnome being waged. A big part of that battle is about mindshare and misinformation (on the part of mono IMHO)
So, this is not, as you imply, about me downloading muine or not. This is about mono being integrated into the heart of gnome. This is about important new apps being developed in mono instead of other languages and then having gnome destroyed by microsoft.
So, if you don’t care about that, don’t tell people to shut up becuase you are on a thread that is about a gnome technology. It may be a tangential issue to you but it is not to many (obviously). Your comments however are *entirely* tangential and pointless in every regard plus they are extremely rude and stupid.
Thanks.
I agree with your points, so let’s discuss how Qt is viral and controlled by the proprietary Trolltech.
IMHO the Qt-based KDE is the biggest joke. The mainstream desktop environtment of the big, free, and open linux is based on strictly restricted (GPL isnstead of LGPL) very expensive (the unlimited version more expensive then the complete Visual Studio Professional with windows XP) commercial product…
I’m looking 770’s development since it’s announcement. I’m pretty impressed of what all these Gnome developer’s could do in such small time when they have fixed platform and a well designed UI (for these platform’s needs).
I’m really looking froward 770 and will probably buy one (I’ll just wait the real thing and see if basic things for portables, as USB charging and MSC support; and battery life). And as Mono and Java won’t be suited for core apps (mainly because of memory), they’ll probably provide lots of small and useful apps for tasks like syncing with desktops and web services and so on… It’s really great to see Mono being ported, and now running, in this device!
I just hope, by the 770 gets released, this device provide some kind of graphical sketch program (like Alias SketchBook for TabletPCs), so I can make simple storyboards and general sketches while away from home! I’m sure this kind of app won’t be in Java or Mono, but I’m sure there’s a hole to be filled by these VM/Soft Platforms! =]
I don’t know if the Mono guys count on any corporate spnsorship from Nokia – probably not – but they should be avare that Nokia wouldn’t touch Mono (or .NET for that matter). There is the deepest aversion for technologies and standards that MS has any control of, and expecially .NET.
Emacs.
> 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… 🙂
Just another infection.
NILL
That viral GPL is way more dangerous than any Mono license.
Your PDA will be sued!
Microsoft, IBM and SUN have IP patents on code inside Linux, so when are you going to stop using Linux. Who knows, sometime in the future one of the big boys will whip out an IP and request royalties from all Linux users. In fact I would just give up and quit code or using computers altogether because pretty much any source you write or use is probably infringing on someone’s IP.
Why was my comment, “RE[5]: MONO license issue” modded down? I did not insult, lie, flame, nothing. All I did was ask for people to, instead of flaming and trolling, defend their points with logic and facts. For that I get censored.
You people are losers. You stink of George Bush Republicans and liars.
You people are losers. You stink of George Bush Republicans and liars.
No, they stink of Ted Kennedy democrats.
Does anyone know whether the 770 supports any of these java profiles?
Instead of responding to the questions about the Mono patent issues, some people here obviously prefer to give those postings a bad score to make them disappear. or even ask to delete those postings or ban the authors. This is neither good nor does it convince me that those questions raise invalid points.
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…
Off-topic (you may vote this down), but why do you call these projects linux projects? None of them is Linux-bound. Open source is (much) broader than Linux!
I’m posting a few data points about the Mono port to the Nokia 770, hope people will find it useful in the middle of the troll posts. I’ll also try to reply to some of the questions raised in a few posts.
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.
Whether this means Mono will be included by default in the future is anybody’s guess. I’m pretty sure it won’t be included in the first release, because it is due for public release shortly. And that is a question you’ll have to ask Nokia, anyway.
A 2 MB tarball for a full-featured Mono+Gtk# framework is a quick download anyway:-)
2) The sample Gtk# apps I tested load pretty quickly, mostly on par with the other native apps included. This impressed me, since I was expective a slower startup.
We’ll improve startup time even further, so I’m confident Gtk# apps will be perfectly usable on the Nokia 770. If we’ll provide AOT support this will be even less of an issue.
3) As for the memory requirements: the version of mono included in the binaries tarball is the full-featured one. We have plans to remove some of the debug code and other stuff which is only ever useful for mono developers and reduce the size of some data structures to improve the memory footprint (the same changes will help mainstream mono usage, too). The point to take home is: the requirements are already reasonable, we’ll be able to reduce them quite a bit without removing features and if needed we could also provide a compact version of Mono with reduced features, but so far, given the capabilities of the Nokia 770 I don’t see a strict need for this.
4) Licensing: Mono is licensed under the LGPL, GPL and X11 licenses, depending on the parts (runtime, some compilers and tools, most of the assemblies, respectively).
5) Patents: the answer to the questions is in the Mono FAQ. People that ask repeatedly about them either can’t read or can’t understand and are completely ignorant of what patents are. Note the answers are the same you’d get from any free software project. Ask Red Hat about the Kodak patents on the JVM, ask the people writing the Linux kernel, ask any significant free software project. The only sane answer to patents is to:
a) work with the legislators so that sw patents are invalidated
b) don’t look for patents because it’s a waste of time until you’re made aware of a possible infrigment by the patent holder
c) if that happens, workaround the patent in the code, use different techniques, prove the patent invalid with prior art etc and as a last resource, remove the infringing feature.
There is no patent waiver for any free or proprietary software, get over it.
lupus
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
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…
The difference is that Mono knowingly infringes MS patants, while it is not clear if the projects you mentioned do infringe MS patents.
As long as the Mono developers or Novell cannot or do not want to clarify this situation, Mono should be avoided.
I personally do welcome people to mention the fact that Mono knowingly infringes MS patents because it seems this is the only way to force the Mono developers or Novell to clarify this situation.
Pretending there are no problems does not solve this situation and if people start to accept Mono and MS sues the Mono developers/Novell because of patent infringment, the whole OSS community is affected.
I don’t want to be part of a community where people knowingly infringe other people’s patents and just don’t care about it.
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 ?
Someone from the Mono camp please comment on the story mentioned above:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984052.html
I would really like to hear about how there is nothing to worry about and that Mono is built on a solid legal basis and that those using it will *never* have to pay a dime to M$.
If the Linux croud are stupid enough to make mono the preferred way of building desktop apps, then I hope Linux dies a slow, painful death when M$ comes knocking at their door. This will be an example to anyone in the OSS community that thinks it is ok to follow M$’s lead.
Not only that, but OSS Java is getting close…classpath is somewhere around 93% complete for JDK 1.4:
http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk14-classpath.html
I suspect in the next year or so we’ll see a fairly complete implementation of OSS Java suitable for mainstream use.