Some more reactions to the Novell-Microsoft deal. Firstly, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company is open to talking to other Linux distributors about reaching mutual patent coverage deals similar to the agreement signed Nov. 2 with Novell. Secondly, according to Red Hat, this deal means that 'Linux has won', while also saying they would never make such an agreement with Microsoft: "An innovation tax is unthinkable. Free and open source software provide the necessary environment for true innovation. Innovation without fear or threat. Activities that isolate communities or limit upstream adoption will inevitably stifle innovation." More reactions here and here. Update: Another response from Red Hat. In one year's time, a Red Hat general counsil said, Red Hat will be the only Linux commercial vendor left standing, Microsoft support or not.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Novell have the copyright on the mono sources and that gives them the right to have a dual license, but it doesn't give them the right to control what people might do under the Free License side.
If you're using Mono as a hobbyist project, then probably not. However, if you're using Mono commercially, or a distributor is, then Novell have admitted as clear as day that they believe you're at risk. Microsoft hold patents over .Net, C# and the CLR, and those patents are enforced and proved by the usage of the ECMA standards. It's something Novell won't admit, and Miguel won't admit, and it's always avoided, but they're there.
Since this only protects people using Mono on Suse, I'm not entirely sure how this will protect people using it on other platforms or how it will protect Gnome as a whole from its wider usage, for example.
I see mono for what it is - a 2nd generation java-like environment which improves in Java in some significant ways. C# is an interesting systems programming language
That's really lovely, but not relevant here.
It is in Microsoft's and Novell's interests to attempt to make C#/CLR ubiquitous
On Windows, yes. On other platforms, be in no doubt, that they simply don't care about them and don't want to support them unless there's an end game, as there is with Mac Office.
If Microsoft attacked the mono community it would be entirely counterproductive.
Well no, it wouldn't. Such an act would put the seeds of doubt in everyone's minds regarding open source software, which is what this whole Novell deal is actually about.
Member since:2005-07-22
If you're using Mono as a hobbyist project, then probably not. However, if you're using Mono commercially, or a distributor is, then Novell have admitted as clear as day that they believe you're at risk. Microsoft hold patents over .Net, C# and the CLR, and those patents are enforced and proved by the usage of the ECMA standards. It's something Novell won't admit, and Miguel won't admit, and it's always avoided, but they're there.
No, mono is licensed under a Free Software license and you don't need to be a 'hobbyist' to release software under that license for commercial purposes. Why on earth would Microsoft and Novell want to automatically attack everyone who is using mono without licensing their software when they want to encourage as many people as possible to use it? They arrived long after Java and need to do some catchup and attempt to become ubiquitous, so trying to limit their user base doesn't make any sense.
On Windows, yes. On other platforms, be in no doubt, that they simply don't care about them and don't want to support them unless there's an end game, as there is with Mac Office.
Don't be silly! Are you really saying that Novell don't care about non-Windows platforms?
Well no, it wouldn't. Such an act would put the seeds of doubt in everyone's minds regarding open source software, which is what this whole Novell deal is actually about.
You mean to say that Microsoft and Novell have gone to these great lengths to make this agreement so that it can expand the FUD around mono and make it less attractive? Why did Microsoft attempt to release 'Rotor' which was supposed to be a community based implementation of the CLR. It failed, and mono does everything Rotor attempted to do and more. If Microsoft put 'seeds of doubt' in people's minds about Free Software they would need to push 'shared source' projects such as 'Rotor'. They don't because they tried and failed. Microsoft have moved on, they realise they can't kill Free Software and that they need to start making some sort of accommodation with it.
Member since:
2005-07-22
What Novell and Migual have said is that, in their eyes, Mono is dead unless it's running on a Suse/Novell/Windows system.
Well I use mono on Kubuntu and it seems unlikely that Novell or Microsoft will sue Canonical to prevent that company/project from distributing it. Mono is free software and if the current maintainers want to piss their user base off, then we're all free to create a fork. Novell have the copyright on the mono sources and that gives them the right to have a dual license, but it doesn't give them the right to control what people might do under the Free License side.
I see mono for what it is - a 2nd generation java-like environment which improves in Java in some significant ways. C# is an interesting systems programming language for implementing language independent components. It doesn't replace Ruby, it doesn't replace Python, yet it does some things that Java doesn't. It is in Microsoft's and Novell's interests to attempt to make C#/CLR ubiquitous, and that means they have to live with any innovations the Free Software community might make using the software. If Microsoft attacked the mono community it would be entirely counterproductive.