Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:28 UTC, submitted by irbis
Mono Project "Does GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's backflip over the Novell-Microsoft deal a few days ago mean that he has finally been convinced that he is on a one-way path to nowhere? Has he realised that his own project, Mono, is actually putting GNOME on a development track that can leave it open to patent claims one day? And has he realised that creating Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, (with which the company hopes to trump Adobe's Flash) is not going to advance the cause of free software one iota?"
Thread beginning with comment 304590
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Destructive
by tomcat on Wed 12th Mar 2008 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Destructive"
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

But one can't avoid the inevitable face off when it comes to Microsoft and the patents which exist on the technologies in Mono. I therefore find it funny every-time people like me raise perfectly valid questions we have the usual 'froth froth' response by those in the cheap-seats.


That's only partially true. The deal that Novell signed with Microsoft indemnifies Novell and Novell's customers from patent infringement claims. So, it's not accurate to say that everyone who uses Mono is subject to a future lawsuit.

Yes, Mono is a great piece of technology, yes, .NET is a great piece of design and engineering, but that is not the question being asked. The question is whether Microsoft is going to threaten Mono in the future; until we have an unequivocal yes or no, as with the case of Sun and Java, in respects to open-source, how can one honestly dedicate time and resources to something with an uncertain legal future.


The question has already been asked and answered: Linux distros that want to avoid the threat of patent infringement claims can sign a similar deal with Microsoft; however, because many of them are probably more worried about how this will appear to their more strident users, I doubt that they'll bite.

I find it funny when people like me raise these questions, the only response I've received so far on this site is 'froth froth, you hate Microsoft, froth froth' - yeap, that is the level of maturity I see on this site when it comes to discussing the legal implications of creating a .NET compatible framework.


This issue is all about technology licensing, not politics. The only ones who are going to care about the politics are the Kool-Aid drinkers such as Stallman, who consider commercial licensing to be anathema.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[3]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 03:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

This issue is all about technology licensing, not politics. The only ones who are going to care about the politics are the Kool-Aid drinkers such as Stallman, who consider commercial licensing to be anathema.


For a platform build on FOSS, it is.

P.S. Blanket discounting of opposing opinions is childish and intellectually disingenuous.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Destructive
by tomcat on Thu 13th Mar 2008 01:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Destructive"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

For a platform build on FOSS, it is.


Reread my comment. You obviously care about the TECHNOLOGY LICENSING ISSUE, not the politics. Politics is about appearances ... you know, the meaningless bullshit attendant to human existence ... And, like I said, only the zealots care about the politics. The LICENSING, on the other hand, is a legitimate issue.

P.S. Blanket discounting of opposing opinions is childish and intellectually disingenuous.


I didn't. You simply didn't understand the nuance of my comment.

Reply Parent Score: 2