Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jun 2009 17:11 UTC
Last week we talked about whether or not the Debian project would include Mono in its default GNOME installation. This incited some heavy debate on OSNews, but sadly, the Mono debate also lead to some very nasty blog posts in the Debian community. Time for damage control, Debian project leader Steve McIntyre must've thought.
Thread beginning with comment 368925
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Show me the license
by david g on Wed 17th Jun 2009 07:52
in reply to "RE[4]: Show me the license"
Member since:2005-07-08
they have sued at least one company that had hardware with linux onboard, specifically their fat-patent.
Right, so they've proven they have a fair shot at suing any hardware or software vendor they want at their whim. That still doesn't exactly make Mono a case worthy of special consideration. I sincerely hope the community doesn't end up running scared over the mere possibility of a MS patent suit; that would absolutely cripple the FOSS movement.
RE[6]: Show me the license
by Matzon on Wed 17th Jun 2009 08:54
in reply to "RE[5]: Show me the license"
Member since:2005-07-06
That still doesn't exactly make Mono a case worthy of special consideration.
It's exactly what makes mono special - because mono is something we're basing future software on. That is, if there are ever any issues with mono, then all the dependent applications will be in trouble too. Much *unlike* wine and samba, which are mere applications.
Edited 2009-06-17 08:54 UTC
RE[5]: Show me the license
by BluenoseJake on Wed 17th Jun 2009 11:26
in reply to "RE[4]: Show me the license"
Member since:2005-08-11
RE[6]: Show me the license
by Matzon on Wed 17th Jun 2009 13:00
in reply to "RE[5]: Show me the license"
Member since:2005-07-06
Thier FAT patent is a different thing all together, and it has nothing to do with mono.
I am aware that a fat patent doesn't have anything to do with the patents that are related to mono. That goes without saying. The problem is that by suing *anyone* for patent infringement - and more specifically, within the linux community, they have shown intention to use their patents aggressively. So, if mono ever becomes a burden they can easily stop it - and all the apps based on it. Think about it - what do you think Microsoft would do if Mono *ever* caused people to migrate away from .Net? Would they be clapping their hands?
prob wouldn't happen, but what if...
THey helped Novell write the thing
yeah, so? - they basically used novell to gain leverage on the whole linux community by issuing a patent covenant. Microsoft bought Novell, and for all intents and purposes I would shun them.
I doubt they'll sue over it.
Well, if you doubt it wont happen, I am sure we can all sleep safely...
RE[6]: Show me the license
by kaiwai on Wed 17th Jun 2009 14:46
in reply to "RE[5]: Show me the license"
Member since:2005-07-06
Thier FAT patent is a different thing all together, and it has nothing to do with mono. THey helped Novell write the thing, I doubt they'll sue over it.
Bull. It has everything to do with mono. Microsoft put up the full specification for fat on their website and yet sue an organisation who uses an implementation of it. He uses the fat issue as an example of how even when Microsoft is willing to sue when they want to and more importantly willing to sue organisations even for technology that they themselves have provided by way of documentation on their own website which they freely provide to all and sundry.
Member since:
2005-07-06
semantic, shemantic ... they have sued at least one company that had hardware with linux onboard, specifically their fat-patent.
now, they chose to sue a "small" company, but there is nothing preventing them to sue everybody else. linux can just pull the support, but its much harder for distributors of linux.