Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:29 UTC
We've had a lot of debates recently on the merits - or dangers - of Mono. We've had troubles with how Microsoft views Mono and whether or not everyone is safe using it, but we also had a public back-and-forth among Debian maintainers. During all this, Richard Stallman remained pretty mum on the issue, today he broke the silence on the FSF website.
Thread beginning with comment 370988
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[2]: ok this is just getting old
by kihaji on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:37
in reply to "RE: ok this is just getting old"
Member since:2009-06-30
There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.
RE[3]: ok this is just getting old
by flynn on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:50
in reply to "RE[2]: ok this is just getting old"
Member since:2009-03-19
There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.
No.
Standards just define a set of features the vendor must implement for his product to be consider 'valid', for lack of a better word. That does not mean that any vendor is free to provide implementations. The originator of the technology still has IP rights over it and may require vendors to purchase a license.
RE[3]: ok this is just getting old
by AlexandreAM on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:33
in reply to "RE[2]: ok this is just getting old"
Member since:2006-02-06
There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.
Problem here is that Microsoft has a history of threatening (even if not DOING anything) legal action based on patents.
Being standardized by ECMA means the set of features are well defined, and the IP necessary to implement them should be available under RAND Terms (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory, if I recall correctly).
The thing with that, and with the fact that SW Patents usually are enforced in terms of the installed base size, is that I doubt any open source project with major parts of it being dependant on Mono (Some worst-scenario Gnome futures, for instance) would be able to pay even a nominal fee (say their "two cents") per installed instance of the app, if Microsoft decided that should be the license.
And the above hypothetical fee is clearly possible and definitely "RAND" (if Microsoft asks the same to every patent licensee).
I don't want people to stop using Mono, actually.
What I'd really like is for a full strength movement stating to Icaza, to Novel and indirectly to Microsoft: Either put the license terms in a clear statement or shut up.
What I really want is for the limbo-like place where the mono licensing details hides now to become clear.
RE[3]: ok this is just getting old
by Beta on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:33
in reply to "RE[2]: ok this is just getting old"
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[3]: ok this is just getting old
by lemur2 on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:59
in reply to "RE[2]: ok this is just getting old"
Member since:2007-02-17
There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.
Why do you fail to mention the parts of Mono that are most decidely NOT ECMA standards of any kind?
Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are all included in Mono. None of them are ECMA standards.
Now there is also Moonlight, and support for Moonlight built in to Mono. Also most decidedly NOT any kind of an ECMA standard.
RE[2]: ok this is just getting old
by Delgarde on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:43
in reply to "RE: ok this is just getting old"
Member since:2008-08-19
But the thing is: I couldn't find no proof that the tools are going to be available for as long as I need them.
Actually, I consider the existence of Mono a means of mitigating that exact problem. Without it, MS is the sole supplier of any support for C#/.NET, and I've been bitten before by having to work with products no longer supported by their makers. Having multiple implementations, and/or an open-source implementation makes me a lot more comfortable dealing with a technology.
RE[3]: ok this is just getting old
by JAlexoid on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:54
in reply to "RE[2]: ok this is just getting old"
Member since:2009-05-19
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-02-06
Fear for the sake of fear is pointless. If this is a real concern then it needs to be addressed as such now, and not "when it happenes/if it hapens"
There is the very problem, my friend. I've been following this discussion for a while: being a C#.Net developer by trade, on Windows-world, I'd be quite interested to use that knowledge in my free software projects, also.
But the thing is: I couldn't find no proof that the tools are going to be available for as long as I need them. And if I have to choose to use an "inferior" (in the sense that I don't have the skills in them) language or risk it (yeah, what you call "fear for the sake of fear") using Mono C# and having to port a much bigger application by the time (if it happens) it's platform is no longer available, then I'll stay with the "inferior" any day.
I don't know about you, but I have enough of incredibly boring do-it-all-over-again porting legacy code at work to even risk it at a "pet project". I'd surely let a big free project of mine die, if I had to choose between it's death or porting a big app to a new language for free.
So, my opinion in that matter is (really surprinsingly, as I rarely ever do) agreeing with Stallman. Use the platform to run non-free code, it has a very good potential in that area. But don't start developing software that was supposed to be free until anyone (be it Microsoft, Novel, Miguel de Icaza's hamster, whatever) can show proof that the technology can't be used to pull the ground off the feet of free projects in the future.