Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:29 UTC
Mono Project 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 371032
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Clarification
by kaiwai on Wed 1st Jul 2009 02:13 UTC in reply to "Clarification"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't get it because you refuse to listen or read. Both Adobe and Sun have said since God was a teenager that they are not going to go after third party implementations of their respective technologies and they have put it in writing.

When is Microsoft going to publicly declare that they have no interest in suing third party implementations of .NET? Balmer has stated on many occasions that they're interested in exerting their patent portfolio and maximise returns on their investments which was then followed up by the establishment of a new technology licencing programme.

You may dance around Minguel all you like but the reality is that the CEO has stated that no one will get a 'free ride'. Microsoft have .NET patented from top to bottom, especially those parts which are remotely useful when it comes to cross platform compatible. Pointing to ECMA means nothing because it still allows them to collect royalties.

This has NOTHING what so ever to do with hating Microsoft and everything to do with a company who refuses to clarify as to the nature of third party implementations - that is the problem. .NET is like a snake that no one knows whether is poisonousness or harmless - are you willing to put your arm in the holding pen to find out?

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Clarification
by Slambert666 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 04:34 in reply to "RE: Clarification"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Both Adobe and Sun have said since God was a teenager that they are not going to go after third party implementations of their respective technologies and they have put it in writing.


So when was it that God was a teenager? Sun sued Microsoft over the MS-java third party implementation in 1997 and it was settled in 2001. Sun is to my knowledge the only company in the history of software that has ever actually sued anyone over a programming language.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Clarification
by r_a_trip on Wed 1st Jul 2009 09:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Sun sued Microsoft over the MS-java third party implementation in 1997 and it was settled in 2001. Sun is to my knowledge the only company in the history of software that has ever actually sued anyone over a programming language.

With good cause to boot. MS got a commercial license from Sun to produce a Sun Java compliant MS JVM. MS went ahead and tried to use Embrace Extend Extinguish with their Java implementation to kill Sun Java. Sun Java was at the time a possible threat to MS' desktop stranglehold.

Since MS grossly overstepped the bounds in their license, Sun took them to court after they refused to mitigate their dirty deeds.

Sadly, although MS lost the case, they got what they wanted. Java on the desktop is all but dead.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Clarification
by wakeupneo on Wed 1st Jul 2009 09:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

Wrong. Sun sued Microsoft because they were bastardising the language with their own Windows only 'extensions' while at the same time continuing to promote their implementation (J++) as being fully "Java Compliant". This was clearly in violation of the licensing agreement they had with Sun so they were correctly taken to task for it.

Here's a good analysis of what went down...

http://www.aaxnet.com/news/J010124.html

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Clarification
by MollyC on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:30 in reply to "RE: Clarification"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

What's it matter what Adobe or Sun *said*? Where is their legally binding document? Adobe threatened to sue Microsoft in the EU for implementing supposedly free-to-implement ISO standard PDF in Office 2007. So much for Adobe's statements. Adobe reserves the right to sue implementors of their technologies at their whim, and have made use of that whim in the past, regardless of what they've previously "said".

Now that I think of it, Sun also sued implementors of Java that weren't to their liking.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Clarification
by JAlexoid on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No, Sun sued for trademark infringement. That is a totally different story.
Short version of witch is, that if you want to use the trademark Java and executable name java you have to pass TCK and agree to it's license. The big spat with Apache Harmony is all about the trademark, nothing else.
While MS can pull the plug on the technologies themselves. And noone in any case can use the .NET as their product name.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Clarification
by kaiwai on Wed 1st Jul 2009 07:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

What's it matter what Adobe or Sun *said*? Where is their legally binding document? Adobe threatened to sue Microsoft in the EU for implementing supposedly free-to-implement ISO standard PDF in Office 2007.

So much for Adobe's statements. Adobe reserves the right to sue implementors of their technologies at their whim, and have made use of that whim in the past, regardless of what they've previously "said"


Adobe have stated that third party implementations of PDF and Flash will not be sued; they've stated it both in word and in licensing. The issue with PDF and Microsoft was bundling and nothing to do with them implementing it (look at the EU filing - oh, I don't expect you to, then you'd face epic fail in your argument). Stop lying to prop up a failed and broken argument. Btw, Office 2007 implemented PDF before it became an open specification and before Adobe declared that one can implement it free of royalty payments. Interesting that Microsoft now has PDF support in Office 2007 Service Pack 2 and Adobe hasn't sued.

When are we going to see Microsoft openly declare that they they're not going to sue third party implementations and sign an agreement with the Free Software Foundation or Open Source Initiative stating they have no intention of suing third parties who implement .NET Framework and associated technologies.

Now that I think of it, Sun also sued implementors
of Java that weren't to their liking.


More lies - then again, I'm not surprised given your past behaviour. What ever credibility has gone so far down the toilet it's already out to sea.

Edited 2009-07-01 07:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4