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 371054
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Slambert666
Member since:
2008-10-30

The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.


What is it you are getting at here? Do you know something that nobody else knows or are you just plain making things up to prove a point?

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.
What is it you are getting at here? Do you know something that nobody else knows or are you just plain making things up to prove a point? "

Say what?

C# and CLI are ECMA standards, other parts of Mono are not. Microsoft claims patents on some technologies which are part of Mono.

As an example, this page used to tell you the information that Windows forms was Microsoft proprietary technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms

Now I see that the page is mute on that topic. Interesting.

However, it is clear that this is not an ECMA standard, nor is there any mention of it being covered by an Open Specification promise (so you can be very assured that it isn't covered).

So, despite the removal of the clear statement on Wikipedia that this is Microsoft proprietary technology, it still remains so, without any doubt. It is not a secret.

Nor is it any secret that Mono contains an implementation of it.

All of this is not a secret in any way, it is public knowledge.

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, then.

Edited 2009-07-01 04:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

C# and CLI are ECMA standards, other parts of Mono are not. Microsoft claims patents on some technologies which are part of Mono.


Microsoft "claims" patents that are a part of python, ruby, perl, c++ etc. etc. inclusive of OpenGL (all patents), desktops etc. etc. Sun made a patent alliance with microsoft to create the jvm without infringements and needless to say microsoft also holds patents on Mono stuff.

But dotNET cannot and could not be implemented without patents from other companies as well. So in case microsoft chooses to act upon their own patents in Mono (covered by OIS) they have effectively killed dotNET as well and ensured the self destruction of the patent system.

As an example, this page used to tell you the information that Windows forms was Microsoft proprietary technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms

Now I see that the page is mute on that topic. Interesting.

However, it is clear that this is not an ECMA standard, nor is there any mention of it being covered by an Open Specification promise (so you can be very assured that it isn't covered).

So, despite the removal of the clear statement on Wikipedia that this is Microsoft proprietary technology, it still remains so, without any doubt. It is not a secret.

Nor is it any secret that Mono contains an implementation of it.

All of this is not a secret in any way, it is public knowledge.


Sure it is not a secret, however there are no linux apps actively using this for anything. But if you want to move a windows dotNET app to Linux it is a great thing to have. WinForms is not a part of core Mono and there is a hell of a difference between saying "don't use WinForms" and "don't use Mono".

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, then.


I do actually have a question for you. What about QT? here is a statement from Nokia to think about:

“All of Europe’s innovators, including individual inventors, small and medium size enterprises (SMEs), as well as large multinational companies, require patents to protect their inventions, provide incentives to undertake research and development in Europe, and to promote licensing and technology transfer.”

Reply Parent Score: 1