Attachmate Buys Novell
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Nov 2010 19:53 UTC
Novell and Ximian We were well aware that Novell had put itself on the market, coyly winking at passers-by, displaying its... Assets. VMware was a contender, but things have played out entirely different: Novell has been bought by Attachmate Corp., with a Microsoft-led consortium buying unspecified intellectual property from Novell.
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 138 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ik8
Thread beginning with comment 450827
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: rms was right- as usual
by lemur2 on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: rms was right- as usual"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Dude, I don't like mono and I know this isn't true. The 'key parts of .NET' of which you speak are probably the winforms elements and other things that aren't part of the C# standard. Those _are_ free software, but they're not exempt from patent suits, because they're not part of the C# standard. MS extended patent-violation protection to any complete C# implementation. I don't recall if said implementation can or cannot extend the standard (the problem is that their implementation _does_ extend the standard. You can be compliant or compatible). So, over the past week or so, you've been incorrect, vitriolic, and annoyingly persistent. Is there an equivalent to /ignore?


The code of all of Mono is free software ... but there is no patent grant associated with its license.

The technology of most of .NET is a standard (e.g. CLI and C#) is able to be implemented by anyone, and it comes under Microsoft's open Specification Promise. These parts of Mono are not an issue.

However, there are indeed parts of .NET, which are implemented in Mono, which do NOT fall under Microsoft's open Specification Promise. These parts are Microsoft proprietary technology. These parts of Mono are an issue.

Releasing the code for implementations of these parts under a free software license does not mean that they are free software. Microsoft has made no promise whatsoever not to sue over these non-Windows implemntations of its proprietary technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asp.net
Operating system Microsoft Windows
Type Web application framework
License Proprietary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADO.NET
Operating system Microsoft Windows
Type Software framework
License MS-EULA, BCL under Microsoft Reference License


Microsoft Reference License is a non-open-source, non-free license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reference_License#Non-Open_S...

These are all plain, simple, verifiable facts. There is no smear campaign here.

Edited 2010-11-23 00:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

HAHAH.
Yeah, because you can't re-implement libraries.
Only official AT&T Unix has libc!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: rms was right- as usual
by lemur2 on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 00:25 in reply to "RE[5]: rms was right- as usual"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

HAHAH. Yeah, because you can't re-implement libraries. Only official AT&T Unix has libc!


Well, this point is the very crux of the debate, isn't it?

Certainly Microsoft's PR and legal department would want you to believe that you can't re-implement libraries replicating Microsoft proprietary technologies without a paid-for license from Microsoft.

Who am I to argue?

But, more to the point ... why argue? Why not simply shun Mono and use decent alternative applications that are readily available and at least as functional? Much simpler.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It is free software if it is under a free license. Lack of promises from Microsoft does not make it unfree - it only makes it potentially unsafe to use (in USA).

The rest of us live in countries without software patents and with low risk of ever getting software patents. To us the whole nonsens about mono is just that - nonsens.

That said, I strongly prefer solutions created in C, C++ and python (and whatever compiles to native binaries).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: rms was right- as usual
by lemur2 on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 04:55 in reply to "RE[5]: rms was right- as usual"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It is free software if it is under a free license. Lack of promises from Microsoft does not make it unfree - it only makes it potentially unsafe to use (in USA). The rest of us live in countries without software patents and with low risk of ever getting software patents. To us the whole nonsens about mono is just that - nonsens. That said, I strongly prefer solutions created in C, C++ and python (and whatever compiles to native binaries).


This is fair enough ... Mono is not a problem for you, and you don't prefer it anyway.

This happens to be EXACTLY the solution I would recommend to anyone and everyone. Don't install Mono, and don't run Mono applications.

Like so, if you run Ubuntu:
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2010/10/10/how-to-remove-mono-from-...

An even better solution is simply to run a KDE desktop.

This way, if you are running if the BSA or equivalent come cap-in-hand to your company asking for a license fee from you for your alleged use of their members' IP, you can simply say to them that you don't run any software with their IP in it. Tell them you have no Microsoft software, and no contract with Microsoft. If Microsoft hit you with a lawsuit, you can hit them with a countersuit for extortion and harrasment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >