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.
Thread beginning with comment 450904
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: rms was right- as usual
by segedunum on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: rms was right- as usual"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I said these things.

No you didn't.

Why are you correcting me when I agree with you?

You're trying to make distinctions between the ECMA standard (which you mistakenly call the C# standard) and the rest of '.Net' which isn't in there when there is really no such distinction of safety. It is *not* exempt from patent claims as you imply:

Those _are_ free software, but they're not exempt from patent suits, because they're not part of the C# standard.


what in "You can be compliant or compatible" confused you?

I think you confused yourself. The purpose of the ECMA specification is that if you're compliant then you are compatible and you are covered and that's what people misunderstand every time about this.

Reply Parent Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

O_o
Dude, I never said Mono was safe. It's not.

You're inferring a meaning I didn't say.

How do you spell 'assume'?

ECMA is just a standards body, dude. It's not a standard in-and-of itself.
C# is a programming language. It has an ECMA standard. So does ECMAScript.

You're being angry at me for things I didn't say, and _trying_ to twist my words.
You don't understand the things about which you are talking enough to even undesrtand what I said.

He was claiming that the portions beyond the standard which Microsoft uses and have been re-implemented in Mono are proprietary. They're not. They're patented, and not covered by the patent protection 'promise'.
"compliant or compatible"
Compliant is sticking to nothing but the ECMA C# standard, which does not include winforms et al.
Compatible is what Mono is trying to achieve, which means implementing those libraries, which are patented.

These are simply facts. I never stated anything about "this is safe" or "these codebases have been separated".

I'm conveying information, not stating any opinion.

Edited 2010-11-23 21:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: rms was right- as usual
by lemur2 on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 21:57 in reply to "RE[7]: rms was right- as usual"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

He was claiming that the portions beyond the standard which Microsoft uses and have been re-implemented in Mono are proprietary. They're not. They're patented, and not covered by the patent protection 'promise'.


You contradict yourself.

Mono includes C# and CLI, which are compliant with ECMA standards, and which are covered by the Microsoft Community Promise. Fine ... for those parts ONLY.

There are, however, inseperable parts of Mono other than the ECMA parts, which are NOT covered by the Microsoft Community Promise. These parts are covered by Microsoft patents. Up to this point, we agree. However, what you miss is the fact that Microsoft requires that anyone who wants to run the non-ECMA parts of Mono must have a license from Microsoft to do so. That makes those parts proprietary.

Since the proprietary parts of Mono are inseperable from the non-proprietary parts, there is no way to legally run Mono without having a license from Microsoft.

These are straightforward facts. Ask any Microsoft lawyer.

Since one needs a paid-for license to run it, Mono is proprietary.

Period. QED.

Reply Parent Score: 3

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You are completely and utterly contradicting yourself and tying yourself in knots.

I didn't say that you had said that Mono was safe, but you were clearly implying the distinction that so many make between the ECMA 'standard' parts and the additional extensions and therefore stating a position whether you like it or not.

ECMA is just a standards body, dude. It's not a standard in-and-of itself.

It's a standards body that has currently required Microsoft and anyone else to freely license any patents pertaining to the ECMA standards in question, so yes, right now it is very important.

Compliant is sticking to nothing but the ECMA C# standard, which does not include winforms et al.

Why do you keep referring to an ECMA 'C# standard'? What you are referring to are the CLR and CLI specifications, ECMA 335 and 336 I think, which are not protected by anything but a flimsy RAND agreement right now. Why do you think that not including Winforms in an implementation somehow makes things safe? It doesn't - and whether you say so or not that is clearly what you are implying. In addition Mono has reverse engineered more than what is in ECMA 335 and 336 to get a working CLR because they have to.

You're being angry at me for things I didn't say, and _trying_ to twist my words.

No I'm not. What you're coming out with is total gibberish. Are you incapable of reading these things? You say you're agreeing with them and then outright trying to contradict them later and then trying to say you're not stating a position on anything.

These are simply facts.

They are not facts, and it's been explained to you why none of what you have written is accurate - and then you claim you agree with me and then try and contradict things again.

Reply Parent Score: 4

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19


I think you confused yourself. The purpose of the ECMA specification is that if you're compliant then you are compatible and you are covered and that's what people misunderstand every time about this.

The winforms library et al which has been re-implemented by Mono is not part of the standard.
Without those libraries you are not 100% compatible with .NET.
Those libraries are patented.
The patent protection promise does not cover anything but the C# standard.

You can be compliant (only the C# spec)
You can be compatible (include the extensions)
You cannot be both.
If you are compatible, you are not under protection from a patent suit.

This is basic logic.

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The winforms library et al which has been re-implemented by Mono is not part of the standard.
Without those libraries you are not 100% compatible with .NET. Those libraries are patented.

It doesn't matter. Not implementing them does not make anything you produce not patented.

The patent protection promise does not cover anything but the C# standard.

There is no such thing as a 'C# standard'. There are standards referring to the CLR and CLI. The C# specification itself is not important here.

The patent protection promise protects no one but paying customers which puts it in the same boat. The ECMA RAND agreement that is holding things together can be destabilised and pulled at any time.

If you are compatible, you are not under protection from a patent suit. This is basic logic.

How can you be protected from a patent 'suit'? Filing a suit is filing a lawsuit, and you're not protected by a lawsuit so that logic is of the tangerine trees kind.

Unfortunately, you've failed to understand why this distinction that you keep making between supposed patentable and non-patentable parts just doesn't exist - and yet you keep trying to restate it for some reason.

Reply Parent Score: 3