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 450916
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: rms was right- as usual
by TheGZeus on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: rms was right- as usual"
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

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Stop trying to re-define proprietary.
It's not working. You're the only one who thinks that's what it means.

You're re-phrasing what I said, and saying I said the opposite.

Either you're failing at English, or you're not getting any better at trolling.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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've read the groklaw report.
Have you?

Reply Parent Score: 2