Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 17th May 2011 12:05 UTC
Mono Project Two weeks ago we covered the news that the Mono development team were let go kicked out by the new owners of Novel, Attachmate, apparently to move operations to Germany. Miguel de Icazza, founder of Mono, has taken this opportunity to break off on his own and has started a new company, Xamarin, to bring commercial .NET development products to iOS and Android.
Thread beginning with comment 473488
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: legal Problems are deep
by lemur2 on Wed 18th May 2011 00:29 UTC in reply to "legal Problems are deep"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"The Microsoft community promise is on C# and the .Net run time, not the ASP.Net, WinForms, or ADO.Net APIs. Thus, I see Miguel and company emphasizing on C#, Mono runtime, and the GTK#, MonoTouch, and MonoDroid APIs.
Their is a problem. Microsoft Community Promise on ,net only covers the ECMA spec listed features. I am sorry that MS .net runtime and Mono .net runtime exceed that. And Mono .net runtime has implemented the features MS has out side the spec. So there is 0 percent of usable Mono without either recoding(to remove the bits out side ECMA) or a patent promise. Maybe project lead of mono will at long last deliver on his promise to provide a ECMA compliant run-time option. I have not really been asking for much. I am not out to kill mono. I would just like version built to the legal limitations. "

According to the following posts, there is not one program for Linux written using Mono which uses only the the ECMA spec listed features.

http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/mono-unsafe-at-any-speed/

http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/on-mono-packaging/

Mono classes which are not part of the technology Microsoft has submitted to ECMA have no coverage under the Microsoft Community Promise.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

You know that your linked article is just counting namespaces and not classes or use of patents.

For example a point struct is best kept in System.Drawing and therefore System.Drawing is included even if no "Patent Promise" exists for this namespace.

So how is it so "Dangerous" to use a point struct?

Doesn't Java have a Point class? Is that "Dangerous" to use as well? Or is it only "Dangerous" if used from C#?

Is short, your spin is disingenuous at best.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: legal Problems are deep
by oiaohm on Wed 18th May 2011 04:43 in reply to "RE[2]: legal Problems are deep"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Doesn't Java have a Point class? Is that "Dangerous" to use as well? Or is it only "Dangerous" if used from C#?


The issue here is method used in the C# point class might be MS unique and patented. Same with every other class that is not contained in the ECMA. There maybe landmines. Safe bet is to be able to build on a landmine free field. What mono does not provide developers with.

Java if your Java is from Redhat, IBM or Oracle. It has a full patent coverage. All open source java engines form them are under GPL or LGPL.

Java has 3 approved suppliers that can make their own forms. Oracle cannot attack Redhat or IBM or product produced using Java patents. Same with reverse. IBM cannot use it patents that cover java against Redhat or Orcale building a JVM. And so on. Also this patent allowance does not have a timeframe. New patents taken out by IBM Orcale or Redhat cannot be applied against each other or their users over java.

Multi patent safe supply lines. Its also possible to build with a non extended Java. Redhat or Orcales base Java's provide. So you know you are inside the patent protected zone.

.Net. MS the only supplier with full unlimited supply protection. Novell had until the end of this year. If you were building with ECMA spec .net you would also have unlimited timeframe but there are basically no one is providing that.

Issue with mono is that there are many namespaces that cannot be disabled that are outside the patent shield of the community promise. So developers cannot simply check if they are inside or outside the protection.

Java is simple install the Orcale JVM or the Redhat JVM if you application works it using nothing from the JVM that does not have patent protection.

Now lets do .net. Application works fine on MS .net nop that is extended. It works fine on mono nop that is extended. This is not a suitable outcome.

Even with C and C++ I can restrict my build and runtime environments so only patent protection covered parts or too old to be patent protected out there. .Net currently too hard to be sure you are legally free and clear unless you restrict yourself to Microsoft products only.

Basically if you can present me with a method that I can be 100 percent sure I am running legally free and clear with .net on Linux OS X and so on. I maybe interested in the language.

Legal side must be answered. All the data of the legal issues of mono is out there. Been done many times over. Time to stop saying its not important.

GTK interfaces for mono most likely are not a legal issue since patent breach most likely would have to be in GTK so would have a heavy legal defense.

This is the critical thing. The most dangerous stuff is by MS and not covered by a patent grant.

Remember MS has been caught selling patents off to patent trolls to have those patents used against Linux. Yes so MS can patent attack Linux without their name on it. Nothing is stopping MS from selling patents off to trolls to attack mono users if mono ever becomes a threat to their market share.

MS is confirmed hostile to open source by their actions.

Reply Parent Score: 5

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Mono classes which are not part of the technology Microsoft has submitted to ECMA have no coverage under the Microsoft Community Promise.


I think, for iOS, the more tricky aspect of this is the Mono Runtime itself. It's LGPL (EEEK!!) unless commercially licensed (as it was in MonoTouch.) That means that for Miguel's new venture, they need to Commercially license Mono Runtime from Attachmate to enable them to statically link it to an iOS executable. Do you see a bit of an issue here? I do. I'm not really going to go in to insane speculation mode, but to Commercially license a runtime from your nemesis - isn't this dangerous? Basically, Attachmate would be in direct competition if they continue to sell MonoTouch. So they could easily revoke the license or block it.

No Miguel is a resourceful guy, so I'm hoping they'll just create their own Runtime in the course of this. Then license than as BSD. And we'll all be free of the BS that surrounds staticly linking the Mono Runtime to any exe on any platform

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: legal Problems are deep
by oiaohm on Thu 19th May 2011 23:22 in reply to "RE[2]: legal Problems are deep"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

No Miguel is a resourceful guy, so I'm hoping they'll just create their own Runtime in the course of this. Then license than as BSD. And we'll all be free of the BS that surrounds staticly linking the Mono Runtime to any exe on any platform


Legally this day and age you would want Apache 2.0 or equal. BSD is another License like MIT that contains no patent grants. Apache 2.0 allows static linking.

Yes the runtimes MS has released would be fine a base for iphone and other platforms.

By the way. Apache Harmony what is a JVM is also I stayed well clear of for lot of projects as well. But Apache Harmony has always openly admitted where the patent converge error is. Since Apache Harmony is not tested against the TCK or based off the LGPL source the java patent grant is not there . Of course you can pay the money for access to the TCK test it yourself and have the patent grant. Price of TCK for company is a gettable value. So costs of using Apache Harmony are check-able.

I don't hate Apache Harmony. I am annoyed by the legal mess. I don't hate it because they are legally truthful about what is wrong.

Mono project has taken the path of place under a rug and hope it goes away. So making live harder for me. Since legally risky stuff ends up mixed with stuff that would be safe. So making Mono completely not usable to me.

Using a Linux kernel in a device you can expect a phone call from Microsoft at some point over patents. Of course normally patents that don't apply to the product. Like fat long/short file name translation formula that your kernel does not use. Guess who has to answer these calls? Might explain why I am not trusting Microsoft right.

Remember early on while FAT was going in dependance in the embed OS usage MS did not go after any such claims.

History people tells us how MS will act. As a item designed by them gets dominate if you don't have a Patent grant they will hit you by either selling patents to trolls or hit you directly. This is the beast they are.

Who has the better IDE is not a issue if you cannot ship the application or a send bankrupt because you shipped an application.

Reply Parent Score: 2