“Remember when I promised you all that I’d tell you all about the Fedora/Mono decision when I could? Well, now I can. It has to do with a little organization called OIN. Allow me to quote from Mark Webbink’s article, ‘The Open Invention Network’, in the April 2006 edition of Linux Magazine: “The OIN commons is created by having all participants in OIN, whether members or licensees, cross-license any owned patents that affect the Linux kernel, key components in any Linux distribution, and certain key Linux-related applications. The commons forms a large, safe area for development free of patent concerns”. And where does Mono fit in?”
can anybody expand on this ?
There are two significant reasons that people don’t like Mono:
(1) .NET was developed by Microsoft, and everything Microsoft touches is ‘teh 3vil’ (despite their “touching” HTML, CSS, XML, SOAP, C, C++, and numerous other standards).
(2) Patents. Largely because of (1), it was feared that Microsoft would use Patents as a weapon to stop future Mono development. Why use a platform which might not exist in the future?
There isn’t much that can be said to alter (1) (but Microsoft is teh 3vil!), but The Open Invention Network serves as a response to (2). Even if there are patents that Mono infringes, OIN provides a way to negotiate with Microsoft, as it’s fairly probable that Microsoft infringes on patents held by OIN. This promotes cross-licensing with Microsoft, which could prevent Microsoft from using patents to shut down numerous open-source projects, including Mono.
as it’s fairly probable that Microsoft infringes on patents held by OIN
You have no idea if that is true or not. It is precisely because the specter of MS is hanging over Mono that people don’t like it. No matter what you say people are always going to say “Mono is cool, but…”.
Agreed.
Until Microsoft EXPLICITLY promises to NEVER use it’s IP rights against MONO, it should be treated like the Flu that ATTACKS LINUX.
This is mentioned a lot, but seems to me to be pure paranoia. Mono is a re-implementation based on a ECMA standard, it is not a hacked .net from MS. MS even released a shared-source implementation of the CLI to assist “People developing their own CLI implementations” (quote from the MS shared source CLI page). I don’t see how they can protect the relevant IP in a courtroom when they have so openly given it away with a suggestion for people to make their own versions.
The worst thing I can think of that MS can do is to make changes in the next versions of .net that makes them incompatible with Mono. Which of course doesn’t matter at all since Mono stands on it’s own and doesn’t rely on MS to function. Even if this version of Mono is the last one to be compatible with .net, it is still excellent and can be used to make great appliactions for Linux and other systems.
While some may hesitate, those who don’t have given us a surprising amount of very cool software in very short time, I hope that continues.
(1) .NET was developed by Microsoft, and everything Microsoft touches is ‘teh 3vil’ (despite their “touching” HTML, CSS, XML, SOAP, C, C++, and numerous other standards)
Except that you extrapolated the last part of your sentence.
The problem is not that everything MS touches is ‘teh 3vil’, it’s that everything DEVELOPED (or rather invented) by MS is ‘teh 3vil’.
Because of undocumented API for example, there are plenty of old and current examples of this in MS history.
Unless of course, chasing the tail of MS seems viable to you.
There is no problem with C# for example, as it was not developed by MS (until they hired/bought the inventor, but it was too late). Nor with any of the other technologies you quoted, as none were invented by MS. Even SMB is fine, but CIFS extensions are not, and are the reason Samba is struggling to interoperate with Windows.
Mono doesn’t need to be fully compatible with .NET to be useful to the free software community, unlike Samba for example. (if Samba isn’t compatible with Microsoft it’s almost useless).
Edited 2006-03-23 16:38
I think that it’d be good for mono to diverge from following .NET closely and use the “embrace & extend” strategy. It’s already a nice programming platform for OSS, but it rather won’t find wide acceptance among MS .NET developers. It will never be able to run .NET programs 100% accurately so it will always be required to install the Mono backend in order to run. For this reason I think that Mono should go in its own direction and only take what’s good from .NET and avoid patented technolgies e.g. windows.forms
Though the whole point of mono is to enable cross platform development in C# .Net I do agree with you. Mono needs to find its own direction like GTK# for example, leave windows forms alone. If mono does catches on with Linux developers and give people the opportunity of easily running .Net apps successfully I do feel microsoft will pull out their patent whips and beat us into submission. I like the concept of the c# language and platform but following ms tail is something I think OSS can’t afford.
Mono.Windows.Forms are reaching feature completion: they will be released as beta very soon.
Look here:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Mar-23.html
OIN itself, if it’s used much, will be a great argument on the futility and innefficiency of software patents.
If everyone is infringing on everyone, and is hence powerless, no one gains from the patents. We might as well just hire lawyers to twiddle their thumbs, that might cause less damage to society!
There’s nothing in this at all. And no, the risk does not go away just because you happen to be a member of a club. I don’t see Microsoft as a member anywhere.
Even if Micrsoft make a statement telling that won’t sue Mono you would still believe it will, it is in your Anti-Novell, Anti-Mono, Anti-Xminian troll nature.
Problem is, Microsoft has *not* made such a statement. If Microsoft makes an official statement, you can bet many Mono nay-sayers will go away. I like Mono but won’t really touch it due to the legal grey area it currently resides in.
Every software is exposed to get sued by Microsoft, (They even patented the basic things every software use and I mean every) And not for that people won’t develope anymore, the difference is that Mono is protected at least by Novell patents, it means at the moment Microsoft try to sue Mono then Microsoft will get sued by Novell for its own patents, Novell and Microsoft dont want that to happen, and it is a convenience for Microsoft to have Mono being developed, that gives .NET a reach only java can get in real multiplatform, being realistic Mono has a really á very very small chance to get sued like every software does.
Every software is exposed to get sued by Microsoft
NO IT ISN’T. Go away and have a read before you make idiotic comments regurgitated by the Mono people about a thousand times, with words to the effect of “Oh, well anyone can be sued”. Well, some more than others ;-).
.Net, and the underlying CLR and CLI stuff, are still Microsoft’s IP and the ECMA submission, and the ECMA itself, have done absolutely nothing to change that. It tells them with a ridiculously amateurish framework document that they should be nice, for the duration of their ECMA membership, but it legally binds them to absolutely nothing.
Go to ECMA’s website and read what you can find.
the difference is that Mono is protected at least by Novell patents
Is it really? Well I’m sure that makes everyone feel better.
it means at the moment Microsoft try to sue Mono then Microsoft will get sued by Novell for its own patents
No, because Microsoft still have a pretty strong claim on .Net and everything that surrounds it. That can be proved by anything that adheres to their ECMA standards, cunningly enough.
I’d also have a bet on the company that would win that ;-).
Novell and Microsoft dont want that to happen
No one needs to sue anyone actually. It is enough that Microsoft has a strong enough claim, they spread some nice language and voila, people are scared right off using Mono. It’s an easy thing to do at any time.
After twenty plus years of Microsoft’s experience in this I can’t believe that there are still lemmings who want to bungee jump off that cliff.
that gives .NET a reach only java can get in real multiplatform
Well, you keep raiding the anti-freeze cupboard, but Microsoft is not interested in cross-platform development.
being realistic Mono has a really á very very small chance to get sued like every software does.
Mono is not like other software.
Damn I hate long replies, can you probe your point with less words?
Go and read the patents Microsoft had and you will release the stupid things they have patented.
But of course you as the number #1 anti-Ximian, anti-Mono , anti-Novell troll only read what is convenient for your trollish goals.
get a life already or go back to “#kde-promo where you belong or should I say “#gnome-bashers”?
I see your friends, or should I say, your additional accounts have modded you up again. ROTFL.
Damn I hate long replies, can you probe your point with less words?
Hmmm. If your attention span cannot stretch to a comment maybe you should tr a reading class, or not making stupid comments?
Go and read the patents Microsoft had and you will release the stupid things they have patented.
Microsoft’s patents apply specifically to anything that uses, and runs on top of, the CLR or any ECMA standards they have submitted. If you adhere to them then you need to be aware of the potential problems.
But of course you as the number #1 anti-Ximian, anti-Mono , anti-Novell troll only read what is convenient for your trollish goals.
You could have just said I was right and that you’ve got no clue how to reply, Might have saved you some huffing and puffing.
get a life already or go back to “#kde-promo where you belong or should I say “#gnome-bashers”?
Hmmm. What;s this got to do with KDE or Gnome, or are you just imagining stuff that isn’t there as usual?
I could say go back to #into-bed-with-mono-and-dotnet, but that wouldn’t be on-topic, would it? 😉
By the way, where is your full response to the points made above?
just another long and boring post.
Can you probe your point with less words? or you are not smart enought?
Edited 2006-03-24 17:31
Even if Micrsoft make a statement telling that won’t sue Mono you would still believe it will, it is in your Anti-Novell, Anti-Mono, Anti-Xminian troll nature.
Well, Microsoft haven’t made such a statement and I’ve made it pretty clear why I’ve made a stand on some of the issues I have. If you think I’m picking on your babies, well, tough.
Oh, and what a wonderfully informative comment modded up by wonderfully informative people! ROTFL.
Good to see you reply after 24 hrs. did you spend all that time figuring out what to say/invent or what new sarcasm will you come out with?
Good to see you reply after 24 hrs. did you spend all that time figuring out what to say/invent or what new sarcasm will you come out with?
It’s called having a life and having other things to do, which presumably, you know nothing about :-).
Or maybe alaborating a sarcasm? life? I don’t think you know the meaning of it.
You don’t get it do you. MS doesn’t need to be a member. All that matters is you are a member of the “big patents club”. Once given exclusive membership to this fine club then you have eliminated a huge threat that faces you.
Take the SCO case as a good example. They decided it would be cool to sue IBM. We all know this was stupid though because IBM is the president of the “big patents club”. So IBM came back and countersued with four patents they hold. It’s a great club to be in. (I think IBM later dropped these charges, probably because they realized SCO didn’t have a case)
The same applies here except the OIN was formed to help free software to become proxy members of this club. These specific patents just happen to be broad enough that they add a great deal of clout to OIN.
Mono, being an effort that falls under OIN can now breath a little easier since MS will undoubtedly fall under many of the patents included with OIN. Which, of course, is why “big patent club” members traditionally don’t sue each other and cross license, etc.
This is why I believe at least part of the patent problem has been solved by the market. The biggeset problem is from patent holdning companies like the one RIM was up against. They exist only to extract money from their patents and thus aren’t an easy counter sue target.
And no I’m not a lawyer, but it doesn’t take a lawyer to see why this helps mono and countless other projects.
All that matters is you are a member of the “big patents club”. Once given exclusive membership to this fine club then you have eliminated a huge threat that faces you.
Unbelievably wrong. Tying open source projects to needing a big patents club of companies to protect them is incredible dangerous.
It also doesn’t stop Microsoft doing something at all, so you’re wrong there. All it does is try to create a club that attempts to be as big as Microsoft’s to try and scare off any threat. It doesn’t stop anything.
Take the SCO case as a good example. They decided it would be cool to sue IBM. We all know this was stupid though because IBM is the president of the “big patents club”. So IBM came back and countersued with four patents they hold.
Bad, bad example. Microsoft has a very strong claim to .Net, backed up by what the ECMA allows them to do. SCO had no claim whatsoever on Linux, and that was obvious from the outset.
Which, of course, is why “big patent club” members traditionally don’t sue each other and cross license, etc.
And you think cross-licensing for open source projects is good? Well, I suppose it’s a nice way of getting open source projects to depend completely on larger companies, and lawyers, to survive, but that’s about all.
All it is doing is fueling the fire of a patent threat to open source projects and not actually dealing with the real problem.
This is why I believe at least part of the patent problem has been solved by the market.
Do you really?
The biggeset problem is from patent holdning companies like the one RIM was up against. They exist only to extract money from their patents and thus aren’t an easy counter sue target.
Well, you could certainly put Microsoft in that bracket and they could certainly do that if they wanted to. Having a patent club doesn’t solve that problem at all, which you’ve admitted (the only right comment in there).
And no I’m not a lawyer, but it doesn’t take a lawyer to see why this helps mono and countless other projects.
Well, it’s a nice business for lawyers, ;-), but in reality it helps no one but the companies who want to keep open source projects under their express control. It simply uses the threat of patents to scare them into the club rather than solving the patent problem itself. This is incredibly dangerous for independent open source projects out there, and all it does is admit that patents have a credible legal basis and it is OK to go after, scare and sue projects who aren’t in the club. Crass stupidity.
I don’t know who modded you up, but you are incredibly wrong.
No one has ever addressed the issue of this enourmous microsoft brand legal sledgehammer hovering over this project.
1) mono is useful
2) Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent infringment during its long history. Not because they couldn’t but because of company policies.
Now, I guess we had enough threads about mono being cool but “patents blablabla”. If you want to use mono, do that. If you don’t want, don’t use it. But casting clouds over mono after so many years mono existed is frankly pointless.
Why didn’t Red Hat ship mono before? Because they didn’t want to give any advantage to a direct competitor. Why do they do it now? Because they signed an agreement with Novell about this.
I have Mono installed on my Kanotix box, and I like it a lot. I even have the “Mono Developers Notebook” from O’Reilly. C#, the .Net CLR, GTK#, MonoDevelop, etc, are all really nice tools. Also, MS did a pretty good job in developing a language and platform. It embraces and extends and refines Java, and Java 5, and soon Java 6, have embraced some of the ideas from C#/.Net.
Mono could also be useful in trying to attract Windows developers to the *nix platform, and allow customers to port their .Net apps to a *nix platform. These things could prove useful, if Mono were ever able to implement the .Net platform entirely (Win.Forms, ASP.Net, etc). But that’s not going to ever happen.
Also, Mono is not needed for general *.nix development. There are plenty of other really good languages/runtimes/tools that fill that need, including Java, Python, Glade, Anjuta, KDevelop, Perl, Ruby, C, C++, Eclipse, and the list goes on.
So knowing how there is in fact a risk of receiving the wrath of MS patents, why bother? There is nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, even as nice as Mono is.