This article over at Javalobby on the problems with the current Java license, as well as some of the possible alternatives. It discusses the pros and cons of the Sun license, the GPL, and submitting Java to a standards body.
Java licensing vs. Standards
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Which Java does he mean? It’s a language, a virtual machine, and a set of libraries. On top of that, it’s a trademark used by Sun for a variety of purposes, some of which have nothing to do with the language.
The procedures set up for controlling the language specification seem adequate. Not perfect, but good enough.
Sun’s vm implementation is available for free download, but with petty license restrictions that have the net effect of preventing inclusion with free OS’s. If Sun wants to encourage the use of its jvm as the reference standard of choice, then they need to make it possible for it to be included and installed with the native package manager tools. Sun needs to remind their lawyers that lawyers offer advice to the policy makers, not set policy themselves.
Of course other people can write vm’s, and have. But when standard compliance is important, source for a reference implementation under a free license is a powerful tool. Sun’s code is available, but not under a free license. Sun claims that a free license would allow noncompliant derivatives. This is true, but unimportant, as the trademark can be used to indicate standards compliance. By using a non-free license, Sun has forced free vm authors to start from scratch, making compliance more difficult even for those who want to follow the standard. Those intending noncompliance have always been able to do so by avoiding Sun’s code. The net effect of Sun’s license seems to make compliance less likely, not more likely.
The same arguments apply to libraries. There are also issues regarding patents, where an effective standard requires a royalty-free grant. But I’ve said enough already, so I’ll stop with one last comment:
If Sun wants to encourage greater use of Java, and increase the likelyhood of compatibility, then they should revise their licenses.
If no free OS’s come with Java ……….how is it I just installed Slackware 10 with java as a package?
Java is also included in SuSE…
If no free OS’s come with Java ……….how is it I just installed Slackware 10 with java as a package?
Suns java, or one of the useless (unfortunately) clones?
If suns, then i would like to know how they did that, considering the fact that the license doesn’t permit you to redistribute it.
You can distribute Sun’s Java, but you have to sign some indemnification agreement for them.
Another problem is the air of uncertainty about the future of Java. Certainly Java is a very important technology, so it is unthinkable that any company which was to acquire Sun would simply do away with Java. However, it is not unthinkable that such a company would try to turn Java into a larger profit generating stream by closing off free access to the Java core technologies, and / or charging licensing fees to use them. Although Sun can guarantee us that the Java core technologies will be freely available as long as Sun controls Java, they cannot extend that guarantee across an acquisition. This air of uncertainty likely hurts Java at the present since it hinders adoption among open source developers, small shops, and non-profits that operate on shoestring budget
So, do all of you Mono fudsters feel any safer running Java?
Safer? No. Safe enough? Yes. If anyone were to aquire Sun and hold Java hostage, one of two things would happen; 1) A mass migration to alternate technologies, potentially calling the hostage holder off, or 2) IBM or another large interested company stepping in to outbid for Sun in its entirety, or buying just the Java side to protect their own interests.
IBM made a huge donation to the developer community with Eclipse, and they still continue that with IBM developers working on the Eclipse IDE to the present. There is only one reason they do that, that being they consider it a worthwhile investment in a necessary technology, one beneficial to their interests. They are not going to let it just go away tomorrow, or let someone else hold it hostage when they’ve made the investment they have.
>>So, do all of you Mono fudsters feel any safer running Java?
Even though I’m not a “Mono fudster”, I still feel safer with Java, especially considering SUN is offering a patent grant on the Java specification.
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/jcopyright.d…
I feel safe with both because I’m not a Chicken Little hiding under the covers, afraid to write a line of code because some slashdweebs throw around FUD.
FUD? OK please link to a formal press release clearly stating that MS is offering a patent grant on all patents relating to .NET (C#/CIL) and that induvidual developers will not be forced to apply for licenses.
I put quotes around it because it may just be an clean-room open source toolchain (gcj, kaffe, classpath etc) that provides compatibility with the official JDK. Sun will carp about this version not being compatible and will make some smallish moves to make it incompatible but sooner or later they will run out of breath and let this open toolchain coexist, claiming it is compatible but inferior.
You could argue that the open toolchains are there already for JDK1.3-era compatibility. When they will catch up to Java1.5 is anyone’s guess, but they will. The Sun spec will slow down soon enough in any case and provide an easier target…Sun is in danger of terminally confusing their own audience if they let it morph much more.
As some have pointed out, Sun’s Java is included with some free OS’s. And excluded from others, due to the indemnification requirement. I respect those organizations that pay close attention to licenses, such as Debian and OpenBSD.
I divide licenses into two groups. Some cover only distribution. Others cover usage. The BSD License and the GPL are of the first type, granting you distribution rights that you wouldn’t otherwise have under copyright law. They impose no restrictions on use. As such, you are not required to accept those licenses before using the software. Distribution requires acceptance, which is implied by the act of distributing the software. These are pure licenses, unilateral grants of permission, and not contracts between two parties.
The other type of licenses, usually labeled “End User License Agreement”, attempt to be contracts. A contract requires agreement, so the use of this term is significant. A contract also requires agreement before the exchange of value, which places some EULAs in dubious legal status. “End User” is also significant, as it indicates that the agreement covers use, not just distribution. It takes away rights that you would otherwise have under copyright law.
Sun’s Java license is a typical click-through EULA. I don’t like such licences, as I believe that they add complication and confusion. Standard copyright law provides a good balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the public. EULA restrictions range from nuisance to outrageous. Sun’s Java license is towards the nuisance end, which indicates that they could eliminate the nuisance factor without giving up anything of real value.
I wish that Sun would stop sitting on the fence and either make Java available under a free license, or make it clearly proprietary. Or both, as they did with the Open Office/Star Office pair. I’d be happy with an unsupported but free Java, and others would be happy with a supported but not free Java. The current not-quite-free but unsupported Java satisfies neither.
Patents, Schmatents. If you write a thousand lines of code you’re most likely violating some patent somewhere. The problem for Java and distros is the indemnification requirement and CLASSPATH is not done yet. The patent grant is for Java-specificiation implementors, not app coders. There’s nothing that would prevent Sun from changing the license of future version of their runtime or class libraries. I think it would be a good thing for Sun to “open up” Java not because I fear an SCO buying them out, but because Sun has proven that they’re pretty slow to make any decent changes until something like .NET comes along with to give them some competition.
>>Patents, Schmatents. If you write a thousand lines of code you’re most likely violating some patent somewhere.
Patent uncertainty
If you go outside, you could potentially get hit by a car.
Knowingly infringe on a patent(s)
Walking into the path of a speeding bus.
No uncertainty in this situation.
MS does have patents on .NET (C#/CIL)
Novell is trying to implement .NET and does not have MS’s consent.
MS’s patents are most likely valid.
MS perceives Linux as a threat(atleast on the server)
MS will enforce their patents if they feel threatened
I have worked with .NET since the early beta stage (2000) and I have to admit, I’d be nervous using Mono seeing as they are openly violating MS patents.
MS is not your friendly neighborhood software giant and won’t go for the “free love” angle *if* Mono adoption becomes large-scale, they’ll mercilessly protect their IP, as they have every right to.
Meanwhile, I love Java and am using it regularly now. It’s more open than .NET and involves community feedback, much more than anyone can say about .NET.
Hopefully someday we’ll get an open source JVM on par and entirely compatible with Sun’s…
I think Sun’s stuartship is very beneficial to Java as a language and the Java community. The recent incident with Kodak is a very good example — Sun settled the problem very quickly without letting any uncertainty about Java as a platform to take hold. On the other hand if Java was allowed to run wild as “open source/standard” litigation with Kodak would have taken years and would have seriously damaged Java’s reputation — Kodak would have gone after ISV’s and major users/developers of Java technology (SCO vs. Linux is a very good example of how it could have panned out).
Fine, don’t use Mono or Java or whatever. You can throw out hypothetical FUD all you want, but that’s not going to stop me from using or coding in either.
Let’s be honest. The vast majority of the Mono fudsters are flinging feces because it’s Microsoft tech.
I put quotes around it because it may just be an clean-room open source toolchain (gcj, kaffe, classpath etc) that provides compatibility with the official JDK.
Hah, i will believe that when i see it. Java has been out for how many years now? Is there even a fully working java 1.1 clone out yet? (i remember using java 1.1 1996)
I am also still waiting for a working clone of .NET. So far i haven’t been successful at running any of my GUI programs under Portable.NET or Mono. I will continue to try though, as i would like to offer my freeware programs on linux too, but i am not going to bother figuring out precisely which parts of the library i can and can not use for it to work. (and even less changing the code)
Now i am actually a heavy linux user, but i dont really know other linux users in need of home brewing software. If there was a demand i probably would change my mind.
“as i would like to offer my freeware programs on linux too”
I don’t think you’ll find a very large market for freeware on GNU/Linux. Most users have become accustomed to very lenient licensing conditions that give them a large amount of control over the code.
Freeware is gratis, but proprietary, restrictive software that doesn’t jive well with most of the community.
Furthermore, most freeware isn’t worth your salt. Why accept licensing shenenigans for a tool with low value?
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp
– If you go to the above link, you will find a Java download for Linux.
– If you go to Microsoft’s site you WON’T find a version of .Net for Linux.
Case Closed.
“I think Sun’s stuartship is very beneficial to Java as a language and the Java community.”
Would this be the same if Sun made Java free software, and kept control over the name “Java” instead of control over the code?
“Hah, i will believe that when i see it. Java has been out for how many years now? Is there even a fully working java 1.1 clone out yet? (i remember using java 1.1 1996)”
There’s no need for a Java clone as Java is already available on all platforms. As soon as Sun is to change that, I’d expect a lot of clone projects pop up and some of them would probably get serious.
As for .NET, there are no clones but also no killer applications that would justify writing a clone. Mono / Portable.NET would get a huge boost once there is such an application that could be ported cleanly and easier than rewriting it. Better yet, *several* such applications (since .NET would have to be ported only once).
MS Windows, GNU/Linux and Solaris are the only three operating systems in the world, right?
Dude, you are arguing like a child. Nobody can stop you from using Mono/.NET/whatever if you want, but people can say that Mono is not safe because o MS patents.
spank_da_monkey made valid points, he’s not spreading FUD, like you said. If you disagree you can come with a better point, but you are not doing this.
> “Let’s be honest. The vast majority of the Mono fudsters are flinging feces because it’s Microsoft tech.”
Ahn? All I see is that lots of people (including me) would love to use Mono, but are worried about MS patents. They don’t care if it is from MS or not, only if it is useful (I think it is, although not that necessary) and __safe__.
MS Windows, GNU/Linux and Solaris are the only three operating systems in the world, right?
Even with Linux, there is no JVM for PPC Linux. What PPC Linux users have to use is either the IBM JVM (quite flaky in my experience) or the Blackdown JVM which is stuck at 1.3.1, with *NO* JIT.
A GPL version of Java would be very very welcome.
http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/javatools/jscreator/index.jsp
Sun’s java studio creator includes an app server, I believe, for Mac OS X.
The fact that Sun has products on all major architectures like apple, and version of Java are available on HP-UX, AIX and IBM Mainframe systems seems to be exceptional proof of Sun’s intentions.
Microsoft hasn’t got .Net running anywhere but Windows OS.
To believe that Microsoft would sit back and allow Linux/Mono to erode Windows is a fantastic dream.
Sun’s Java.
Maybe I’m missing something?
Take a look at:
http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/
You can se that GNU Classpath is getting near the goal of free Java. Also take a look a GNU’s GCJ (http://gcc.gnu.org/java/) and the work done there. Just because you hear more often about mono doesn’t mean that they are the only game in town.
Also for windows users take a look here http://www.thisiscool.com/gcc_mingw.htm.
I’m using GCJ now and all I could say is that I’m very impressed by the capabilities of the technology and the progress made to be compatible with Java.
(1) Java is just as patent-encumbered as Mono
(2) You only get the patent grant if you pass the TCK http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/license.html – which is a problem for the GPL. Not only that, but you also have to indemnify Sun with your cleanroom implementation.
Ok. I’ll take a look, but it sounds better (although, not good enough) than .NET.
Anyway, I don’t really like Java. I really hope that it would be safe enough to use Mono.
c# is best than java
mono don’t infringe any microsoft’s patents
if you read some faq from mono site,you will find answers
for all problems concerns patent infringment.
and remember there is no reverse engineering
all the classes ASP.NET ADO.NET is developed from scratch.
no reverse no diasssembling nada nothing.
so stop spread FUD about patent problems.
FYI, JDK 5.0 source bundles are now available, with the old SCSL and the new, relaxed Java Research License:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp
Info about JRL:
http://www.java.net/jrl.csp
Source with JRL:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/jrl_download.html
Source with SCSL license:
http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se/java2/download.ht…
FYI, JDK 5.0 source bundles are now available, with the old SCSL and the new, relaxed Java Research License:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp
Info about JRL:
http://www.java.net/jrl.csp
Source with JRL:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/jrl_download.html
Source with SCSL license:
http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se/java2/download.ht…
Sorry about double-posting..
Patents, Schmatents. If you write a thousand lines of code you’re most likely violating some patent somewhere.
Stop re-gurgitating Nat Friedman’s blogs please
.
We’ve covered this ground before. This potential threat does indeed apply to Java, and indeed any software. .Net, quite cleverly, is different.
Mono at the moment is not infringing on anything (well it is, but that has been waived
) because at the moment they are bound by reasonable terms for any patents they have on their ECMA submitted standards – whatever that means. However, as soon as Microsoft pulls out of the ECMA they are free to point to Mono and other implementations and say “That is our IP they are using” and leverage this:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&…‘20030028685’.PGNR.&OS=DN/20030028685&RS=DN/20030028685
For those who can’t read, that means everything.
There is no escape for Mono because they cannot say that they have created a cleanroom implementation without looking at Microsoft’s standard specifications, because they have quite clearly adhered to them. You also have to keep in mind that the ECMA standards specify the absolute bare minimum. To be compatible with .Net a lot of Microsoft specific technology on top has had to be implemented.
Whether Mono consists of a thousand lines of code or ten, there is absolutely no getting away from this fact now. They are going to need a confirmation from Microsoft that if Microsoft leave the ECMA then the licensing of the .Net standards will continue under the same terms as under the ECMA now (and that provides no guarantees). Microsoft will never make such a binding agreement because that’s the whole point.
This is an extremely poor attempt and article posting at trying to look at Java licensing – the article isn’t even about Java licensing. The fact is that you can create your own version of “Java”, but you can only call it Java or certainly J2EE if it has gone through the certification needed. You could be violating a patent somewhere, as with everything, but Sun cannot point to you and say “That’s an implementation of our Java Standard Specification that they have clearly said that they adhere to. We have patents on that and that it is our IP.” Microsoft can do that.
.Net is clear, nailed down patented, and ironically, Microsoft have been able to make this work in a definitive way because people are adhering to standards. How funny is that?
Let’s be honest. The vast majority of the Mono fudsters are flinging feces because it’s Microsoft tech.
Let’s be honest. The above is a massive problem whether it’s Microsoft are not. Anyway, I don’t think you’ll get much sympathy for the “Oh, it’s Microsoft tech and you all hate it!” crocodile tears. Reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon.
You can throw out hypothetical FUD all you want, but that’s not going to stop me from using or coding in either.
The above is hardly hypothetical – it’s the way it is. Go away, code with Mono if you want and don’t come out with comments that are embarrassing to yourself and just plain wrong.
(1) Java is just as patent-encumbered as Mono
Quite clearly not true, as has been conclusively described in the manner above.
(2) You only get the patent grant if you pass the TCK http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/license.html – which is a problem for the GPL. Not only that, but you also have to indemnify Sun with your cleanroom implementation.
If you want a patent grant and you want to call your cleanroom implementation Java then it has to adhere to the specification and pass it – that’s as good as it can get quite frankly. Certainly, companies like Red Hat will be interested in doing just that. With .Net you are adhering to a set of standards that are encumbered and are subject to Microsoft’s membership of the ECMA whatever you do.
c# is best than java
Well, I’m sure C# bests Java in all areas
.
mono don’t infringe any microsoft’s patents
It does, but at the moment .Net is subject to the reasonable terms laid down by the ECMA. If Microsoft leaves, the direction of the specs are dicatated by Microsoft.
if you read some faq from mono site,you will find answers
What happens if the ECMA standards are no longer subject to reasonable licensing, and Microsoft leaves the ECMA to do that?
What are the guarantees on the indefinite future of the ECMA standards and the reasonable licensing they are subject to? Does the ECMA guarantee this should Microsoft no longer be an ECMA member?
On these topics, silence.
and remember there is no reverse engineering
There is reverse engineering. The ECMA standards specify the absolute bare minimum, which basically gets nothing up and running. To get a working CLR, C# implementation and compiler you have to implement more:
However, this bare minimum is not very useful for realistic C# applications. Microsoft’s .NET Framework SDK contains a lot more classes in its base class libraries. Because we wish to be (more or less) compatible with Microsoft’s .NET offerings, we have to provide more than what ECMA specifies.
From DotGNU’s web site. Mono and DotGNU aren’t even adhering to the ECMA standards.
Anway, what really matters is that if those standards are no longer subject to ECMA’s reasonable terms (there is absolutely no guarantee of the future of these standards), what happens to free implementations and everyone who depends on those implementations of .Net even if the supposedly more patent encumbered namespace implementations are removed?
all the classes ASP.NET ADO.NET is developed from scratch. no reverse no diasssembling nada nothing.
Not really true.
The core of .Net is what’s most important, but I’m not too worried about the simple patenting of the namespaces. Getting that to stand up would be more difficult. The Mono FAQ talks about the ECMA core and namespaces outside the ECMA. That isn’t the issue.
ASP.NET and ADO.NET have to remain compatible with Microsoft’s .Net implementations and the assemblies have had to run unmodified under Mono once compiled under MS .Net (market pressure, call it what you like). There has had to have been a certain amount of reverse engineering and implementation of Microsoft’s technology to achieve this.
However, the core and everything that depends on it ultimately hinges on the future direction Microsoft decides for the ECMA base and its involvement however the Microsoft specific parts are implemented or discarded.
If you want a patent grant and you want to call your cleanroom implementation Java then it has to adhere to the specification and pass it – that’s as good as it can get quite frankly. Certainly, companies like Red Hat will be interested in doing just that. With .Net you are adhering to a set of standards that are encumbered and are subject to Microsoft’s membership of the ECMA whatever you do.
Read the license again, oh clueless one. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/license.html. It says nothing about using the java name. If you want the grant you have to pass the tests whether you call it java or not.
There is reverse engineering. The ECMA standards specify the absolute bare minimum, which basically gets nothing up and running. To get a working CLR, C# implementation and compiler you have to implement more:
And are you going to say that the “free” java implementors aren’t reverse-engineering certain parts to get various compatibility bits right?
What are the guarantees on the indefinite future of the ECMA standards and the reasonable licensing they are subject to? Does the ECMA guarantee this should Microsoft no longer be an ECMA member?
And when Suns dies what happens to it’s Java implementation. There is no “free” version of Java.
ASP.NET and ADO.NET have to remain compatible with Microsoft’s .Net implementations and the assemblies have had to run unmodified under Mono once compiled under MS .Net (market pressure, call it what you like). There has had to have been a certain amount of reverse engineering and implementation of Microsoft’s technology to achieve this.
Yep, just like you have to reverse-engineer Java to get all the bits right, which is also not permitted under the patent grant.
You sure cranked up the FUD machine once again. I’m surprised you didn’t break out the “I’m still bitter about some company I have no ties to using .NET over Java” story for the third time.
“And are you going to say that the “free” java implementors aren’t reverse-engineering certain parts to get various compatibility bits right? ”
this is actually correct. gnu java doesnt do any reverse engineering at all. obsolutely *none*
check the mailing lists to see how this is achieved. sun does allow more freedom with its patent grant than MS even did. the potential of risk of MS suing is generally more than Sun.
so its a balance of risks actually.
I was actually trying to get David to put forth his definition of “reverse engineering”. Historically, reverse-engineering in the software world has meant either disassembling some code or figuring out how some protocol works.
Now both Java and .NET are going to exibit behavior that doesn’t jive with the official specs, so the question then is if you go ahead and duplicate the unofficial behavior or go with the straight specs.
the potential of risk of MS suing is generally more than Sun.
Sun, like other companies, will protect its intellectual property. Sun does what is in Sun’s interests, not what is in open source interests, no matter how much they try to spin their schizophrenic behavior towards it.
Sun, like other companies, will protect its intellectual property. Sun does what is in Sun’s interests, not what is in open source interests, no matter how much they try to spin their schizophrenic behavior towards it.
—
true. i dont think gcj threatens sun java as much as mono does to .net. java is already cross platform and not tied to windows. mono changes the non cross platform windows specific technology and that would completely throw MS off the hook. anything non-windows isnt part of MS game plan and they sure will be proactive about it.
Mono challenges MS in two ways
1) MS losing control over windows specific technology which .net is
2) MS losting control to unix like implementations like linux and freebsd. doubt attack here.
I still believe Mono risk is higher than gcj. remember than I am NOT a friend of Sun despite this
Read the license again, oh clueless one. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/license.html. It says nothing about using the java name. If you want the grant you have to pass the tests whether you call it java or not.
There’s more to the Java spec (especially the J2EE one) than just a license, or set of licenses. You are simply trying to imagine Java as an implementation in the same way as .Net, is with a single set of licenses and a single spec etc. Java just isn’t like that. Anyway, suppose you don’t want the grant?
And are you going to say that the “free” java implementors aren’t reverse-engineering certain parts to get various compatibility bits right?
Free versions of Java do not reverse engineer anything as there’s freedom to implement a spec there.
In reality it’s probably more dangerous to just use the ECMA stuff (but everyone is using that anyway so that’s a mute point), but you can’t get anything up and running with that. Therein lies the confusion Microsoft would like to create.
Microsoft’s hooks into certain Windows specific components especially for using ADO.NET and ASP.NET have had to be reverse engineered because the Mono people need to get MS assemblies up and running on Mono unmodified. You can’t do that with just the base ECMA standards, and you don’t have to do that with Java.
And when Suns dies what happens to it’s Java implementation. There is no “free” version of Java.
When Sun dies it’s tough. IBM still has its implementation and free versions will simply continue. The future direction of Java can then be decided by the community, even if it isn’t called Java.
You sure cranked up the FUD machine once again.
As you know, it’s not FUD. That’s something Microsoft does
.
I’m surprised you didn’t break out the “I’m still bitter about some company I have no ties to using .NET over Java” story for the third time.
It really seems to worry you that story. I can’t think why.
Sun, like other companies, will protect its intellectual property. Sun does what is in Sun’s interests, not what is in open source interests, no matter how much they try to spin their schizophrenic behavior towards it.
With that in mind it’s a question of who’s the better enemy for the future. Since everything that Java companies like IBM, JBoss, BEA etc. are doing with Java now is outside of the JCP mostly, and outside of Sun’s influence, the safer bet is definitely Java. More companies use (and in reality control) Java and have vested interests. How many companies like these use different implementations of .Net? None.
please. not just talk bla bla bla. show me the money.
please. not just talk bla bla bla. show me the money.
There is a link to a patent above. Why the situation is more serious for Mono than other software is described below.
Mono does infringe on this patent, but it won’t effect Mono at the moment because Microsoft is bound by the reasonable patent licensing terms ECMA membership puts on them. However, if and when Microsoft leaves the ECMA (when .Net is more widely used) then those reasonable licensing terms do not apply.
Microsoft then scares people by telling them that they have patents on the core of .Net that apply, and are able to even put legal pressure on Mono in a more cast-iron way than they have with other software before. Why can they do this? Because the Mono people cannot deny that their software adheres to the, previously, ECMA’d standards!
I tried to read that link you sent. Lawyers must love themselves for being able to write that stuff. Anyhow, 3 things:
1. If I read (parts) correctly that text looks like it describes web services only. They provide a lot of source material but I think it is to support that specific purpose.
2. The other thing I noticed is that is a pattent application. Not even approved yet. Although, I can’t claim to know the impact of this type of this status.
3. What does your crystal ball say about standards submitted to ISO? Is that just another method to scare people from creating an implimentation of their patented work?
You seem to want to scare people for some reason. Do you spend a lot of time yelling at the wind? Has it ever ocurred to you that Microsoft *wants* people to create products for their standards because they think they can do it better to stay competive? It makes these technologies compete on their terms (sort of). Of course this could back fire – but will it be too late for them to do anything about?
Anyhow, this was an article about Java, not Mono. Do you need to convert some mono developers to java because they aren’t enough? I’ve read your posts and I hope that people realize that you’re spreading a lot of bullshit.
I don’t think you’ll find a very large market for freeware on GNU/Linux. Most users have become accustomed to very lenient licensing conditions that give them a large amount of control over the code.
Indeed, if i actually could get it to run on Portable.NET it would make sense to GPL it, which i would like to. But it makes nada sense in my mind to try to open source something that currently relies on a proprietary platform, which is why it currently only available without source.
Not that it currently matters much, as home brewing tools hardly is mainstream
I tried to read that link you sent.
I know – it’s a ridiculous link.
1. If I read (parts) correctly that text looks like it describes web services only. They provide a lot of source material but I think it is to support that specific purpose.
It describes more than web services, and it’s basically everything built on top of a .Net platform. There are a number of others, but Googling will be the better option as it’s impossible to get the links on here.
Then look at the ECMA terms Microsoft are bound by on the ECMA web site, and ask yourself if this is something that is guranteed for everyone to use without any entanglements. If Microsoft are no longr bound by these reasonable terms, what happens?
2. The other thing I noticed is that is a pattent application. Not even approved yet. Although, I can’t claim to know the impact of this type of this status.
That’s the application. It has been approved.
3. What does your crystal ball say about standards submitted to ISO? Is that just another method to scare people from creating an implimentation of their patented work?
The same thing. It’s incredible how many people don’t see what’s infront of them and start describing crystal balls.
Look into your crystal ball when Microsoft pulls out of this standards process and there is no prospect of .Net compatibility, leaving Microsoft with the base .Net implementation as their IP.
They’ve had this in place even before they submitted their ECMA standards.
Has it ever ocurred to you that Microsoft *wants* people to create products for their standards because they think they can do it better to stay competive?
Err, errrm, ummm, errrrr – NO. Bill Gates and Microsoft have publicly stated that standards are a give-get – you apparently give something away and then you get something back later. In this case, it is the improvement of .Net until .Net is more popular and ubiquitous than it is now. After that there can definitely be only one.
Past history regarding Microsoft tells me this is true.
It makes these technologies compete on their terms (sort of). Of course this could back fire – but will it be too late for them to do anything about?
No, because Microsoft still control everything .Net is built on, both in technology and IP terms.
Anyhow, this was an article about Java, not Mono.
Yes, and some people want to give the impression that Java is somehow just as bad or worse with all this talk of Java licensing. I’m no total Java fan, but that quite clearly is not the case as much as people want to squeal and squirm.
Do you need to convert some mono developers to java because they aren’t enough?
Desperate:
http://jonas.objectweb.org/
http://jakarta.apache.org/ (look at the projects on here)
The point I made earlier, as you can’t read, is that the (especially open source) Java community is huge compared to that of Mono. Mono hasn’t even touched the surface of this lot in terms of its breadth and it never will. Sorry, but you show your terrible lack of knowledge with a comment like that.
I’ve read your posts and I hope that people realize that you’re spreading a lot of bullshit.
Then I suggest you reply to them and state case-by-case why I am wrong. What you’ve provided so far is something so weak that it will blow away in a light breeze, let alone yelling in the wind.
You may call it bullshit until you’re blue in the face, but the fact is that no one has answered these questions. The fact that the Mono people say they’ve got a little letter proves it pretty conclusively, as they know it too.
I’m not a lawyer (and I assume you are not as well or your box might be just that much bigger) so I’m not going to try and figure out what legal challenges are ahead for Mono, .net, java etc… I write software that I essentially give away (usually for money) and I’ll let the market decide what I’m going to use. In my play time I use mono and some other fun ones.
You go on and on as if you “know”. But you don’t know. You can’t say that Microsoft will pull out of ECMA although you talk as if it is some kind of certainty. That makes you sound a little extreme. You pull up these large legal documents and profess that they are the absolute proof that Microsoft is up to no good. Do you work for Microsoft? Do you listen under “their” doors?
Please give your in depth analysis of the ECMA vs ISO vs. “signed deal with the Devil”. You seem to know so much. Then, please go tell every other company that has an agreement with those standards organizations and tell them that they wasted their money because *you* don’t believe them.
Sending me a couple of cool java links that you probably had nothing to do with is what exactly? UMMM errrrr ahhhh thanks for the links. Of course the Java community is huge compared to Mono – here, I’ll say it terms that your potty-mouth can understand. (insert silly deleted sentence here) Java has got probably 12-14 years on mono – you type meaningless comparisons between the two. Besides, do you think the aliens are coming to get you or that Mono was sent here to take over Java. I read your paranoid crap too much I think. If anything I think the Java community has given many-many good things to mono and especially .net. I use many examples of these daily. THANKS JAVA, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
“Then I suggest you reply to them and state case-by-case why I am wrong. What you’ve provided so far is something so weak that it will blow away in a light breeze, let alone yelling in the wind.”
I actually will go out of my way when I know with certainty and spread knowledge not just FUD. You haven’t proved a thing here…. Do you read this ok?? NOTHING ZERO ZILCH. You do you have an amazing grasp on the obvious though. Congratulations.
oh and just for fun here are a couple of links you might find interesting too:
http://www.cnn.com
http://www.microsoft.com
http://www.whatsmyipaddress.com
(can’t believe you sent an apache link!)
I know this doesn’t prove anything but it’s at least a little interesting. David mentioned somewhere (in this thread?) something about clean room implimentations which got me thinking.
Here’s a link (one of many) that I’ve found:
http://www.fact-index.com/c/cl/clean_room_design.html
I feel safe with both because I’m not a Chicken Little hiding under the covers, afraid to write a line of code because some slashdweebs throw around FUD.
I feel safe with both because I’m not a Chicken Little hiding under the covers, afraid to write a line of code because some slashdweebs throw around FUD.
You can’t say that Microsoft will pull out of ECMA although you talk as if it is some kind of certainty.
That’s a decision for Microsoft, and that’s the point
. Mono is not going to be able to make them stay. This sentence just proves a total inability to think ahead – don’t worry many people can’t.
That makes you sound a little extreme. You pull up these large legal documents and profess that they are the absolute proof that Microsoft is up to no good. Do you work for Microsoft? Do you listen under “their” doors?
You put 2 and 2 together, ask how Microsoft are in control and ask yourself how they have done it. If you’re looking for cast-iron ways in which Microsoft can cripple the ECMA base they created you don’t need to look very hard.
Then, please go tell every other company that has an agreement with those standards organizations and tell them that they wasted their money because *you* don’t believe them.
Irrelevant. Read the reasonable terms stipulated by the ECMA. Look at the terms and conditions for a lot of these standards. That’s where the truth lies, not telling me about companies that are wasting their money.
Sending me a couple of cool java links that you probably had nothing to do with is what exactly? UMMM errrrr ahhhh thanks for the links.
Copying is a form of flattery
. You stipulated that Java had no developers – I proved you wrong. There are very few developers using Mono.
Of course the Java community is huge compared to Mono – here, I’ll say it terms that your potty-mouth can understand. (insert silly deleted sentence here) Java has got probably 12-14 years on mono – you type meaningless comparisons between the two. Besides, do you think the aliens are coming to get you or that Mono was sent here to take over Java. I read your paranoid crap too much I think. If anything I think the Java community has given many-many good things to mono and especially .net. I use many examples of these daily. THANKS JAVA, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Totally meaningless paragraph that sums up your ability to argue your case.
I actually will go out of my way when I know with certainty and spread knowledge not just FUD.
Since everything seems to be FUD I doubt whether you will.
You haven’t proved a thing here?. Do you read this ok?? NOTHING ZERO ZILCH. You do you have an amazing grasp on the obvious though. Congratulations.
Another stellar paragraph.
Then answer the questions in terms of the threats to Mono. If Microsoft leaves the ECMA (a decision that is up to them) what happens to any patents and reasonable terms on them? You can’t cover your ears and say “Oh, it hasn’t happened”, because you can go on forever like that. Just what will happen to Mono’s position?
The fact that you haven’t attempted to answer it proves my point.
I feel safe with both because I’m not a Chicken Little hiding under the covers, afraid to write a line of code because some slashdweebs throw around FUD.
Says the Slashdweeb.
I’m not afraid to write code either – as long as I know there is nothing cast-iron on the basic tools for the software I am writing. The ECMA standards provide that cast-iron basis for IP licensing.
you’re funny – and all the sarcasm is hilarious. If I could only be like this in life.
I’m not certain that mono has a leg to stand on either way. I hope they do – and hope that Novell isn’t leading happy developers down some aweful road. I don’t feel extremely threatened because I’ll always fall back on what ever the other language is. Anyhow, you can say whatever you want until your blue but throwing out loose words (again and again) doesn’t make you right or even close to being right (yes-yes: “irrelevant”, there, I beat you to it).
My [very small] point about the java developers thing is there ARE many many java developers so it wasn’t worth your while trying to convert anyone off of mono in a java thread. Preaching away as if you guiding people from the gates of hell. tis all – no offense there? The paragraph you labelled as, well, whatever – it was my intention to say the opposite of what you understood. Read it again with a little sarcasm in your voice.
The last insulting sentence was just to sound like all the other heros around here – it seems to be the norm lol.
Anyhow David, say what you want and to whom – but you still don’t know. And how could you.
You mentioned that interesting clean-room argument a bit back (not to me) – that sounds scary and even possible. but I’m still going to use mono.
I’m not certain that mono has a leg to stand on either way. I hope they do – and hope that Novell isn’t leading happy developers down some aweful road. I don’t feel extremely threatened because I’ll always fall back on what ever the other language is.
If you’re not certain Mono has a leg to stand on, why bother writing crap?
Anyhow, you can say whatever you want until your blue but throwing out loose words (again and again) doesn’t make you right or even close to being right (yes-yes: “irrelevant”, there, I beat you to it).
Err, providing links to some evidence, what the ECMA terms are, more evidence – you know, all the things that make you right. We keep coming back to this common theme.
Preaching away as if you guiding people from the gates of hell. tis all – no offense there? The paragraph you labelled as, well, whatever – it was my intention to say the opposite of what you understood. Read it again with a little sarcasm in your voice.
“Oh, it was all reverse psychology”, “Oh I cleverly wanted to say the opposite of…”, it was – bollocks. People do this to me every other week. You either engage in conversation with people and stay on topic and listen and respond to what they’ve said, or you say nothing. It’s called communication.
And yet you still haven’t read and addressed the issues, and you have even admitted you don’t understand them. I’m afraid that people think they can get away with talking bollocks about nothing and making it look like something, and making it look as if they know what they’re talking about. Guess what? You can’t, and some people come to realise that in a very real (and sometimes embarrassing) way during the course of their lives.
People do this to deflect what they clearly don’t know.
UMMM errrrr ahhhh thanks for the links.
Err, evidence, reading around? Obviously not very familiar concepts.
The last insulting sentence was just to sound like all the other heros around here – it seems to be the norm lol.
It’s easy to do this – what is less easy is to read and address the points.
Anyhow David, say what you want and to whom – but you still don’t know. And how could you.
As I said, it’s the easiest thing in the world to say. What isn’t so easy is to look ahead, look at who is in control of what and where and realise that it isn’t acceptable. You can’t make blanket statements in life.
You mentioned that interesting clean-room argument a bit back (not to me) – that sounds scary and even possible. but I’m still going to use mono.
Do you know what a cleanroom implementation is, or know what the difference is between that and the way Mono is implemented? No. I don’t know what’s scary about it, but I suppose that’s another attempt at sarcasm that doesn’t come off at all because it doesn’t actually address the point of why a cleanroom implementation is worse than the way Mono is implemented and set up.
The point about sarcasm is that if you’re going to try and be on another level from everyone else you still actually have to know what you’re talking about and address what people are saying at the same time
.
Given this and the above you cannot say that I’m not close to being right because I’ve given a heck of a lot more as to why I’m right than wrong. If you want the right to say that then you do the same and prove me wrong. Basic simple common sense, reasoning and argument.
Go ahead, but no one is going to take Mono seriously or use it on a widespread basis as it stands because of what I’ve come up with. That obviously irritates the hell out of a lot of people like a rash, but there it is.