[Attribution fixed]
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> [H]omer wrote:
>> 1) ... What proportion of Mono uses Microsoft's patented
>> technology, including that which is is part of the ECMA
>> specifications?
>
> Read our policy on patents (Microsoft or otherwise):
>
> http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
I was not asking for a reaffirmation of your policies, but rather a
clarification of the extent of Microsoft's property in Mono.
>From the link:
"The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft
falls under the ECMA/ISO submission"
And:
"The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has
developed and integrated third party class libraries"
I think it would be prudent to include patent notices with the upstream
distribution of Mono, in a addition to the usual copyright notices, in
order to differentiate those components which are Microsoft's
Intellectual Property, for the benefit of those of us who might need to
assess our liabilities, and make an informed choice.
> Which is not different than any other open source project.
That does not appear to be the case:
"When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono
runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to
relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms.
This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that
might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code.
Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime
engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release
those changes back."
This would essentially preclude anyone from protecting their
contributions, to the core of Mono, from being exploited in such a way
that destroys the intended freedom of that contribution. Effectively,
this is a GPL circumvention device, in the vein of Tivoisation.
That does not seem at all consistent with the principles of Free Software.
>> 2) ... To what degree do you trust ECMA and the RAND covenant to
>> not sue, for the use of any Microsoft Intellectual Property?
>
> See the above link.
The above link provides no indication of either your opinion, nor
Novell's, of the trustworthiness or authority of RAND agreements, much
less how viable such agreements are in relation to Microsoft.
>> 3) ... To what degree do you Trust Microsoft, either in terms of
>> their promises; their motivations; or their commitment to a
>> competing platform like Linux?
>
> This is a question that is suitable for Teen magazine or Cosmo.
It was a question deemed serious enough by the DOJ and EU commission,
that it prompted investigation and remedy against Microsoft under the
terms of anti-trust violations.
> Sadly there is no bumper-sticker answer, or I would gladly give you
> that.
It seems simple enough to me. Do you, or do you not trust Microsoft to
engage with the Free Software community with only good and honourable
intentions?
> This is a multi-dimensional question, that requires all the nuances
> of a full blog post.
If the answer is that complex, then that would seem to suggest that
there are elements of doubt to your opinions of Microsoft's intentions,
would it not?
Perhaps you could elucidate those doubts for our benefit.
> You might want to read my interviews, my blog and my position as
> stated on Slashdot.
I have, and continue to do so, including your recent Channel9 interview,
which I found to be just as evasive and full of platitudes as all your
other public comments.
It is an interesting interview, however, and reveals that you are
obviously someone who is primarily technically motivated, with little
interest in political issues, similar to Torvalds for example.
However, in your efforts to counteract the demonisation of Microsoft,
you appear to have overcompensated somewhat, since you are clearly
fawning to the interviewer. I found your comments with respect to
Windows reliability quite amusing. You seemed to be inferring that
Windows hasn't suffered interminable instability and crashes since the
days of Windows 3.1, which is clearly not the case.
Since this interview was little more than a PR exercise ("Microsoft:
we're not evil, honest"), I would not have seriously expected you to
voice your true opinions of them, since that would have entirely
defeated the purpose of the exercise.
I'm afraid it might be an entirely unrealistic expectation for you to
speak candidly about a company that is, in essence, your employer, but I
was hoping you could at least provide some form of reassurance. After
all, you are an ambassador for Mono (regardless of whatever other
capacity you may fill), so it's only natural that you should be prepared
to endorse it with authoritative assurances, since the authority;
veracity; and trustworthiness of Microsoft; ECMA and Novell are
questionable.
>> 4) ... Do you foresee a point in the future where access to much of
>> the Web might be impossible, or at least extraordinarily
>> difficult, without the use of Silverlight, much like Microsoft
>> tried to do with ActiveX and other proprietary; encumbered; and
>> non-standard technology during the Netscape years?
>
> Another question suitable for Teen magazine.
Again, I refer you to the aforementioned anti-trust investigations.
Let me ask you a perfectly blunt question. Do you, or do you not think
that Microsoft should have been prosecuted for violations of the Sherman
Act?
If we can establish that much, then I'll know whether or not there is
any point to this discussion.
> Replace "Silverlight" with Javascript in the above question. Can
> you browse the web without Javascript? You certainly can, but some
> sites do not work without it.
This is not a question of technical dependencies, this is a question of
politics and legal liabilities, Neither Sun's; Netscape's nor Mozilla's
motivations or intentions are in question here; Microsoft's are.
> Or replace "Silverlight" with "Flash", you certainly can browse
> youtube, but you will not get much out of it without it.
Both Silverlight and Flash are proprietary and encumbered technologies,
and I have no interest in either one of them, beyond my fear that one
day I may be completely unable to use the Web without submitting to
Adobe's or Microsoft's arbitrary restrictions on my freedom.
> People will adopt Silverlight when it solves a problem for them, and
> each person will have to evaluate whether Silverlight over another
> technology is the right match for the problem.
And who will solve the problem of society's diminishing freedoms at the
hands of Intellectual Monopolists?
>> 5) ... Do you further forsee the likelihood that the binary blobs,
>> that you speak of, become a hard dependency in order to fully
>> utilise the future Web, as it will be reborn in Microsoft's image,
>> given the possibility that Microsoft may develop new proprietary
>> and encumbered codecs, or enforce their Intellectual Property
>> rights on Free implementations of existing codecs, such as those
>> used in FFMPEG?
>
> You are not required to use the binary blobs. You can build
> Moonlight yourself and use the FFMPEG codecs.
Currently, yes, but if Microsoft was to forcibly assert it's
Intellectual Property claims on the Windows Media implementation in
ffmpeg, then I would have no choice but to accept these binary blobs, or
face restricted access to the Web, for what I'm sure Microsoft hopes
will represent an ever increasing proportion of sites that replace
traditional content with Microsoft's encumbered technology.
> Novell will not be redistributing the FFMPEG based code due to the
> conflict that the LGPL has with the patents owned by MPEGLA (to which
> we will become licensors).
Yes, I am also well aware of the conflicts of interest between ffmpeg
and MPEGLA, and indeed between Intellectual Monopolists and the Free
Software community in general.
>> 6) ... Therefore do you concede that it is possible, and indeed
>> likely, that the future of the Web (and in other contexts - office
>> documents and software development) might end up becoming utterly
>> dependent of Microsoft's Intellectual Property, and thus
>> effectively controlled (in essence "owned") by Microsoft, just as
>> they have been striving to do for so long, and have currently
>> succeeded in other areas, such as the OEM channel; games
>> development; hardware support; and elsewhere?
>
> You seem confused, and you seem to be asking questions and answering
> those yourself.
Not at all. I asked if you concede that it is possible. Do you or not?
Microsoft's modus operandum is well known and well documented, indeed
they have been prosecuted for it, which is the main reason it is so well
documented. What I am asking is if you believe that technologies like
.NET, Silverlight and OOXML are further extensions of that strategy, and
whether or not they assist Microsoft's agenda of market domination; the
inhibition of freedom and choice by the enforcement of Intellectual
Monopolies; and the suppression of Free Software and Open Standards.
>> 7) ... And finally, do you think it is prudent, or even morally
>> right, for Free Software developers to essentially help Microsoft
>> in their endeavours to dominate the Web; office formats; and
>> software development, particularly as Microsoft has continuously
>> expressed so much contempt and hatred for the principles of Free
>> Software and Open Standards over the years?
>
> I have blogged extensively about this question, you might want to
> read my blog on those subjects. There are two dimensions to this
> problem, and I have addressed both: a) Microsoft providing a tool
> that people actually want to use, with a feature range of things that
> are genuinely useful while nobody else is;
As others have noticed, that is an extremely arrogant presumption.
Freedom is at least as important as functionality. As a Free Software
developer, I would have hoped you'd remember that, but apparently it
seems to be something you have long since forgotten.
Let me put this to you quite bluntly; if you want proprietary solutions,
then by all means feel free to use them, but please don't poison Free
Software with your efforts.
> (b) whether its good for Linux to be a second class citizen on the
> web when you are unable to watch content.
If Linux becomes bound by Microsoft's draconian control, then it won't
be a citizen at all, it'll be a slave. I'd rather live in freedom on the
street (in abject poverty, if it comes to that), than be chained to a
comfortable bed in a prison cell.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
22:17:35 up 73 days, 19:53, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
|
|
