After takin' a swig o' grog, Homer belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> http://www.mutantdesign.co.uk/downloads/ExpressEmails1.html
"I would be happy to discuss your integration at the API level and help
you understand what API's are licensed under which licenses."
> Weber repeatedly refers to Cansdale's work as a "hack", even though
> Cansdale proves conclusively that it only uses API's published by
> Microsoft, and available for free on their Website.
>
> This set me thinking about Mono, and how this Microsoft-encumbered
> Intellectual Monopoly was a specific threat to FOSS, not merely because
> of the /patents/ (RAND or otherwise), but primarily because of the
> /patentor/. If the Vole would pursue one of their own /MVPs/ so
> viciously and tenaciously, over nothing more than a damned /plugin/,
> what do you suppose they'll start doing once their "IP" has well and
> truly infested Free Software?
I think everyone here knows the answer.
> I wonder if the vole will be as "benevolent" to the Free Software
> community as they've apparently been to Dell and friends, if some patent
> troll sues a FOSS developer for patent "infringements" relating to .NET?
>
> But then, that's where Novell comes in, isn't it? It's only Novell
> customers who are "indemnified" against whatever threats they may
> encounter WRT Microsoft's alleged "IP".
>
> From that perspective alone, it's sheer insanity for any distro other
> than SUSE to ship Mono or any of it's related technologies and
> dependants, but there's still the question of the infamous "patentor"
> and it's motives.
>
> It's not exactly news, and it doesn't take a genius to work out what the
> Vole is up to, in fact it's transparently obvious. The plan goes
> something like this:
>
> 1. Find some Microsoft-friendly FOSS developers ...
> 2. Buy a commercial Linux vendor ...
> 3. Start infecting FOSS with Microsoft "IP", ...
> 4. Provide "indemnity" only for customers of that single (sellout) Linux...
> 5. Wait for the infection to spread...
> and virtually unavoidable.
> 6. ... making a lot of noise about "undisclosed balance sheet liabilities"...
> 7. Keep the pressure on certain Linux vendors...
> 8. Light the patent-fuse; sit back and enjoy the show...
The sad thing is, the patent-fuse doesn't even require the first 7 steps, as
software is extraordinarily malleable and the ideas embodied in software
are easy to spread around the world.
> Now you know why de Icaza named it "Mono®".
<sick grin>
> And to think that Tom "Spot" Callaway (Fedora Engineering Manager) once
> vehemently proclaimed:
>
> [quote]
> We will never include Mono, or anything that is obviously patented
> without a patent grant in writing that permits unrestricted use and
> redistribution, as per the terms of the GPL.
> [/quote]
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00602.html
>
> Today it's an entirely different story:
>
> [quote]
> 1. The decision to allow Mono to enter the tree seems to have been made
> arbitrarily by Red Hat, with no community consultation, and in spite
> of protests (including some by high profile Red Hat personnel -
> mostly expressed as a rejection of Mono before the announcement).
> to those who implement it:
>
> Windows software development is an absolute minefield of legal pitfalls,
> and now thanks to some mysterious conspiracy (or at least grossly
> misguided decisions) that same minefield is slowly infesting Free
> Software too, via Mono.
--
Mathematicians often resort to something called Hilbert space, which is
described as being n-dimensional. Like modern sex, any number can play.
-- Dr. Thor Wald, "Beep/The Quincunx of Time", by James Blish
|
|
