Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Of Monopolies and Mono
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Peter Brown, the Free Software Foundation's executive director, though
> | still isn't impressed. Brown said, "It's my understanding that Microsoft
> | has not yet announced anything officially, but assuming it follows up on
> | this blog post and covers ECMA 334 and 335 under the Community Promise,
> | it will not protect free software from the threats we have been
> | discussing That's because Mono implements, and Tomboy depends upon, a
> | number of libraries which are 'standard' in the sense that they're under
> | C#'s "System" namespace (indicating that they're part of the standard
> | library) and provided in Microsoft's implementation, but somewhat
> | pointedly excluded from the ECMA specifications."
If micoshaft were to releaes the CLI and all the software under the GPL,
then there would be no more issues.
They won't and the issues will continue.
> | So, Brown continued, "If the question is, should GNU/Linux distributions
> | include Mono? Then the community promise from Microsoft covering these
> | two specifications clearly isn't sufficient. That they won't sue us for
> | infringement of some of their Mono patents is useless if they reserve
> | the right to sue us over other Mono patents. If Microsoft really wants
> | to assure the free software community that it does not intend to attack
> | applications based on Mono in the future, it should issue a patent
> | license to everyone for all the patents that are necessarily infringed
> | by the complete implementation of Mono, that allows users to use, share,
> | and modify the software as they see fit."
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | But, Roy Schestowitz, editor of Boycott Novell thinks that focusing on
> | the patent issue alone is a mistake. Schestowitz said, "Patents were
> | never the sole issue when it comes to Mono." Microsoft doesn't allow
> | deviation from the .NET core. "This ensures that Microsoft stays in
> | control. This leads to no independence, which Microsoft may describe as
> | 'fragmentation.'"
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6793/2/
>
> Microsoft Community Promise & MONO
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | So why didn't Microsoft's lawyers include this in the main body?
> | Microsoft's lawyers aren't stupid (I know one of them, she's a really
> | smart lady). So why did they write it in this confused way?
> |
> | I don't know. It doesn't make any sense.
> `----
>
> http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/2009/07
microsoft-community-promise-mono.html
>
> Mono promise is nice, Microsoft. What about Linux?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Carlo Daffara, an open-source consultant, rightly notes that Microsoft's
> | patent promise is not directly on Mono, but rather on these ECMA
> | standards, which leaves "most of Mono...encumbered as before (WinForms,
> | ADO.NET, ...)."
> `----
>
> http:/
news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10280924-16.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=TheOpenRoad
>
> I still believe this is a victory for Microsoft!
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I am already laughing sarcastically when I imagine the faces of those
> | Linux developers who, after having told their boss that they know C# and
> | Mono, will be assigned to an ASP.NET project? on a Microsoft platform
> | that uses the genuine .NET! Because this is what will happen!
> |
> | And when you think that, after the initial unknown motivation to start
> | developing Mono, the whole thing took exposure after some moron wrote
> | Tomboy!
> |
> | Therefore, believe me or not, my twisted radar tells me that in the long
> | run, Tomboy and F-Spot are going to boost the sales of Microsoft
> | Dynamics, which is a .NET range of products. Good work, Steve, and good
> | work, Miguel.
> `----
>
> http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/2009/07/07
i-still-believe-this-is-a-victory-for-microsoft/
>
> Does Mono even matter anymore these days?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Anyway, who should care about this? Gnome developers mostly. The rest of
> | us have gone out of the .Net and Java wars after around 2004 or 2005,
> | and have realized that there other realities such as Qt and Python (to
> | name just a few), and most of all, there is the Internet, and the POSH
> | (Plain Old Simple Html), and that new little Linux distributions
> | launched by Google? And so much more.
> |
> | Mono and .Net is one of the last schemes from an outdated behemoth; both
> | the scheme and its inventor will soon fade in blissful irrelevance. It
> | does not mean it cannot sting back though?.
> `----
>
> http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/07/08
does-mono-even-matter-anymore-these-days/
>
> Mono: Microsoft community promise inadequate, says RMS
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26166/1090
>
> The pro-Microsoft Gavin Clarke giving de Icaza exposure, as usual:
>
> Open-source .NET splits for extra Microsoft protection
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/07/mono_splits/
>
> All working to spread .NET everywhere.
>
> Mary Jo Foley too. Oh, how Microsoft loves Mono!
>
> Microsoft removes a hurdle for Mono
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3242
>
>
> Recent:
>
> Stallman says "Don't depend on Mono"
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The debate over Mono has simmered ever since the Mono C# implementation
> | was announced. The suspicion has been that Microsoft have patents that
> | are relevant to C# and are just waiting for Linux developers to become
> | comfortable with Mono so they can pull the rug out from under Linux.
> | Mono's defenders point out that Mono itself is an implementation of the
> | ECMA standard for C# and that the patents that are usually referred to
> | belong to the higher .Net layers which run on C# based systems, but
> | aren't implemented as a core part of Mono. Microsoft made a statement in
> | 2003 saying the patents which are relevant to the ECMA/ISO standard are
> | "royalty-free and otherwise RAND"; a somewhat confusing statement
> | without saying which technology falls under the royalty free and which
> | is under RAND terms (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory).
> |
> | In some ways though, the worries about Mono are of the Mono project's
> | own making. By having the project implement both the ECMA/ISO covered
> | elements and the more obviously patented ASP.NET, ADO.NET and
> | Windows.Forms components, the lines have been blurred for many as to
> | what is or is not patent safe. Stallman's statement says that all C#
> | implementations are potentially unsafe from a patent attack from
> | Microsoft.
> `----
>
> http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/141254
>
>
> Linux is being tamed.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Assuming Mono gets shoved into Linux and gains acceptance, then Linux
> | is "tamed." Even without the patent threat, even if C# is some sort
> | of "standard," Microsoft still defines .NET and everything about it.
> | From past behavior it's quite evident that they know how to walk the
> | fine line of bending "standards" to their will and marketplace benefit.
> | Mono gives Microsoft power over a major Linux Desktop API, and the
> | ability to make sure it's always the "second platform", always a day
> | late and a dollar short.
> |
> | The other interesting thing about Mono is that nobody is asking for it.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxtoday.com
news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-06-27-009-39-OP-DB-MS-0004
>
>
> Ubuntu tech board plays down Mono IP concerns
>
> http://osdir.com/Article10305.phtml
>
>
> Hands off the Gimp
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | How to I scale an image in f-spot ? If there?s a way, I have not been
> | able to find it (same for red eyes). How do I annotate an image (putting
> | text somewhere) ?
> |
> | Yet people ask ?Gimp is cool but.. should it belong to LiveCD?? I?ll
> | give you a better question: what should belong to the LiveCD ?
> |
> | Removing GIMP from the LiveCd fully defeats the showing off purpouse of
> | the LiveCd and lives you without any handy tool to perform basic
> | manipulation on images. Now, it can be just me, but I can?t find
> | anything useful in that regard inside Jaunty?s f-spot.
> `----
>
> http://www.stefanoforenza.com/hands-off-the-gimp/
>
>
> The elusive, royalty-free patent licence for Mono
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | How difficult or easy is it to obtain one of the much-touted
> | "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licences for Microsoft
> | patents that are part of a technology like Mono?
> |
> | Judging by the frequency with which references are made to such licences
> | by those who back Novell vice-president Miguel de Icaza's bid to create
> | an open source clone of Microsoft's .NET development environment, it's
> | surprising that no-one has ever ventured to test this claim.
> |
> | The idea of trying to find out what was involved arose after reading a
> | nearly nine-month old, well-written post defending the use of Mono and
> | mocking its detractors. The author, Jo Shields, is a Debian developer
> | and works for Oxford University.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | He replied two days later, pointing out, "Ecma does not have anything to
> | do with possible licensing of .NET. But Microsoft is one of our members,
> | so I have asked them whom to contact there ? if anything is needed, what
> | I just do not know."
> |
> | Dr Sebestyn added: "My contact at Microsoft said that you should contact
> | Peggy Moloney there, who would be able to help you."
> |
> | I wrote to Ms Moloney on April 28, asking for the same information: "I
> | understand that the terms of the licences to the patents which Microsoft
> | holds on the .NET development platform permit people to obtain a
> | royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory licence to use them. I
> | would be grateful if you let me know exactly how one obtains such a
> | licence."
> |
> | I also asked her about the variance in the terms for the licensing of
> | Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, using which the company
> | hopes to capture the market that is dominated by Adobe's Flash. De Icaza
> | is behind this project as well.
> |
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | There's a been a deafening silence since then. There the matter stands
> | after nearly a month. You would think that's a decent period for anyone
> | to think things through and respond - if the intention of doing so
> | exists.
> |
> | To me, it looks this licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa
> | Claus. I think Mono fans need to think of a fresh defence when people
> | talk about the dangers of patent suits arising over this technology. The
> | licence talk has worn more than a little thin.
> `----
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpYMf8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7r3ACbBwKtg1gQ4dHUIdCDRF/NLOC6
> E6gAn0gkjrPP/KPsW+Q1r0Mu+/8qcm8a
> =fyUL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
