GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| reply to SUMware
Re: Thoughts on Mono?
said by SUMware  :From SDTimesJuly 7, 2009 - quote:
The caveat is that Microsoft has not yet included any of its .NET development frameworks under the Community Promise, said Anne Thomas Manes, research director with Burton Group. "I'm not sure how many people write C# applications without also using the frameworks. To date, Microsoft has looked the other way regarding licensing of their frameworks."
From Ars TechnicaJuly 7, 2009 - quote:
This application of the Promise covers the contents of ECMA 334 and 335, but not additional .NET technologies that are outside the scope of those standards. The area covered by those standards includes the C# programming language, all the relevant parts of the runtime environment, and the standard library. It does not include ASP.NET, the WinForms APIs, or other proprietary Microsoft technologies.
From Computerworld07.07.2009 - quote:
In a somewhat cryptic explanation of the differences between Open Specification Promise and Community Promise, Microsoft on its Community Promise page said, "The CP (Community Process) requires that implementations conform to all of required parts of the mandatory portions of the specification. Also, in specified cases (such as where the specifications have uses that exceed those needed to achieve the interoperability needs for which the release under the CP is being made), the CP may have special terms concerning what kinds of implementations are covered."
From the same article:
quote:
In response to Microsoft's addition of .NET technologies to the Community Promise, the Mono project will branch its source code into two separate source code distributions: one that is based strictly upon the ECMA specification, and another that includes Mono's implementations of the .NET frameworks, said Mono project leader and Novell vice president Miguel de Icaza in his blog.As I understand it this only affects the windows.forms and .net .adodb stuff. There's some good discussion in the slashdot comments.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
2 edits | Bottom line: some people are determined to find a way to convince themselves, and others, to trust the alleged 'benevolence' of Microsoft. In spite of years of duplicitous MS behavior.
Others remain rationally, healthily and legally skeptical. |
|
GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| said by SUMware :Bottom line: some people are determined to find a way to convince themselves, and others, to trust the alleged 'benevolence' of Microsoft. In spite of years of duplicitous MS behavior. Others remain rationally, healthily and legally skeptical. I could really care less either way, I don't use mono and I tend not to code in .Net. I do, however, see it as a nice framework.
What I actually see, instead of rationally, healthily and legally skeptical is people who see something that was originally conceived of by MS and start looking for reasons to hate it. In one of the articles MS even said that this promise legally binds them into not being able to attack Mono or open source. The parts of .Net that Mono has that are still open for attach are actively being split out into a second 'install at your own risk' package as they should be. I find this to be in line with using binary or restricted drivers in linux. Most of the pieces that fall into that category are libraries that I haven't seen used much in software. Lets be honest, people are more likely to use gtk.sharp as opposed to windows.forms, and I don't see a lot of linux asp.net deployments.
Bottom line is .net is a nice framework with a good collection of libraries, much like Java is, and I can remember a lot of these same issues when Java first started to become popular, and those have seemingly panned out nicely. I agree that we (as a developer/user community) still need to be on watch and be careful, but no more so than we did with QT, Java or any of the other frameworks that had some amount of closed source-ness to them
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| said by GILXA1226 :MS even said that this promise legally binds them Microsoft said. My point exactly.
When independent and expert IP attorneys evaluate and publish their opinions regarding this I will listen. |
|
GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| said by SUMware :said by GILXA1226 :MS even said that this promise legally binds them Microsoft said. My point exactly. When independent and expert IP attorneys evaluate and publish their opinions regarding this I will listen. Look up Promissory Estoppel, I think most lawyers would agree it would apply, however IANAL.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to GILXA1226
Seems like it's the parts that make for possible (easy) cross-os development are the parts that are still questionable. Divide and conquer?
To me it seems like there are other options that are better and ones that allow for deployment across multiple operating systems without having extensive separate code for them.
C# and .Net just seem to lower the bar and let any schmuck that tries make an application which to me doesn't create quality applications but more of a throw away and use another app in the future.
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~ |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21 | reply to GILXA1226
Hey, do as you wish. Makes no diff to me.  |
|
GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto :Seems like it's the parts that make for possible (easy) cross-os development are the parts that are still questionable. Divide and conquer? To me it seems like there are other options that are better and ones that allow for deployment across multiple operating systems without having extensive separate code for them. C# and .Net just seem to lower the bar and let any schmuck that tries make an application which to me doesn't create quality applications but more of a throw away and use another app in the future. I see your point, and actually do agree to an extent. C# is actually a very powerful language, if we were talking VB then I would definitely agree as I was making VB apps before I even knew what programming was. As for cross development work, there are still a lot of open-source libraries that would allow for it. Programs like Banshee are starting to make use of them. I don't see a lot of people using it like Java to be ~100% cross platform.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
LinuxPenquin
@rr.com
|  reply to GILXA1226
said by GILXA1226 :
What I actually see, instead of rationally, healthily and legally skeptical is people who see something that was originally conceived of by MS and start looking for reasons to hate it.
Thats reason enough its from ms. Done. Story over.
My choice in no ms, will cost $$, probably six figures, and high six figures to develop software which will NOT be tied to ms and its traps.
It will run on Linux, BSD, Mac, and even win.
quote:
In one of the articles MS even said that this promise legally binds them into not being able to attack Mono or open source.
Put it in a legally binding document, till then, lips are moving the lies are spewing.
quote:
The parts of .Net that Mono has that are still open for attach are actively being split out into a second 'install at your own risk' package as they should be.
A good move, but still not allowing it in. NO C#, period. Just go away ms.
quote:
I find this to be in line with using binary or restricted drivers in linux.
No.... I don't see this to be in the same line.
quote:
but no more so than we did with QT, Java or any of the other frameworks that had some amount of closed source-ness to them
No we need to be EVEN MORE on the watch for the torpedo that ms is trying to use to sink Linux. |
|
mich
join:2008-08-30
1 edit | reply to GILXA1226
said by GILXA1226 :What I actually see, instead of rationally, healthily and legally skeptical is people who see something that was originally conceived of by MS and start looking for reasons to hate it. In one of the articles MS even said that this promise legally binds them into not being able to attack Mono or open source. IANAL, but IMO this MSCP means absolutely nothing, even if it's really legally binding for them.
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation") So if your implementation turns out to not conform to one of the required parts of one of the mandatory provisions of Covered Specification, then ...
Ok, maybe this problem isn't that serious (after all, your software is perfect and conforms exactly to all standards ), but it certainly can be abused. And MS specifications tend to be long.
subject to the following:
This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you. So if you use Mono, you can't sue MS for violation of your own patents by their impementation. How nice.
To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification. I'm not sure what does it mean, but it looks like "you can implement everything what has been clearly described in specs, but if you try to reinvent portions which aren't explained in detail, we may sue".
This promise by Microsoft is not an assurance that either (i) any of Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise. So you can't really know which 3rd party patents are needed to implement their specs unless you spend eternity on your own research. Also, this means that MS can incorporate in "mandatory provisions of the specification" things which they know that are patented by somebody else and sooner or later you will be forced to either pay this "somebody else" or make your implementation incompatible with "mandatory provisions of that specification" So even with this promise in place, I can go to MS, pay them to use one of my patents, wait few years and then sue Novell and their clients into oblivion. Moreover, MS can even sell me some of their .NET patents (under condition that I won't sue MS or sell it to somebody who would sue MS) and I will be free to rape Mono users however I like I'm sure that there are some professional patent troll companies who would happily buy such patent.
said by GILXA1226 :The parts of .Net that Mono has that are still open for attach are actively being split out into a second 'install at your own risk' package as they should be. I find this to be in line with using binary or restricted drivers in linux. Most of the pieces that fall into that category are libraries that I haven't seen used much in software. Lets be honest, people are more likely to use gtk.sharp as opposed to windows.forms, and I don't see a lot of linux asp.net deployments. So what's the point of using C# at all if you have to Bring Your Own Libraries?
said by GILXA1226 :Bottom line is .net is a nice framework with a good collection of libraries Which are either legally unclear or platform specific and incompatible with each other. Actually, we call such situation "a mess"
said by GILXA1226 :much like Java is AFAIK not only JVM, but also all standard Java classes are free and legally safe. In case of .NET, the only safe part is VM.
said by GILXA1226 :still need to be on watch and be careful, but no more so than we did with QT, Java Qt and Java weren't created by a company well known from using every possible dirty trick to destroy competition.
Oh, and come on, don't compare Qt and Java to .NET.
Java is a poor language (I hate it and I know that I'm not alone ) with rich and cross platform standard library.
Qt is a decent cross platform library for a great, cross platform programming language.
C#/.NET is a language/runtime not much better than Java with standard library tied to one vendor. |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to KodiacZiller
The problem with modern copyright law is how insane it is.
Even using GPL there's always a chance of you copyright infringing.
The only thing is that with GPL... you almost certainly wont be seeing insane lawsuits or problems. Which is essentially the problem people see with mono. They fear microsoft will one day send out the papers.
Microsoft have said they wont be doing anything bad... but still... |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| reply to KodiacZiller
Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing
13 July 2009
The debate continues in a detailed and multi-linked article at ITWire. It's kind of a thought provoking overview, if you're so inclined.
BTW - there is no video to watch. 
Not to re-open a can of worms but... at the close of Moglen's presentation (discussed in the other thread) he invited questions from the audience. This was the last question, and Moglen's response had me laughing:
(from the transcript):
Q: ...I always wondered, what would Microsoft call their Linux distribution?
Moglen: I haven’t seen my dear friend Ron Hovsepian for some weeks, so I’m going to get on his nerves by saying to you: They will call it "Novell". |
|
Ctrl Alt Del
Premium
join:2002-02-18
| reply to KodiacZiller
There's a surprising number of applications written in and/or use C#/Mono, here's the ones that caught my eye:
Some are Ubuntu default applications last I checked.
--
less talk, more music |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| said by Ctrl Alt Del :There's a surprising number of applications written in and/or use C#/Mono, here's the ones that caught my eye: Some are Ubuntu default applications last I checked. This is true. The situation is that the programmers simply chose to write the code in the C language. Which they probably knew better. There's no point in forcing programmers to write code in languages they dont understand as well.
The issue isnt even with mono... mono as a whole is good. It's the problem is that it uses the .net framework. Infact the parts which are used arent even parts needed in mono. So the problem arises is that... You could write a book and have one extremely unimportant paragraph in it that is copyrighted. If you get sued... your whole book is on the block then. Very similar to that of the sequel book for catcher in the rye. |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
2 edits | said by munky99999 :You could write a book and have one extremely unimportant paragraph in it that is copyrighted. If you get sued... your whole book is on the block then. Very similar to that of the sequel book for catcher in the rye. I understand your point. But Salinger's suit wasn't merely about limited and simple plagiarism:
From Authorlink:
quote:
Literary icon J.D. Salinger won his law suit July 1 against the unauthorized publication of a sequel to his famous novel, THE CATCHER IN THE RYE. Judge Deborah Batts ruled that Fredrik Colting’s 60 Years Later would damage the market for "sequels and other derivative works" by Salinger. The Judge barred publication of Colting’s book in the U. S. marketplace, but it will go on sale in Europe sometime next week.
Swedish author Fredrik Colting, age 33, writes under the pen name John David California. He told the media that he was shocked at the ruling and will definitely file an expedited appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court as early as next week. His attorneys expect a hearing in July or early August with a possible answer in September. Colting contends his work should be protected under parody and fair use laws. But the court disagreed.
More details at The NYT:
quote:
In a suit filed on June 1, lawyers for Mr. Salinger in the copyright infringement lawsuit contended that the new work was derivative of "Catcher" and Holden Caulfield, and infringed on Mr. Salinger’s copyright.
[emphasis added]
The potential problems revolving around .Net & Mono, etc. may involve stealth issues of MS proprietary methods used to create derivative works. As articles have stated, MS could publish a detailed clarification to resolve the uncertainty, but have not. |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| said by SUMware :I understand your point. But Salinger's suit wasn't merely about limited and simple plagiarism: Fair enough if I misrepresented the suit. All I know is that salinger hasnt written a sequel or anything. Eventually his copyright will be up and we will be able to develop on the story more.
I'm sorry but in the free market... you need to keep getting better and more products to survive. You cant just have 1 copyright and disallow all development in that field.
Which is the fear of mono. Simple fix for the author of the sequel is to publish it in some country which doesn't respect their patent troll. Release it under GPL or whatever. Put it on the net and not care about it. That's about it. It's absurd people cant publish works when such an opening should exist.
quote:
The potential problems revolving around .Net & Mono, etc. may involve stealth issues of MS proprietary methods used to create derivative works. As articles have stated, MS could publish a detailed clarification to resolve the uncertainty, but have not.
The reality I suspect is most of the open source community will simply ignore the situation. That's essentially what ubuntu is doing. Even if microsoft started throwing out lawsuits... they couldnt target many people at all. They would be forced to go at the big targets. Who would simply argue in court. HEre's plain text language saying that we can use it. If they wish to use their patent rights to force us to end it now. It can be done and will.
Microsoft gain nothing. They lose compatibility bigtime.
Which frankly... being compatible is what made microsoft win over the novells and macs and ibms.
Mac eventually was forced to drop their proprietary garbage appletalk and go with tcpip or they were going to be out.
Microsoft is starting to see that they will have to devote lots of work into providing "windows services for unix" or "interoperability" without spending much money... meaning they have to go open source. Or they will be left behind also. Especially so when you consider google's OS.
How long until Windows supports Ext3-4, reiser, and other filesystems. NFS protocols...
It will happen or microsoft will nosedive.
Which if you've read about microsoft's stock and that ticking timebomb... oh boy will that be bad. |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| You bring up some interesting points.
said by munky99999 :said by SUMware :I understand your point. But Salinger's suit wasn't merely about limited and simple plagiarism: Fair enough if I misrepresented the suit. Didn't mean to imply that you intentionally misrepresented anything. The copyright suit was focused elsewhere on broader issues.
said by munky99999 :All I know is that salinger hasnt written a sequel or anything. Eventually his copyright will be up and we will be able to develop on the story more. I'm sorry but in the free market... you need to keep getting better and more products to survive. You cant just have 1 copyright and disallow all development in that field. Copyright gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation, after which time the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the author's death, or a shorter period for anonymous or corporate authorship.
said by munky99999 :Simple fix for the author of the sequel is to publish it in some country which doesn't respect their patent troll. Release it under GPL or whatever. Put it on the net and not care about it. That's about it. It's absurd people cant publish works when such an opening should exist. Copyright law is as it is. You're mixing up copyrights, patents, and licenses. They are all different.
said by munky99999 :The reality I suspect is most of the open source community will simply ignore the situation. That's essentially what ubuntu is doing. It is not being ignored by the community and is unfortunately causing some rifts. Ubuntu isn't ignoring the issue either. They've made their own intentional choices.
said by munky99999 :Even if microsoft started throwing out lawsuits... they couldnt target many people at all. They would be forced to go at the big targets. Who would simply argue in court. HEre's plain text language saying that we can use it. If they wish to use their patent rights to force us to end it now. It can be done and will. Individuals would not be the primary target. 'Open source' as a whole would be.
said by munky99999 :Microsoft gain nothing. They lose compatibility bigtime. Compatibility may not be the only goal. Profitability, market share, future earnings, and limiting competition are several other factors.
said by munky99999 :Microsoft is starting to see that they will have to devote lots of work into providing "windows services for unix" or "interoperability" without spending much money... meaning they have to go open source. Or they will be left behind also. Especially so when you consider google's OS. How long until Windows supports Ext3-4, reiser, and other filesystems. NFS protocols... Don't see all that happening. Some open source licenses (ie. Linux) require all code be made publicly available. If MS opens up even one app it might lead to a Pandora's box for them in related code issues. MS more than likely never wants to go there. The unforeseen risks to their proprietary business model could be potentially devastating. |
|
tld
join:2002-12-19
 ·Optimum Online
| said by SUMware :Compatibility may not be the only goal. Profitability, market share, future earnings, and limiting competition are several other factors. Absolutely. What if, after .NET has proliferated all sorts of software, MS finds a way to effectively make it's use outside of Windows illegal? Does anyone actually believe they couldn't benefit from that? Does anyone think they don't already have a history of that sort of behavior?
Unless it can be proven legally impossible for MS to ever pull a fast one in the future...and it hasn't...I can't believe the open source community would go within 1000 miles of this. Mono will surely never darken the doorstep of my Gentoo boxes I can tell you that.
Tom |
|
GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| said by tld :said by SUMware :Compatibility may not be the only goal. Profitability, market share, future earnings, and limiting competition are several other factors. Absolutely. What if, after .NET has proliferated all sorts of software, MS finds a way to effectively make it's use outside of Windows illegal? Does anyone actually believe they couldn't benefit from that? Does anyone think they don't already have a history of that sort of behavior? Unless it can be proven legally impossible for MS to ever pull a fast one in the future...and it hasn't...I can't believe the open source community would go within 1000 miles of this. Mono will surely never darken the doorstep of my Gentoo boxes I can tell you that. Tom I think that is where Mono did get it wrong. There are parts that are EMCA specifications, and therefore can be implemented by anyone and everyone. Only those things in the specs should have been implemented by Mono in the base package. That would leave out all the parts that MS hasn't really let loose yet and would take a lot of the criticism away.
The good news is it looks like they are going to be splitting the package up so the pieces that are in doubt are no longer there by default and to get them another package will have to be installed. It's just a shame they didn't do this from the beginning.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
1 edit | said by GILXA1226 :The good news is it looks like they are going to be splitting the package up so the pieces that are in doubt are no longer there by default and to get them another package will have to be installed. It's just a shame they didn't do this from the beginning. Interesting, isn't it?
said by iTWire :
Miguel de Icaza, a vice-president at Novell and the person who started the Mono project, announced on the same day as Microsoft, that he would now be starting work on splitting the Mono source code into portions covered by the standards submitted to ECMA and those outside.
It's telling that until now, the man who is supposed to be fully aware of no-go areas where Mono is concerned was blithely accepting promises from Microsoft and creating a potential time-bomb.
For a long time, people have tended to see De Icaza primarily as a free software developer - and not as an employee of Novell, the same company that tried to split the GNU/Linux community by signing a patent deal with Microsoft back in November 2006. Novell, incidentally, styles itself as a "mixed-source company."
Once one views De Icaza from the right perspective, then a lot of things fall into place. He is merely doing Novell's - and, by extension, Microsoft's - bidding.
If Novell does not have funds to pay people to develop more and more Mono applications, then Microsoft will find a way to do so. And if there are good applications, the push for their inclusion will continue - unmindful of any risks they may pose.
|
|
