quote:

---

Copyright law is as it is. You're mixing up copyrights, patents, and licenses. They are all different.

---

said by »www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono :

---

However, there are several libraries that are included with Mono, and commonly used by applications like Tomboy, that are not required by the standard. And just to be clear, we're not talking about Windows-specific libraries like ASP.NET and Windows Forms. Instead, we're talking about libraries under the System namespace that provide common functionality programmers expect in modern programming languages: binary object serialization, regular expressions, XPath and XSLT, and more.

---

said by FSF :

---

Last week, Microsoft extended the terms of their Community Promise to implementations of the ECMA 334 and 335 standards. You might think this means it's safe to write your software in C#. However, this promise is full of loopholes, and it's nowhere near enough to make C# safe.

---

said by FSF :

---

The Solution: A Comprehensive Patent License

If Microsoft genuinely wants to reassure free software users that it does not intend to sue them for using Mono, it should grant the public an irrevocable patent license for all of its patents that Mono actually exercises. That would neatly avoid all of the existing problems with the Community Promise: it's broad enough in scope that we don't have to figure out what's covered by the specification or strictly necessary to implement it. And it would still be in force even if Microsoft sold the patents.

This isn't an unreasonable request, either. GPLv3 requires distributors to provide a similar license when they convey modified versions of covered software, and plenty of companies large and small have had no problem doing that. Certainly one with Microsoft's resources should be able to manage this, too. If they're unsure how to go about it, they should get in touch with us; we'd be happy to work with them to make sure it's satisfactory.

Until that happens, free software developers still should not write software that depends on Mono. C# implementations can still be attacked by Microsoft's patents: the Community Promise is designed to give the company several outs if it wants them. We don't want to see developers' hard work lost to the community if we lose the ability to use Mono, and until we eliminate software patents altogether, using another language is the best way to prevent that from happening.

---

quote:

---

Copyright law is as it is. You're mixing up copyrights, patents, and licenses. They are all different.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

The Ubuntu Project takes patent issues seriously, and the Ubuntu Technical Board is the governance body that handles allegations of patent infringement. The Ubuntu Technical Board strives to engage with rights holder openly in terms of the code that we ship. If a rights holder claims a patent infringement applies to said code, the Technical Board will commit to a review of the claim. 

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

MS more than likely never wants to go there. The unforeseen risks to their proprietary business model could be potentially devastating.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I find this to be in line with using binary or restricted drivers in linux.

---

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

---

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."

---

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.

---

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."

---

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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Thoughts-on-Mono-22667276 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:38:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Thoughts-on-Mono-22667149 SDTimes
July 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 Technica
July 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 Computerworld
07.07.2009 -

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."

---

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Thoughts-on-Mono-22667149 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:23:44 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Thoughts-on-Mono-22666489 said by off of slashdot :

---

"Peter Galli of Microsoft posted a blog entry on Port25 today, regarding the explicit placement of C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (the ECMA standard that underpins .NET) under their Community Promise: 'It is important to note that, under the Community Promise, anyone can freely implement these specifications with their technology, code, and solutions. You do not need to sign a license agreement, or otherwise communicate to Microsoft how you will implement the specifications. ... Under the Community Promise, Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including open-source licensing models such as the LGPL or GPL.'"

---

said by Scott James Remnant :

---

Mono Position Statement

The Ubuntu Technical Board has been asked for a position statement on the use of C#, specifically the Mono implementation, by applications in Ubuntu.

These applications, as well as the Mono stack, were proposed for inclusion like any other application and underwent the same review process that all new applications and platforms undergo before being accepted into the archive.

With specific regard to the default installed application set, applications have been reviewed and compared against each other on merit and features. These often take place during the Ubuntu Developer Summits, most recently over the default media player.

A common concern cited about Mono is the patent position, largely it seems due to the originator of the C# language and associated ECMA standards.

The Ubuntu Project takes patent issues seriously, and the Ubuntu Technical Board is the governance body that handles allegations of patent infringement. The Ubuntu Technical Board strives to engage with rights holder openly in terms of the code that we ship. If a rights holder claims a patent infringement applies to said code, the Technical Board will commit to a review of the claim.

The Ubuntu Technical Board has received no claims of infringement against the Mono stack, and is not aware of any such claims having been received by other similar projects.

It is common practice in the software industry to register patents as protection against litigation, rather than as an intent to litigate. Thus mere existence of a patent, without a claim of infringement, is not sufficient reason to warrant exclusion from the Ubuntu Project.

(While the Ubuntu project wishes to be responsive to patent infringement claims, we cannot commit to the assessment and review of claims made by anyone other than the registered rights holder.)

Given the above, the Ubuntu Technical Board sees no reason to exclude Mono or applications based upon it from the archive, or from the default installation set.

Since the Mono stack is already a dependency of the default installation set for many remixes of Ubuntu, including the Desktop Edition, there is no reason to consider a dependency on Mono as an issue when suggesting applications for the default set.

(Other remixes may obviously consider the CD Size implications if an application would introduce the Mono platform to the set.)

Scott
on behalf of the Ubuntu Technical Board
--
Scott James Remnant

---

said by Jack Wallen :

---

Will Microsoft threaten open source C# implementations?

Recently RMS (Richard M Stallman) came out of his man-cave to voice his concern over Debians’ inclusion of Mono in thier latest release (Read the article here.) The gist of what RMS is saying is that the Linux community needs to be concerned because including this free implimentation of the C# language could have a backlash when Microsoft forces their hand with C# patents. Microsoft, after all, did create the C# language for the .NET framework. And we all know that when MS creates something they seem to own it and everything surrounding it.

Microsoft uses, borrows, steals, and then patents. Much of everything they have is based on something else.

The reason Mono is being included with Debian is because of Tomboy. What is Tomboy? A simple note taking application used in the GNOME desktop. Here’s a thought - someone come up with another simple note taking application so the Linux community can avoid this. Sure that would work, but it avoids the bigger problem. Mono is an open source set of .NET-compatible tools. If Linux wants to continue to communicate with Windows .NET-compatible tools are going to be necessary…

Ah, there’s the key to this issue. Can’t you see it? Microsoft finally playing their hand to keep Linux from communicating with Windows? Could it be they are back to their tactics of old? When Linux makes a stride towards seamless heterogeneous environments, Microsoft breaks the flow of communications.

There has been plenty of talk, since the creation of Mono, that Microsoft wants to destroy the Mono project through patents. Mono is developed by Novell. In 2006 Novell and Microsoft announced an agreement that sent the Linux community reeling. This agreement extended to Mono and any implimentation of Mono in a Novell environment and/or Novell customer. Although the vast majority of the Linux community complained about this agreement, I have a feeling it was the only way Novell could continue to work on the Mono project and keep Microsoft from destroying it.

If Microsoft is threatening patents agains .NET it would seem to me that the Novell/Microsoft relationship didn’t really work out all that well. And now Microsoft is back to their old tricks. And what should the Linux and open source community do about this? Should another deal with Microsoft be made? Is the seamless communication between Linux and Windows worth making a deal with a partner that is only going to turn around and stab you in the back again and again and again?

This whole issue really brings me to one question though: Why doesn’t Microsoft want to create an environment where everyone wins? Why wouldn’t they want to help the open source community who has helped them out so much over the years. Without the help of BASIC, C, C++, Perl, and so many more languages, Microsoft would be nowhere. Microsoft has been called many names over the years. But with what RMS is claiming they might do, I have to add the title of “Parasite” to the long list of names attached to the company out of Redmond. They use and use and rarely, if truely, give back.

---

quote:

---

GNOME 3.0 may have more Mono apps

The next major version of the GNOME desktop environment, version 3.0, may contain more than the one Mono-dependent application than it currently does, according to GNOME Foundation member Dave Neary.

In response to a query as to what extent Mono-dependent applications would be present in GNOME 3.0, which is planned as a major overhaul of the desktop environment, Neary said: "The only Mono app which is already part of the GNOME desktop release set is Tomboy. There are other popular Mono applications among GNOME users, including F-Spot, Banshee and GNOME Do, but for the moment, Tomboy is the only one which has been included in a release set. Between now and GNOME 3.0, however, that may change."

Explaining why GNOME may include more Mono-dependent applications, Neary said: "There is a module proposal period which precedes each release, and the module proposal period for GNOME 2.28 is currently ongoing. There will be another module proposal period for 2.30 (which is likely to be GNOME 3.0). It is possible we'll defer 3.0 until 2.32, if there are issues which would jeopardise the stability and quality of the release, in which case there would be another module proposal period for that release also before the 3.0 release.

"I'm afraid I am not in a position to pre-empt the module addition proposals which will be made between now & then, or the decision which the GNOME community (through the release team) will take on those propositions which are made."

He said the technology was not the primary concern when evaluating new applications for inclusion with the desktop suite. "Before considering technology, we consider the functionality and stability, responsiveness of the maintainer to concern, the quality of the documentation, the speed of the application (and of course, technology plays a role here).

"The GNOME project considers applications for inclusion in the desktop suite if they are written in C, C++, Python or Mono. For the moment, we have not had to make a decision on whether to include a Java application, as there has not been, to date, a compelling module addition proposal written in Java. It is likely that we will also add Javascript support to the platform in the near future."

Neary added that two applications, which are not currently part of the release set, had clearly been identified for inclusion in GNOME 3.0: GNOME Shell, written in C and Javascript, and GNOME Zeitgeist, which is written in Python.

Asked about a possible release date for the 3.0 version, Neary said: "The 3.0 release will be either in March 2010 or September 2010... Either we will be ready to release a stable, functional 3.0 release for 2.30, or we will defer until 2.32. The final decision will be made by the release team, after the 2.28 release in September (2009)."

---

said by Richard M. Stallman :

---

Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#

---

said by Richard Stallman :

---

I read »boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gno···no-yelp/ with great concern.

Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description of the situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious problem.

I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just as I've supported the development of free platforms for any language that users use. I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C# with a free platform for secondary applications.

However, making GNOME depend on Mono is running a grave risk, and a grave mistake.

---

said by Richard M. Stallman :

---

Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#

Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See »swpat.org and »progfree.org .) This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.

---

quote:

---

Red Hat's community Linux distribution, Fedora, recently decided to throw out Mono altogether from its default install, and replaced Tomboy with Gnote.

While pro-Mono zealots often claim that it is possible to obtain a royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory licence for the use of Microsoft patents which may be part of Mono, in reality, it is extremely difficult to even find out how one can do so.

What one finds is things like this statement from 2004: "Importantly, Miguel (de Icaza, the Novell vice-president who started the Mono project) also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET."

Of course, nobody else has ever been shown that letter. One doubts that anybody ever will get to see it, either. One doubts if it even exists.

---