said by munky99999 :

Well I'm not interested in much argument atm. So I'll just respond a few times.

quote:

---

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

---

Mixing up? I really am not. Copyright law itself mixes up patents, licenses, trade secrets, and everything. They have themselves been mixed up to the point where they are more or less interchangeable.

said by munky99999 :

In the closed source copyright cases... you dont even have to register your product to get copyright AND patent.

said by munky99999 :

Someone... who on the otherside of the world can write code or a book. Which in part or is similar too another persons... without any kind of plagiarization. The copyright allows them the ability to stop the person from doing something. WHY! It was all original work... but oh too bad...

said by munky99999 :

Ultimately I think it's impossible for microsoft to go practically open source DUE TO anti-trust laws.

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.

---

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 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.

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.

---

said by SUMware :

I understand your point. But Salinger's suit wasn't merely about limited and simple plagiarism:

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

said by SUMware :

From 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."

---

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/remark,22667276 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:38:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22667149 SUMware : From 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/remark,22667149 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:23:44 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22666489 GILXA1226 :

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.'"

---

»port25.technet.com/archive/2009/···ds.aspx?

This may or may not help to clear up what MS will and won't do about mono.
--
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/remark,22666489 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:53:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22642720 SUMware : From Ubuntu
Jun 30 15:58:44 BST 2009 -

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

---

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22642720 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:23:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22638545 Drunkula : Just came across this on OSNews...
»www.osnews.com/story/21753/Stall···o_Right_]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22638545 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:49:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22637890 devrandom :

said by SUMware :

said by KodiacZiller :

Sadly the Debian/Ubuntu developers seem to be on board with Mono.

So is Shuttleworth -

Mark Shuttleworth Q+A Part 1: Gnome 3, New Themes, MONO & Peanut Butter On Toast…
29-Apr-2009

Q: Recently, the idea of replacing Rhythmbox for Banshee in Karmic has resparked the Mono debate in the Ubuntu community. As the SABDFL, what is your view on Mono? Is it safe to build a distribution that depends on it?

Mark Shuttleworth: "Yes, I believe Mono is a reasonable runtime to include in a distribution like Ubuntu. I don't expect Microsoft to launch any IP assaults based on Mono adoption, they have said they will not do that."

Unfortunately I have tried Banshee and I like it. A lot. It replaced Amarok which at the time was not intuitive and often downright unreliable (I had a script in my home folder called 'nuke-amarok' whose sole purpose was to do a killall on all amarok processes). Other players were worse, or had layouts that were klutzy and wasted humongous swaths of screen real estate.

It is sad that a great piece of software is encumbered by the whole Mono snafu (which I think right now is much like walking on thin glass given how divided the community can be on legal issues like this), otherwise it would've been a fine addition to Ubuntu.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22637890 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:40:45 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22637785 chazpaw : At the moment, because I have been using Ubuntu, what I do is completely remove Mono if it is installed by anything. I don't know what I will do in the future.

I moved from SUSE/SuSE when Novell did a deal with MS. I like trying out distros anyway.

My own personal opinion is Mono is not a good thing to use. YMMV.
--
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376

Charles]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22637785 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:52:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22637036 anon : When Ubuntu starts force-feeding the GNU/Linux community Mono it will find the absence of Ubuntu on any and every piece of hardware I have control over.

Curious how the force-feeding of Mono which is in direct conflict with their #1 bug, »https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1 is rationalized and justified.

Seems like a douche-bag thing to do Shuttleworth.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22637036 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:27:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22636317 SUMware : Good link. Sounds quite plausible.

Two strategies:

1) "Divide and Conquer" - Mono & C#: 'to use or not to use' community infighting
2) "Trojan Horse" - Mono & C#: a method for MS to infect Linux at root]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22636317 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:42:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22636012 KodiacZiller : Not to sound conspiratorial but entertain me for a second. Ballmer has already made it clear that Linux is M$'s #1 competitor. Ballmer has said "Linux is a cancer." Ballmer has also said "We will outsmart open-source."

So, I ask, what is the best way for M$ to "outsmart" the FOSS community? They know they can't "out spend" the FOSS community because the heart of the FOSS community has *always* been broke. So what can they do if money isn't the answer? Yep, you guessed it, they can make them bicker with each other by planting shills in the community. But, how could a few shills actually succeed with their devious plan, you ask? By making the community divided over an M$ patented programming language: C# aka MONO. And the community is divided like I have never seen; my Linux RSS feeds are filled daily with numerous news articles and opinion pieces on Mono. To further muddy the waters, Red Hat and Canonical are taking diametrically opposed stances on the issue.

So, I find it plausible, if not likely, that M$ has a hand in promoting Mono in the *nix community. And when the time is right and when enough Linux applications depend on it, wham, M$ sues and puts a big dent in Linux usability. Sure, it won't end Linux by a long shot, but it will put a huge damper on progress, at least on the desktop.

There was a blog post I read recently that made essentially the same point: »temporaryland.wordpress.com/2009···ng-foss/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22636012 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:35:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631767 SUMware : Groklaw makes a statement in discussion of the VFAT issue that also seems apropos here:

"There is an ancient saying that when a wise man sees trouble ahead, he avoids it, but a fool walks right into it. The community sees trouble ahead, so it makes good sense to avoid it."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631767 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:50:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631729 KodiacZiller : Often the pro-Mono crowd will make an argument like this: "Well, if Mono is so bad, why hasn't Microsoft sued over Samba?"

The answer the that question is answered pretty well here: »www.computerworlduk.com/communit···yid=1380

In essence, Samba has been *officially* OK'ed by M$. Mono has not.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631729 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:39:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631635 anon : I works really well. You can develop in Visual Studio, then run your apps on any platform. Or alternatively, develop in Linux using Monodevelop, or even eclipse. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631635 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:12:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631587 KodiacZiller :

said by SUMware :

said by KodiacZiller :

Sadly the Debian/Ubuntu developers seem to be on board with Mono.

So is Shuttleworth -

Mark Shuttleworth Q+A Part 1: Gnome 3, New Themes, MONO & Peanut Butter On Toast…
29-Apr-2009

Q: Recently, the idea of replacing Rhythmbox for Banshee in Karmic has resparked the Mono debate in the Ubuntu community. As the SABDFL, what is your view on Mono? Is it safe to build a distribution that depends on it?

Mark Shuttleworth: "Yes, I believe Mono is a reasonable runtime to include in a distribution like Ubuntu. I don't expect Microsoft to launch any IP assaults based on Mono adoption, they have said they will not do that."

Yes, and we all know how we can trust M$'s veracity!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631587 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:00:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631391 SUMware :

said by KodiacZiller :

Sadly the Debian/Ubuntu developers seem to be on board with Mono.

So is Shuttleworth -

Mark Shuttleworth Q+A Part 1: Gnome 3, New Themes, MONO & Peanut Butter On Toast…
29-Apr-2009

Q: Recently, the idea of replacing Rhythmbox for Banshee in Karmic has resparked the Mono debate in the Ubuntu community. As the SABDFL, what is your view on Mono? Is it safe to build a distribution that depends on it?

Mark Shuttleworth: "Yes, I believe Mono is a reasonable runtime to include in a distribution like Ubuntu. I don't expect Microsoft to launch any IP assaults based on Mono adoption, they have said they will not do that."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22631391 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:18:03 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22630993 KodiacZiller : Sadly the Debian/Ubuntu developers seem to be on board with Mono. I was in the Ubuntu IRC channel the other day and this topic came up. Needless to say, I was the odd man out; everyone was in favor of Mono and they were calling me "paranoid" and insisting I had been reading "Boycott Novell" too much (they consider the Boycott Novell guy to be a loon). They also kept insisting that Linux has no alternative to Mono, so it is a necessity to include it to improve app development. According to them, without Mono, Linux app development will always lag behind M$.

Then they provided a rather trite argument: they said "Well are you willing to give up the C programming language? It was patented by AT&T." All I could do was shake my head in disbelief.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22630993 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:06:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22627836 SUMware : From TechRepublic
June 29th, 2009 -

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.

---

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22627836 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:28:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22626481 SUMware : From iTWire
29 June 2009 -

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)."

---

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22626481 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:07:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22626122 EUS : If true, my machines will not be running debian, or any debian based distros anymore.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22626122 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:53:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22626040 Anub1s : I like Gnome and Debian based distros. I'd hate to change anything. The idea of switching to KDE and Fedora is making me sick already. Maybe now is the time to try ArchLinux? Hopefully, KDE4x will be mature by the time Gnome becomes completely compromised with this trash. I'm just not into minimalistic WMs anymore.

Ugh.
--
*Intel Core2Duo E8400,8gigs Dual CH.OCZ,1x160Gs 1x320Gs WD,PVR-250,NVIDIA 9500gt
Ubuntu 9.04 64bit]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22626040 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:32:55 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22623961 SUMware : Summary of Mono's Danger to GNU/Linux and the Free Desktop
03.24.08
Exploring the reality behind exclusionary deals with Microsoft and their subtle (yet severe) implications
"A look back at evidence may be more compelling a proof than yet another explanation"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22623961 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:39:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22623134 anon :

said by SUMware :

---

From The Free Software Foundation
2009-06-26 -

said by Richard M. Stallman :

---

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

---

---

For once I agree (which is very rare) with RMS on this..... mono's got to go!

I like Debian and Debian based distros, but Debian needs to pitch, ban, burn, torch, nuke any thing related to mono & silverblight.

I can't stand gnome and Mono Miguel (long before this disease came along) is one reason... now that he's in bed with the enemy I think its time to pitch that WM out too.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22623134 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:44:54 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22622542 SUMware : :D For the benefit of the community in general, let's hope that all eventually see the error of their ways. Sooner rather than later. The warnings are out there.

The OP of an interesting thread...
GNOME dependent on Mono
28 Nov 2007 -

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.

---

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22622542 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:16:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22622509 firephoto : I saw this earlier about RMS and thought it was kind of ironic since the GNOME and GTK camp have been pushing the 'we're more free' line for ages with the backing of RMS even yet now they're fulling embracing something just because of their devotion to one individual, Mr. Mono Miguel. They're shooting themselves in that big odoreater foot more and more everyday and I kind of like it actually. :)
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22622509 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:02:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22622220 SUMware : From The Free Software Foundation
2009-06-26 -

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.

---

From iTWire
28 June 2009 -

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.

---

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22622220 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:26:46 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22607384 disturbed1 :

said by KodiacZiller :

What are your thoughts on Mono?

Unprotected sex with a hooker.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22607384 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:37:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22606320 SUMware : From iTWire
25 June 2009 -

quote:

---

The next release of the popular Ubuntu GNU/Linux distribution may include a third Mono-dependent application by default, a spokesman for Canonical, the parent company for Ubuntu, told iTWire today.

Responding to an inquiry about the Canonical policy on Mono, Gerry Carr said: "That's an interesting question. Really, it is Ubuntu's board of governance, not Canonical whose policy you want as they decide what goes in the distro. The board have been asked the same thing recently and are considering it but I do not have a timeline for a decision but I will track and push as far as I can."

Mono is a software project begun some years ago by current Novell vice-president Miguel de Icaza to create an open source clone of Microsoft's .NET development environment.

Until version 9.04, which was released in April, Ubuntu had two Mono-dependent applications - F-Spot and Tomboy. The former is a picture viewer and the latter a note-taking application.

A Mono-free port of Tomboy called Gnote was recently created by former Novell developer Hubert using C++/Gtkmm.

Asked whether there were any plans to include more Mono-dependent applications in future releases, Carr said: "We are not deliberately looking for Mono-based applications but nor are we excluding them because they have that dependency. I think we will add one more (Banshee) in 9.10."

Banshee is an audio player. The current default for audio on Ubuntu is Rhythmbox while Totem is used for video playback.

According to the Ubuntu specifications for default media choice, the choice of Banshee has been made, in part, because it "has people working full time on it, is moving faster and has feature users expect from a modern music playing applications which Rhythmbox doesn't have yet."

The push to include Banshee has been going on for a while. Back in April, the Debian and Ubuntu Mono packager Jo Shields, who advocates the use of Mono on many forums, argued for its inclusion based both on its smaller size compared to Rhythmbox and its "active and vibrant" development community.

Carr added: "However, that is as much of an answer I can get to you until the Ubuntu board decides on a position on Mono. As Canonical we simply do not have a position ready to go on Mono. I think the Banshee exercise will likely see a harder position formed (for or against)."

According to information available elsewhere, there has also been a proposal for the Ubuntu live CD to remove the well-known image manipulation program, Gimp, with the reasoning apparently beign that F-Spot can handle what the Gimp does.

However, this appears to have been put on hold and the next release, Karmic Koala, or 9.10. will include the Gimp.

Red Hat's community Linux distribution, Fedora, recently decided to jettison Mono altogether from its default install, and replace Tomboy with Gnote. There are fears in many sections of the FOSS community that Mono may prove to be a patent trap down the line as .NET is totally Microsoft technology.

While some 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.

---

[some emphasis added]

From iTWire
03 June 2009 -

quote:

---

Even OpenSUSE recognises drawbacks of Mono

Mention Mono in a story and you are certain to draw two kinds of readers - the followers, those who have drunk the kool-aid ladled out by Novell vice-president Miguel de Icaza, and the detractors, who realise that it could cause them patent headaches a few years hence.

Now it looks like the people who run the OpenSUSE project - that's the community GNU/Linux distribution sponsored by Novell - have themselves realised that Mono can be a stumbling block.

Nothing else can account for the fact that OpenSUSE has decided to create a port of Easy-LTSP, an application used for configuring thin clients.

Easy-LTSP was originally written in C# but, according to the OpenSUSE project "Easy-LTSP was designed to work on any distribution, but unfortunately it is not integrated anywhere other than openSUSE, discussing with the upstream LTSP developers suggested the slight reservation could be due to it being written in C#."

Easy-LTSP is being rewritten to include new features and OpenSUSE has now decided to use Python instead, "which would be easier to attract more contributors and increase possibility that users of all distributions running LTSP server can benefit from it inclusion in their preferred distro."

Miguel, looks like there are traitors to the Mono cause within your own ranks. Or is it that, just for once, commonsense and logic has asserted itself at Novell and its associates?

---

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22606320 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:40:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22595584 PToN : I think it is a waste of time. They should have used that time to develop an innovative framework for *nix systems instead of shadowing a MS product and bring it to *nix.

I am truly disappointed that SuSE, one of my favorite distros, decided to develop rug or zenworks linux agent under mono..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22595584 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:05:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22593557 SirMeowmixIII : "Do not want". There is nothing written in .NET that would entice me to adopt Mono or Silverblight.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22593557 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:33:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22592841 SUMware : LOL. Same link to 'Jo Shields' that I included 5 posts above yours.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22592841 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:02:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22592345 KodiacZiller : I am not a developer and I have no technical grounds to base an argument for or against Mono. All I know is I don't like the idea of having anything from Redmond entangled in Linux.

At any rate, here's an argument from a Debian developer (Jo Shields) in favor of Mono.

»blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/06···des.html

It's a long essay, but here are the pertinent parts regarding potential Mono legalities of which the author claims are not a threat:

Mono is not a threat because it is not special in any legal regard. Many people have spent hours if not days and weeks attempting to explain this. I'll try to do so again. There are a whole smattering of reasons why it's not an issue, covering a wide range of topics. I'll present these points individually.

* Mono is not the result of any deals between Novell and Microsoft. Mono was started 4 years before that unfortunate deal took place. Mono gets no special treatment under that deal. It is not mentioned in the deal (as with other apps). This is important to note.

* Mono is covered by the OIN, as with most other major Free apps. Patent attacks against Mono carry the same risk to attackers as attacks against any other OIN entrant. Attacks against Mono would risk patent "world war", which Microsoft cannot win. Such an action would harm their business - and lose them money.

* Mono implements an international standard - albeit one from a convicted monopolist. If this is a problem, why do people use C, the standard from convicted monopolist AT&T? Mono implements an improved, Free replacement for a proprietary offering. If this is a problem, why do people use GNU (which provided an improved, Free replacement for proprietary UNIX)?

* Regardless of whether or not any specific patent licenses over ECMA 334 and 335 cover Mono's implementation of those standards, if indeed such agreements are available (ITWire's curlish "attempt" to secure such an arrangement aside), the fact that statements have been made in public supporting the idea of royalty-free licensing essentially reduces the financial impact of such infringement to zero. If Foocorp has a license to use patents, under a "non-discriminatory" license, and did not pay for them - then it would be discriminatory to change anyone else for them (breaking the signed terms regarding patent licensing), and as such, those patents lose any financial value. They may, however, still hold non-financial value (such as their use in defending against patent-related attacks), hence not making the patents "free for all" in any understood sense.

* Mono cannot be "disabled" via an incompatible change to Microsoft.NET, for two reasons. Firstly, such a change would also break every single existing app for Microsoft.NET (in fact, if it were to happen, then the best option for those users would be to run their apps with Mono instead). Secondly, support for Microsoft.NET is a secondary goal for Mono - if Microsoft change something in .NET 5.0, then so what? It doesn't prevent Banshee or GNOME Do from compiling and running fine on non-legacy systems like Ubuntu.

* Absence of "patent protection" is not the same thing as "patent violation". If I offer to sell somebody a promise not to sue them using any of my patents, their taking me up on my offer is no guarantee that I even have anything valid to sell them - merely that they are willing to buy it. If Jim buys protection from any patents I hold, it does not mean that Jim is infringing on anything specific - nor that if Ted does the same thing, that Ted is violating anything either. If a house insurance policy includes flood protection, it does not mean that your house will be flooded - and not buying flood protection does not mean that you will be flooded either.

* Patents covering a specific implementation detail of a project cannot kill it dead - the example here is Freetype. Apple made some patent threats against the Freetype developers, for using their proprietary hinting data stored in TrueType fonts. You'll notice that Freetype still exists today - this is because the specific METHOD that apple laid claim to was worked around, and auto-generated hinting data used instead. Apple's threat was diffused, and the project went on. Suggestions have been made by FUD vendors that the Linux kernel contains a number of patent infringements - if specific details are ever provided, then those specific infringements can be worked around. A patent infringed in the Linux kernel would not cause all GNU/Linux distributions to be shut down overnight - and it's disingenuous to suggest that any other Free Software is any different on that front. Even if a fundamental patent is infringed in Free Software, it's no big deal - as a core change can be made, and applications etc which expect the "old" way can be modified to work with the "new" way, easily. Only proprietary applications cannot be fixed in the event of radical change - and proprietary apps are a secondary concern.

* The layering of escape routes is extensive in Mono, especially Mono in Debian/Ubuntu. In the first instance, the contentious Microsoft-sourced non-ISO libraries such as System.Windows.Forms are not included by default, and are rarely used in Free applications anyway (because WinForms looks like ass, amongst other things). If a reason is found to remove these non-standardised libraries, then bam, they're gone - without harming Free apps. Secondly, if a more severe change is required, then the Mono packages can be patched to remove the infringement. If more drastic changes are required, as mentioned above, then the applications can also be patched to support any core changes. And, taking it one step further, if the whole of Mono needs to be pulled, then applications can be ported. The porting process would potentially be slow and painful, and cause great harm to an application's future rate of development (although no worse than if the app was written in the target language from day one), but nobody who has written an app they care about would simply throw their hands in the air and say "never mind, it was fun, but the Man says I have to stop now".

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22592345 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:22:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22592139 GILXA1226 :

said by KodiacZiller :

What are your thoughts on Mono? Should it stay or should it go away?

Let it stay. When has having a choice ever been bad? If people don't like it or don't want to use it, then they have the choice not too.

I've played with it a little and really was neutral on it. Most of my work these days is java/c/c++ with the occasional ml,perl,python thrown in for good measure.
--
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/remark,22592139 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:49:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22591977 yazdzik : Dear Pen and friends,

I am amused that the endocrinal/viral disease and the programme have the same name.

I feel that, while the medical problem is more severe, both are better eradicated than tolerated.

Peace,
M
--
Life is a series of return dates. There is but one final argument, its eloquence determines who we were, and whether who we were had meaning.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22591977 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:24:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22590440 anon :

said by KodiacZiller :

---

What are your thoughts on Mono? Should it stay or should it go away?

---

GO AWAY, FAR AWAY!

Thats about the most I can say politely in a public form. Second, post pretty much sums it up.

I have two large projects in the works, and some of the rules:

NO ASP
NO ASP.NET
NO VB
NO VB.NET
NO MONO, Silverlight
NO C#
NO Flash
NO AIR
NO FLEX

You can pretty much use any other Linux based technology that works on a standard LAMP server, but if its anything from redmond, you can not and will not be allowed to us it.

two development companies have been rejected for their "we have ASP and were here to solve your problems" attitude..... NO THERES THE DOOR! What part of the above did you not get/understand. NO ASP, PERIOD. NO form, shape of it is allowed.

Same goes for an upcoming software package that will be custom built it 100% MUST run on Linux and MAC, win, and preferably ports to Palm, Blackberry, and other mobile devices EXCEPT iphones.

These two projects combined are probably easily worth $1.5MILLION dollars, and guess what? . . . ms crap will not be considered for it.

I take great effort to ensure that we support and embrace open standards and do not lock into proprietary data exchange formats. Given a choice bettween proprietary format and CSV. CSV will be chosen each and every time. I'll even ask for an ODS before I will submit to proprietary formats.

I am doing every thing I can at any point to go? What ms product/format/technology can be replaced by a Linux supported product/format/technology

Same crap with novell.... Suse and OpenSuse would be big contenders, but novell chose to make a deal with the devil, see ya! No thanks.

So mono is going no where with me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22590440 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:01:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22589833 Drunkula : I'm not sure what to make of it. Being somewhat of a programmer (okay so it's only Coldfusion and Oracle PL/SQL and friends) I can appreciate the robust environment. I'm just not sold on the idea of using a recreation of an MS architecture in a *nix environment.
--
There are 10 types of people that understand binary numbers. Those that do - and those that do not...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22589833 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:29:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22588297 SUMware : An interesting read...

From ITWire
22 June 2009 -

said by Sam Varghese :

---

Mono: Shielding the facts

Should FOSS users be concerned about the software they use, in case it opens them up to copyright, trademark or patent claims? Or should such concerns be left exclusively to developers?

One would think that in the case of FOSS, the user is as much a player as the developer. After all, when Richard Matthew Stallman kicked off the whole free software movement in the 1980s, he had the user at the centre of his movement.

But if one were to believe Jo Shields, a Mono advocate, the user should merely shut his or her mouth and just use whatever is created.

In what one can only term breathtaking arrogance, Shields had this to say in an essay advocating the use of Mono: "... the vast majority of the anti-Mono crowd are not developers or packagers - they are back-seat drivers. They make proclamations about how other developers (who are surrendering their time to developer Free Software) should instead use the framework of THEIR choice, not the developer's. This is another reason why anti-Mono arguments are given so little respect - the sheer cheek, the PRESUMPTION that they somehow are in a position to make demands of other developers, is galling. Free Software is a meritocracy - those who do things earn respect. Until the anti-Mono crowd actually make a contribution to Free Software, they will continue to be treated as cranks - and their questions left unanswered."

(Before I go any further, for the uninitiated, Mono is an attempt by Novell vice-president Miguel de Icaza to create an open source clone of Microsoft's .NET development environment.)

So, according to Shields, users, who by their very utilisation of FOSS serve as a testing ground for the efforts of FOSS creators, should button their lips and just use any software that is provided with a GNU/Linux distribution.

---

More at ITWire.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22588297 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:38:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562935 Santa Fe : Can't really say much on this subject. I always practiced Safe S....computing! ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562935 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:14:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562877 donoreo : It is actually a decent development environment. I was doing a programming tutorial earlier this year in C# and mono. It is pretty slick.
--
The irony of common sense, it is not that common
I cannot deny anything I did not say]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562877 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:02:31 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562861 SUMware : It never was, and won't be, on my box.

The elusive, royalty-free patent licence for Mono
Mono, Moonlight: Patent Encumbered, Or Not?
Mono (software) From Wikipedia]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562861 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:59:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562817 KodiacZiller : What are your thoughts on Mono? Should it stay or should it go away?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22562817 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:52:30 EDT