how-to block ads
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to SUMware
Re: Thoughts on Mono?
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.
In the closed source copyright cases... you dont even have to register your product to get copyright AND patent.
The difference originally was that you could stop people from using your product even if they had it. Patents stop others from using a similar product or identical product... even if they were independently done.
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...
Sorry but that's wrong.
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.
I really havent read that many responses but...
Basically... we arent going to care until someone makes a patent claim against it.
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
I was speaking specifically for the parts they have gone open source with. Which microsoft has gone opensource on many parts of their software. Ultimately I think it's impossible for microsoft to go practically open source DUE TO anti-trust laws.
quote:
MS more than likely never wants to go there. The unforeseen risks to their proprietary business model could be potentially devastating.
adapt or die. Open source is going to be one of those factors which make or break operating systems eventually.
I will leave you guys with RMS.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqpLWzPRfvU | |
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
1 edit | reply to KodiacZiller
The Free Software Foundation's most recent statement: "Microsoft's Empty Promise"
2009-07-16 - 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.
Rationale in the middle - followed by conclusion: 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.
Groklaw also has it with interesting analysis and comments. | |
mich
join:2008-08-30
| reply to munky99999
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. And this proves that he was right 
»www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
said by munky99999 :In the closed source copyright cases... you dont even have to register your product to get copyright AND patent. AFAIK in whole world patents have to be registered. And to make things even more funny, you need to register the patent separately in every country in which you want it to be effective. And pay to every country where you have registered.
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... No, copyright works only if this work contains a part of previous work. But if somebody patents algorithm used by this code then yes, others can't clone it. Not in countries where the patent has been registered.
said by munky99999 :Ultimately I think it's impossible for microsoft to go practically open source DUE TO anti-trust laws. Somehow I can't imagine how somebody would argue that MS tried to monopolize software market by allowing anybody to modify and redistribute their programs.
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.
So what is actually going to work in this patent-safe branch of Mono? Is it possible to implement "Hello world" without getting sued by MS? | |
turtlewax
@harris.com
| reply to KodiacZiller
Very few objections to mono on technical grounds. Any attempt to discuss the technical strengths of Mono are considered by its critics to be "missing the point". The FOSS community is suspicious of Microsoft.
Mono isn't really connected to microsoft, but because it uses C#, it is guilty by association. | |
-
|
