np237 ([info]np237) wrote,
@ 2009-07-07 00:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Even Microsoft can turn out more clever

Maybe this will make the anti-Mono religious zealots shut their mouth.

Summary: there won’t be any patent claims filed against implementations of ECMA 334 (C# language specification) and ECMA 335 (CLI specification) from Microsoft. Now, the whole movie-plot scenario boycottnovell imagined collapses like a house of cards.


(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

The zealots have won
(Anonymous)
2009-07-06 11:36 pm UTC (link)
Enough whining obviously has an effect on MS. (This timing cannot be a coincident)

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: The zealots have won
[info]np237
2009-07-07 07:55 am UTC (link)
Bullshit. The zealots haven’t done anything to improve the situation. This arrangement is obviously the result of months of work from MDI and other Mono developers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The zealots have won
(Anonymous)
2009-07-07 10:22 am UTC (link)
I don't think so and I call BS.
All the bad press, the bickering and attacks have been important parts in this. They could have done it years ago, but they didn't.

Even MS and Novell feel community pressure.

It is not as black and white as you want it to be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]aigarius
2009-07-07 12:54 am UTC (link)
To be precise - there will be no patent claims filled for patents that are required to implement ECMA 334 and 335 against complete implementations of 334 and 335.

1. Only the implementations that are complete implementations of all required parts of the respective standards are covered. If Microsoft changes the spec – you are screwed (until you fix it), if you want to implement only part of it (for speed, for example) – you are screwed, if you want to cut out a chunk of code from a complete implementation and use that in you software – you are screwed.
2. Only patents directly required for the spec are covered, if you implement something mentioned (but not required) in the optional parts of the specification and they have patents on that (FAT and MS Office document formats, compatibility formats, …) – you are screwed.
3. If there are patents that Microsoft has licensed from third parties for use in this spec with patent licences for all their users – guess what, you are not covered and thus you are screwed.

I guess a real lawyer would be able to poke more holes in that to find other ways to screw anyone they would really want to screw, if needed. So if there are software patents in your country (or if you deal with a country that has SW-pats) – you are screwed. Donate to FFII.org to help get rid of software patents, if you really want a permanent solution.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]joe_buck
2009-07-07 01:15 am UTC (link)
Full disclosure: I'm definitely not a fan of .net, C#, and related technologies, but that's just a matter of technical taste (I'm not a fan of Java either, for much the same reasons). I have no religious objections to them, though I might consider gnote in preference to tomboy simply because I'm not running any other Mono apps, and I think that chasing Microsoft standards just means we're always behind.

I haven't been that worried about Mono patents because after all, C# and Mono are basically clones of Java with a few improvements here and there.

Just the same, I think that this is a positive development and your objections aren't that strong.

First off, Microsoft can't change ECMA 334 and ECMA 335. They can add new things to their spec, but until the ECMA adopts a revision, those changes are just Microsoft's changes.

Second, issues with patents on FAT, or MS Office formats, or anything else that Microsoft might object to, are an issue not only for Mono implementers and users, but for Linux in general (witness TomTom).

Third, Microsoft doesn't have the power to grant the world licenses to patents that it doesn't own. The real threat, I think, will come from little companies with nothing but a patent, looking to shake down anyone with deep pockets, and I don't think Mono presents more risk than anything else.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aigarius
2009-07-07 01:30 am UTC (link)
> Full disclosure: I'm definitely not a fan of .net, C#, and related technologies, but that's just a matter
> of technical taste (I'm not a fan of Java either, for much the same reasons). I have no religious
> objections to them, though I might consider gnote in preference to tomboy simply because I'm not running
> any other Mono apps, and I think that chasing Microsoft standards just means we're always behind.

Same here, I do use f-spot from time to time. Technically speaking, all Mono apps I have seen are bloated (ram, startup time, sluggish operations), but I have also seen some sluggish C, C++ and Python apps.

What I wanted to point out is that there are plenty of backdoors and loopholes in these Microsoft promises, which is why I would not recommend people making their business depend on such a promise. People need to be aware of the risks. And no - this promise does not magically remove all the risks. Yes, that is FUD, but there has been plenty negative experience with this company before, so there is plenty of Fear, plenty of Uncertainty and quite a large helping of Doubt.

In free software world people choose what they want to work on - be it C# or Python or something else, what I find important is that these people are aware of the risks associated with such decisions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Chasing standards.
[info]https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmWOVLyLQwjYrURbQ4QSSeMVfi7bP1RxCM
2009-07-07 04:36 am UTC (link)
Hello Joe,

Mono has a full implementation of the ECMA standards, and has for a couple of years. ECMA is not that hard to implement, and it is not that big to begin with.

What takes time is really optimizing the result.

Both Novell and GNOME are part of ECMA and as such we have early access to new features that will be part of the standard before they become public. That is how we managed to implement generics in record time for example. We had access to generics almost a year in advance to the release even to Microsoft's own beta testers.

Mono has never been limited to implement what Microsoft implements. We have plotted our own path for many years. People in th Mono universe know this and breathe this every day, as it is a vibrant ecosystem. You could start by looking at mono-project.com/Libraries to get an idea of the API ecosystem around Mono that -mostly- was built for Mono on Linux (and just happens to work perfectly fine on Windows).

Most people criticizing Mono have never bothered to even try to write a line of code in it, so 99% of the opinions uttered against Mono are as educated as your comment: based on word of mouth and myths created by pundits wannabes.

That being said, if you are the same Joe Buck from gnu.misc.discuss from the 90's, I have always been a fan of your work. I wish you learned and discussed Mono with as much depth as you learned and discussed GNU, free software and the GPL in the 90's.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmWOVLyLQwjYrURbQ4QSSeMVfi7bP1RxCM
2009-07-07 04:44 am UTC (link)
On (2) you misunderstood the Community Promise.

For the Promise to kick-in, you must *at least* implement the core, but once you have implemented the core, you can pick and choose how much of the spec you want or do not want to implement. ECMA 335 in particular is modular: there is a kernel profile (or core, cant remember) which contains the bare minimum that you need to implement and then there are a bunch of extra layers that you can add.

Nowhere in the CP it states that the covenant is limited to *only* the core.

You are correct that it is not a blanket patent grant. For instance, if you were to add the ReactOS source code to Mono and then claim that the result is a "patent protected Windows", you would be kidding yourself.

Joe has addressed the other issues more eloquently than I could.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aigarius
2009-07-07 05:55 am UTC (link)
Well, that is exactly what I said. Until you implement the required parts of the standards you are not covered by the promise. And if your implementation is incompatible with the standard, then you are not covered by the promise. Also if you take a fully compatible implementation and take a chunk of code from it to another product, but do no carry with you a full implementation of the core, you are also not covered by the promise.

Not covered by the promise = you can be sued by Microsoft = screwed.

> Nowhere in the CP it states that the covenant is limited to *only* the core.
> You are correct that it is not a blanket patent grant. For instance, if you were to add the ReactOS source
> code to Mono and then claim that the result is a "patent protected Windows", you would be kidding yourself.

The promise only applies to patents that are required to implement the required parts of the standard (the core) and required parts of the optional modules. However, not covered are mentioned parts of the optional modules. For a simplified example - the standard could describe an optional 'video' tag, mentioning that it's contents could be in a Windows Media 9 format (among others). The promise in such case would not cover the compression format patents for WM9, and if a lot of software would use this particular format (because it would be default in VS.NET), you would be screwed - either you can not support that software or you risk a patent lawsuit.

The promise despite its brevity has plenty of pitfalls, mostly because patents are a minefield to begin with and Microsoft wants to keep some mines active, while papering over others, but also skipping over some more obscure and difficult ones.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2009-07-07 05:38 pm UTC (link)
You are confused.

The Community Promise covers all of the ECMA standard, the core and the optional parts of the standard.

What it does not do is give you a blanket patent grant for things that are not there. It closes the loophole where someone sticks the source to ReactOS in Mono and then claims to have a patent free Windows.

Or your example: adding VC1 decoding or MPEG decoding to Mono and then claim "well, I got a patent grant". This closes that loophole.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Good news.
[info]joe_buck
2009-07-07 01:01 am UTC (link)
However, this appears to be the first time anyone at Microsoft has made this pledge, so it's inappropriate to attack people for raising the alarm before Microsoft made such a promise (especially considering their prosecution of TomTom).

I do think that it's time to de-escalate the war. Once Microsoft has strong promises in place that everyone can point to (ideally as part of the patent promise page itself, not just on the port25 blog), then there's no reason that Mono can't be used more.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Good news.
(Anonymous)
2009-07-07 10:10 am UTC (link)
What happens if you actually want to deviate from the standard? Does this requirement make the software non-DFSG-compliant?

In a case of much more strict requirements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilbc) it did. But in the case of ilbc there is an actual patent that is involved, and the requirements are for very strict conformance that can probably have problems with some useful real-world uses.

Was this issue encountered before with e.g. Samba?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2009-07-07 03:22 pm UTC (link)
"anti-Mono religious zealots shut their mouth"

And who gives you the right to open it, Microsoft pets?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]np237
2009-07-07 03:43 pm UTC (link)
This.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2009-07-08 04:11 pm UTC (link)
So "This", your little shit piece of paper (Déclaration des droits de l'homme), gives me the right to tell you and other pro-Mono religious zealots to shut their mouth and let users decide if they want to install false GPLed Mono bloatware and Microsoft patented C#/CLI on their system?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]np237
2009-07-08 04:39 pm UTC (link)
Well you can say it, of course. That doesn’t mean you will be listened to.

For example, I don’t listen to people who consider the fundamental human rights as a “little shit piece of paper”.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
1789
(Anonymous)
2009-07-08 05:49 pm UTC (link)
Cf 1789, ça a aussi introduit le début de la fin d'un certain arbitraire - bon d'accord sérieusement miné depuis NS (mais peut-être as-tu voté pour lui ?)

* 55gnome-session_gnomerc: make it clear that /usr/share/gnome is not
a symlink to /etc, since users are stupid enough to think this
should be the case

donc, joss, permet-moi de te proposer de te relaxer un peu...
...même si le climat do2.26monononohadopi ne s'y prête pas, y'a plein de chouette festivals qui ont déjà commencés !

ps: sorry for non french speaking readers

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 1789
[info]np237
2009-07-08 06:02 pm UTC (link)
C’est une tentative pour mettre le plus possible de trolls en un seul message ? Si c’est le cas, peut mieux faire.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 1789
(Anonymous)
2009-07-08 06:53 pm UTC (link)
ben euh nan...juste une tentative, râtée apparemment, de te faire sourire un peu pour t'aider à te relaxer et continuer tes nombreuses contributions que je vois passer si souvent
...ok le seul troll était peut-être NS, mais là du coup tu me mets vraiment le doute
...bref, vite un pastis !

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 1789
[info]np237
2009-07-08 07:00 pm UTC (link)
Bah, je vois mal en quoi parler de ce gars et de tout ce qu’il représente peut faire sourire.

Non, les trolleurs sur Mono, eux ils prêtent à sourire.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 1789
(Anonymous)
2009-07-08 07:40 pm UTC (link)
merci d'effacer mes doutes (et ceux des lecteurs - honnêtement ;-)
Tu n'as pas voulu saisir mon ironie (sans doute maladroite - j'aurais dû rajouter un ;-) à coté du vote), suite à un post mécréant considérant la déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen comme une "little shit piece of paper"
donc je re-formule : humblement & sincèrement je pense qu'il faut que tu te reposes un peu, moi quand je retombe qques tps après sur ce style de commentaires dans mes commits, je me marre d'abord un coup puis je me dis que j'avais bien fait de prendre un peu de recul (et de pastis!) à ce moment
bonne continuation

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 1789
[info]regala.openid.org
2009-07-09 01:33 pm UTC (link)
Sincerely, you're an ass. First, you bring something irrelevant, knowingly rude for some, and after that, you just drop "sans doute maladroit" ??!! It's not "maladroit" or "mecreant", it's just garbage, period. Don't expect 1) to be taken seriously any further, 2) nor expect people to think you're an adult. thank you ubuntu fanboy, go post on planet.ubuntu-fr.org about your shiny ubuntu stickers, come back in a few years :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 1789
[info]regala.openid.org
2009-07-10 11:28 am UTC (link)
sincerely, I'm a douche...

(Reply to this) (Parent)
It's really not much of a move
[info]urban_terrorist
2009-07-16 01:19 am UTC (link)

Did you read this?

(Reply to this)

(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…