>
> http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
>
> (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also
> (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.
Just as long as you dont forget point 1:
(1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique
that retains the API, but changes the mechanism;
There can never be any guarantees given that you mono won't get sued because
of a patent held (or acquired) by a patent troll. This is why the FUD can
perpetuate. What they don't realise is that this threat affects everything.
That's it really.
Alan
If this were a browser and we were talking about removing features, that
> would be one thing. But with an API, my perception is that we are talking
> about shutting down all the projects written in Mono which require those
> libraries to run (in the case of step 2) unless they are running on
> Windows.
> And that feels like very shaky ground for any project to be on.
>
> Anyway, whatever. I'm moving ahead with Mono myself, I'm just saying that
> if
> some of these public perception things could get hammered out, I'll bet
> this
> project would feel a lot more accessible to OSS folks, and that would truly
> be a good thing for all involved. Again, thanks for responding.
>
>
>
> Alan McGovern-2 wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > right now the vagueness between what's
> >> truly free and what's questionable is playing into the FUDsters hands
> >
> >
> > What's the entire point of Jonathans post saying that nothing is truly
> > free?
> > That's what the FUDsters fail to realise. John Smith living in his
> mothers
> > basement in narnia could realise tomorrow that he holds a patent on
> > concept
> > 'X' which has been used in the .NET framework, the linux kernel and also
> > *insert name of your favourite OSS application here*. He can then
> > (possibly
> > successfully) sue MS, Novell and god knows who else for infringing on
> that
> > patent. The kodak case is a very good example of this.
> >
> > The moral of the story, nothing is safe.
> >
> > Alan.
> >
> > especially in the ADHD world of Internet forums. I feel like we need to
> be
> >> able to show that there is an absolutely "safe" core of Mono that they
> >> can
> >> trust, whatever the hell happens with ADO.net and so forth.
> >>
> >> Anyway, just some thoughts I wanted to share with you all. Now, back to
> >> the
> >> studying! :)
> >>
> >> Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 01:58 -0800, neptune235 wrote:
> >> >> So I've been studying and reading up on Mono, and in the course of
> >> this
> >> I
> >> >> came upon articles saying that Mono should be quarantined from Gnome,
> >> its
> >> >> not free software etc. But in reading these articles, I'm having a
> >> hard
> >> >> time
> >> >> seeing the core issues clearly.
> >> >
> >> > The problems are multifold:
> >> >
> >> > Software patents suck.
> >> >
> >> > Software patents *really* suck.
> >> >
> >> > Software patents *really*, *really* suck. (Yes, so important that it
> >> > deserves to be mentioned three times.)
> >> >
> >> > Last, but not least, the FUDsters can't see the forest for the trees.
> >> >
> >> > Specifically, they spend so much time on Microsoft (a tree) that they
> >> > miss the entire forest of *actual* patent problems, patent trolls,
> etc.
> >> >
> >> > Case in point: A long time ago Wang patented, in effect, remote
> >> > procedure calls (or some variation on the theme). Microsoft licensed
> >> > said patent from Wang (for DCOM). Sun didn't. Later, Kodak bought
> the
> >> > patent off Wang and sued Sun, as Java infringed on the patent. Kodak
> >> > won, to the tune of $92 million.
> >> >
> >> > Thus, the FUD-leading question: what are the patent licensing terms
> >> > here? Does Sun's payoff to Kodak make Java fully, legally clear on
> >> this
> >> > patent? Is Java, now GPL'd, *actually* free (given that we *know* it
> >> > treads on this patent)? Or does every Java distributor need to worry
> >> > about future patent lawsuits from Kodak?
> >> >
> >> > The answer: I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea. (I would assume that
> >> > some large patent cross-licensing deal occurred, so we don't actually
> >> > need to worry about Kodak suing Red Hat.)
> >> >
> >> > But the point is that IT DOESN'T MATTER. *ANYONE* can hold a patent,
> >> > for ANYTHING, and sue ANYONE at ANY TIME. Ergo, Gnome is not free of
> >> > patent issues, KDE is not free of patents issues, Linux is not free of
> >> > patent issues, Python is not free of patent issues, Ruby is not free
> of
> >> > patent issues...NOTHING is free of patent issues (except software that
> >> > is older than 20 years old, which is (1) ~useless, and (2) might still
> >> > be covered by patents because of submarine patents, etc.)
> >> >
> >> > (See also all the lawsuits by small/independent companies against
> >> > Microsoft, Novell, Sun, etc.)
> >> >
> >> > It's usually not the large companies you need to worry about. It's
> >> > usually the small ones, as there's no harm in suing (especially patent
> >> > holding companies, as they don't make any products so patent
> >> > cross-licensing isn't even something they care about).
> >> >
> >> > Thus, the FUD is *extremely* hard to fight, as the first three points
> >> > are quite valid (software patents suck), and then the FUDsters
> >> > mis-represent the fourth fact ("we only need to worry about teh
> >> > Micro$osft!!!") without noting that EVERY alternative they propose
> >> faces
> >> > the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS.
> >> >
> >> > Which means their entire argument falls down to: Microsoft is evil,
> >> > everything they touch is evil, let's all go use something else.
> >> >
> >> > Which is intellectually vapid, misses the point, and overlooks the
> fact
> >> > that Microsoft has done a great amount of good (and also owns patents
> >> on
> >> > a number of technologies that the FUDsters seem quite OK with, such as
> >> > HTML, CSS, C++, XML....).
> >> >
> >> > To be intellectually "pure," they should argue for the use of software
> >> > which CANNOT have any patents on it. Alas, as mentioned earlier, this
> >> > would require using software no one wants to use, assuming any such
> >> > software actually exists.
> >> >
> >> >> And if that is correct, how can I show to people exactly what that
> >> >> totally
> >> >> free part of Mono is? The FUD is so vague, I get the impression that
> >> the
> >> >> entirety of this project is patented by Microsoft, but when I look
> for
> >> >> details I'm not seeing it. Is there some way I can show people that
> >> this
> >> >> isn't the case?
> >> >
> >> > You can't. The FUD is deliberately vague because they don't want
> >> anyone
> >> > looking at Mono for any purpose, because they really just don't like
> >> it.
> >> > I'm sure they'd say mono causes cancer if they wouldn't get laughed at
> >> > for it. Furthermore, vague assertions can't be fought with facts, as
> >> > there isn't enough substance in vague assertions to argue against.
> >> >
> >> > It's a losing battle, and will be "won" just as soon as one particular
> >> > religion "wins" over all others (i.e. "never").
> >> >
> >> > - Jon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> >> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >> http://www.nabble.com/I-need-help-with-FUD-tp21496015p21511496.html
> >> Sent from the Mono - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/I-need-help-with-FUD-tp21496015p21512364.html
> Sent from the Mono - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
