Mono and Microsoft's surprise
Microsoft made a surprise move by putting 2 of its patents that relate to mono under a community promise.
So, now everything with this environment is fine and dandy, isn't it? Not quite.
I take my lead in matters about Free Software mostly for institutions I really trust, this includes the FSF with Richard Stallman and sites like Groklaw.
And RMS correctly points out a few catches in this new deal (there always are catches when dealing with MS):
"Even assuming Microsoft follows through on this announcement and covers ECMA 334 and 335 under the Community Promise, this will not be sufficient to protect us against the dangers . . . . That's because Mono implements, and Tomboy depends upon, a number of libraries which are 'standard' in the sense that they're under C#'s "System" namespace (indicating that they're part of the standard library) and provided in Microsoft's implementation, but somewhat pointedly excluded from the ECMA specifications.
Also, it seems that the Community Promise shares some of the weaknesses of their other patent promises. So they have taken a step closer to promising not to sue over C#, but they still have not got there."
As this is Microsoft, nothing but a signed agreement approved by Free Software lawyers who are 100 % sure that MS CAN NOT sue even if they do break their promise is te only thing that is good enough.
Comments
22 comments postedDo you have a link to RMS's statement? I could not locate it in your post, links are actually kind of hard to see on this blog. Took me a bit before I found the Glyn Moody link in "Mono's patent promise a dead duck?"
Also, vis-a-vis the Tomboy guy's statement: as overzealous as he may be in defending Mono (even in the face of patent uncertainty), you cannot deny that it does appear that Tomboy does not violate the Community Promise.
It is without question A) running on a full implementation of the spec, and B) using either purely free-software or ECMA-standard-covered libraries, and nothing else of the .NET platform.
Microsoft is shifty, but they are legally bound by their own agreement, where those words are specific (which isn't a lot here, granted), but there -is- some specificity here, even if it isn't enough for a blank-check thumbs-up for patent safety.
RMS, as a figure-head for free software debate, will be equally proficient at using ambiguous rhetoric for his own ends, just as Microsoft's legal department.
But you can always go a bit deeper than the rhetoric, and once you do, Tomboy -- and the ECMA-standard part of Mono -- looks pretty clean. That's probably small comfort to you and everyone else though.
I was with you in part until your comment about RMS' rethoric. The FSF has nothing to gain by doing this and everything to lose.
So why is it that in this mono-argument, people always feel they should discredit the very organization that has brought us Free Software in the first place instead of actually dealing with the issues that very organization presents?
You can find his comments http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26166/1090/
Could you double-check the source/attribution of the quotation in this post? I can't find the quote in the ITWire article, nor anywhere else.
Thanks.
On the aside, I'm not saying RMS has equally devious ends as Microsoft. But rhetoric is used by both sides of the free/non-free software conflict. Ambiguity is a double-edged sword, and there's no reason that RMS himself can't occasionally get something wrong.
Your CAPTCHA's, by the way, are the hardest I've ever seen.
> putting 2 of it's patents
s/it's/its/
corrected
"Tomboy depends upon, a number of libraries which are 'standard' in the sense that they're under C#'s "System" namespace (indicating that they're part of the standard library) and provided in Microsoft's implementation, but somewhat pointedly excluded from the ECMA specifications."
It's not even worth telling you why Stallman (and you by extension) is wrong is it? When will people learn (as anyone at GCDS did) that Stallman simply doesn't understand any of this stuff, and is shooting from the hip.
Well, I'll do it anyway. It'll be interesting to see whether the comment gets deleted.
Tomboy uses the following assemblies (verifiable with monodis --assemblyref):
mscorlib
Mono.Posix
gtk-sharp
gnome-panel-sharp
glib-sharp
gdk-sharp
System.Xml
Mono.Addins
System
pango-sharp
Mono.Addins.Gui
Mono.Addins.Setup
gnome-sharp
gconf-sharp
gconf-sharp-peditors
NDesk.DBus
NDesk.DBus.GLib
Of these, the following are part of ".NET", i.e. not Mono-specific libraries like Gtk#:
mscorlib
System.Xml
System
Now, obtain a copy of the (patent-protected) ECMA335 library specification XML from http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-335.zip
This file defines the 8 libraries which form the core specification.
These correspond to the following assemblies, as defined in the "AssemblyName" parameter for the objects defined in each section:
BCL=mscorlib
ExtendedNumerics=mscorlib
Networking=System
Parallel=mscorlib
Reflection=mscorlib
RuntimeInfrastructure=mscorlib
Vararg=mscorlib
Xml=System.Xml
And for good measure, I took a peek at all the addins - they only use Mono libraries or mscorlib, System, or System.Xml.
So. Either provide some magical backup for the statement "Tomboy depends upon, a number of libraries which are 'standard' in the sense that they're under C#'s "System" namespace (indicating that they're part of the standard library) and provided in Microsoft's implementation, but somewhat pointedly excluded from the ECMA specifications.", or denounce RMS for either intentionally misleading people, or doing zero research and not having a clue what he's talking about. Those are the options here, because the 101% verifiable FACTS fly in the face of his statement - and that you took him at face value without any of your own research works against you by proxy, when you proclaim that only his opinion matters.
Strange, Mr. Shields, that you asserted "none of the apps people moan about" used non-standard parts [1].
Yet, we know perfectly well that Banshee and F-Spot do use non-standard parts [2].
The thing about Stallman "getting it wrong", is that he gets lee-way on the exact technical matters since he isn't involved in the project. His point stands even if he misses the minuate of Debian packaging or which exact mono app uses non-ECMA parts.
The thing about you is that you *are* involved in the project. So when you get something like this wrong, it doesn't look like some outsider mis-speaking or mis-understanding a technical detail.
Care to guess what it looks like?
[1] http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7572426&postcount=68
[2] http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/08/this-doesnt-fix-everything/
Sorry Jo, but your camp first claimed that there were no patents on mono because it was a published ECMA standard, then you turn arround and celebrate that Microsoft opens these formerly non-existing patents to Free Software development.
Yes, I take these people at face value because I am not a lawyer, these guys either are (the SFLC) or have lawyers to back them up. And so far their claims have been much more consitent than yours or de Icaza's.
So, to be certain, you refuse to acknowledge the documented facts as reality. Is that the case? You're unequivocally denying everything in the comment that you replied to, where I categorically prove which assemblies Tomboy uses as being under the CP, and not beyond it as you claim? I want to be 100% clear here, no ambiguity.
And I don't remember saying there were no patents on Mono, I said there were no DOCUMENTED patents, and that in the event that you really thought it was issue, you ask Microsoft/HP (as required under the ECMA's terms) to get access to a patent license. All the pissing and moaning from the self-righteous "save teh loonicks from teh monoze" crowd lead precisely nowhere - in the end it was Miguel who actually *asked* which lead to the CP covenant.
And, again, as then, can you please attack Sun for endangering the Free Software community by implementing Microsoft's ECMA376 which has the same ECMA patent promise, and is under the OSP? If not, why not?
I'm sorry, but you have a tendency to sidestep issues by just shouting your way out.
Read the other comments on my blog or the linked articles. There are assertions that Tomboy actually uses parts that are not covered by the promise, secondly, there is the assertion that this promise is not as strong as it would appear, something that wouldn't surprise me coming from Microsoft (who vowed to eradicate the cancer we call Linux).
Again, I'm not claiming all this is the truth and nothing but the truth, but it leaves enough room for concern to look into it and then consider if we are going to depend on this technology.
The possibility of other MS patents being held over Linux does not nullify the issue with mono.
Dear Guy.
Pot, kettle, black.
Really, do not make me come up with a list of times where you chose to selectively read comments in order to focus the attention on side-issues, rather than what actually matters.
Just stop now you still have some dignity left.
There is nothing to discuss.
Saying "Tomboy actually uses parts that are not covered by the promise" is not opinion, it's a lie.
Arguments about the CP not offering sufficient coverage for a particularly paranoid brand of user is a second issue - but claiming that Tomboy doesn't come under it is a lie, plain and simple. There's no other word for it.
And, frankly, it's laughable that one should "look into it" when you steafadtly refuse to acknowledge the facts in front of your eyes - what hope is there for the grey issues, when you claim black is white?
You just don't get it do you?
That statement is a legally binding unilateral contract.
Here is something to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
Do note that estoppel is a universally accepted principle in the legal world not just countries that have common law.
Mono is actually far more risk free then other open source technologies thanks to the promise.
And do remember that Sun and IBM also have similar promises so don't be a hypocrite.
And parts of Mono that aren't covered under this promise are already split out in different packages under Ubuntu and Debian. And the Mono project is going split them in source form to ease the life of package maintainers.
And I should trust you on that instead of RMS, the FSF and the SFLC?
You know what would be awesome? If you could read for yourself. But it's obvious that you are lazy.
Everything is laid in front of you. I'm not going to do it for you.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even American so I am in no position to judge the validity of the statement by Microsoft.
On the other hand, I trust the FSF and the SFLC that exist to protect the Free Software movement so I will go by what they say instead of trusting a convicted monopolist and patent troll together with it's dumb little helper (Novell), thank you very much.
So you are saying that you are blindly following the FSF and never considered growing a critical mind of your own? One that would allow you to take a stand between moral fundamentalism and practical realism?
Then what makes you less of a dumb little helper?
Start growing your own free will man, even Novell thinks for itself. Making statements like this is a quick way to lose all your credibility...
While I do get and even share some of your concerns about Mono and Microsoft, I can't help but feel that your posts are just rants driven by a strong hate of Microsoft. Even if you have in your hands "a signed agreement approved by Free Software lawyers who are 100 % sure that MS CAN NOT sue even if they do break their promise", as you put it, I'm sure you will find something else wrong with it.
If you want your opinion to be heard, try to be a little more rational and less emotional about it. Take Stallman, for instance: he has very strong beliefs, but his speeches are always well-reasoned.
Taking two full days to think and post something about it was a good first step, though.
I accept that that is your opinion and I also admire RMS for this calmth.
But for me it remains simple, Microsoft has used every underhanded tactic to destroy Free Software they could find, so nothing that requires the vaguest requirement of trust in them is safe in my book because experience has thought me they are not to be trusted.
If they sign a legally binding document however that both RMS and the SFLC endorse and they declare Mono as being safe, than I will accept that. But nothing of the sort has happened this week.
Mono is free software and helpful tool in making the Linux desktop more desirable, by making it open to more developers. More developers means more software, more software makes it more desirable.
You are overrating the Microsoft threat. By all means not everyone who works there is drinking the Kool-Aid that Ballmer and friends provides. They are dumb bureaucratic corporation like many others (see movie: Office Space).
That's my speech!