[Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:23:17 -0800 (PST)
Dear Mr Troll,
Not in any way to slight _your_ career in opensource
development, which I am sure is more extensive than my
own, but you have just flamed Miguel who is someone
everyone here knows and respects for _his_ career in
Miguel is also a _very_ respected community leader. I
cant even begin to tell you how childish your remarks
about his community building skills seem.
Furthermore, one would think that you would have
enough sence to at least be appreciative that he
bothered to personally answer your questions at all.
When he could have (and should have) been doing a
zillion other things.
But no, he decided that he would personally try to
asuage your fears regarding MS and Mono, and got
flamed for his efforts.
Instead of flaming him (which is _exactly_ what you
just did) perhaps you could have started by saying:
"Thanks for the info. I really appreciate your time Mr
de Icaza, but Im _still_ not convinced. Is there
anything more you could show me?". Eventually the
magic bullet you are so desperately seeking would be
Unfortunately for you, flames have a funny way of
burning down bridges, so I really doubt you will be
getting more information from _anyone_ here.
Have a nice day :)
Alex Combas "sabmoc"@irc.gnome.org#mono
ps. When MS is gone and you're running a Mono based
GNOME desktop like the other 90% of mankind, remember
that you blew up and had a hissy fit at one of
GNOME's, Ximian's, and Mono's founding members.
--- Andy Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> OK...before I unsubscribe from this list - a couple
> of points:
> - I came here interested in a technology with what I
> felt was a
> legitimate concern and most (not all - Andy Satori
> for example was
> particularly helpful) of what I have gotten back has
> been rude and
> - Your FAQ does NOT adequately explain the issue. If
> it did, maybe the
> question WOULDN'T COME UP SO OFTEN.
> - Your posts have been quite honestly the least
> helpful and the most
> abrasive. A wonderful way to build a community.
> - You accuse me of not knowing the difference
> between the GPL and
> patents based on a my post - a bit arrogant, don't
> you think? You assume
> an awful lot from very little information.
> - As far as I know, it is COMPLETELY possible that a
> RAND PATENT license
> may include terms that would in fact PREVENT
> distribution of an licensed
> implementation under the GPL, in spite of the vast
> difference between
> patents and copyrights. If you can point to some
> legislation or case law
> that says a patent license is prohibited from
> placing restrictions on
> the distribution of an implementation, please
> indicate where that may be
> found. Otherwise, how would you distribute under GPL
> with, for example,
> a per copy royalty requirement, even if it was only
> - You state that the patents are available under
> royalty free terms and
> that this is pointed out in the FAQ. The FAQ does
> not make it clear that
> those terms actually exist in any binding or
> defensible manner, only
> that there is an assumption that they are there.
> - I have read Jim's post - as far as I can tell, the
> post linked to by
> the FAQ is an unofficial statement by a Microsoft
> employee about a
> purported agreement between companies regarding the
> licensing. Last time
> I checked, that is not sufficient to constitute a
> royalty free patent
> license from Microsoft. If you have lawyers that can
> point out
> otherwise, that would be a really helpful bit of
> info to include in your
> - If, as you imply, but do not state, the mono
> project or some
> representative of it has spoken directly to
> Microsoft's IP staff about
> the license terms, and actually has something
> sufficiently binding to
> answer these questions (something more substantial
> than a newsgroup post
> perhaps?), WHY DON'T YOU PUT THAT IN THE FAQ INSTEAD
> OF LEAVING IT VAGUE
> AND INCONCLUSIVE AND THEN GETTING BITCHY WITH ANYONE
> WHO ASKS ABOUT IT?
> If you are tired of the question - ANSWER IT. I can
> assure you, I won't
> be the last person to ask. I can also assure you I
> won't bother to ask
> If you ever manage to provide a decent answer,
> myself, and those like me
> who actually look at these issues before jumping
> into something might
> want to use and support the project.
> And if you really don't have more than this to work
> from (and I really
> doubt you are dumb enough to operate that way) then
> perhaps I should
> just start getting used to KDE in preparation for
> the day when some MS
> exec realizes he can rip the foundation out from
> under a Mono based
> Gnome desktop.
> p.s. - check definition 3.b. of community (
> ). You might find it
> incredibly useful if you decide to encourage people
> to use the
> technology rather than just piss them off when they
> ask questions.
> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> >>My understanding is that any implementation of the
> ECMA specifications
> >>for the CLI, etc, is known to be covered by
> patents held by Microsoft.
> >>Such a submision is allowable under th eEMCA rules
> provided that the
> >>patents are licensable under "Reasonable and
> Non-discriminatory" (RAND).
> >>My conceen is that RAND does not imply
> compatibility iwth the GPL or any
> >>other open source license, and I am trying to find
> out ifth eMono
> >>project is specifically licensed for the patents
> covering the ECMA
> >>specification, of simply relying on public
> statments regarding them.
> >You are mixing GPL (a copyright license) and
> patents *again*. They
> >have nothing to do with each other. I thought you
> had just said you
> >did understand the difference.
> >The C# and CLI patents are available under RAND and
> Royalty Free terms
> >as pointed out in the FAQ (the link to Jim's post)
> which you said you
> >read a few times (it seems and you still managed to
> not find this).
> >I have spoked to Jim, I have spoken to the ECMA
> folks. If you do not
> >believe any of this, pick up the phone and call
> Microsoft's IP staff to
> >discuss RAND and Royalty Free terms.
> >Make sure you talk to a lawyer before so you do not
> confuse *again*
> >copyright and patents.
> Mono-list maillist - Monoemail@example.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam