[Mono-list] Thanks to all for your replies, here's mine.

[Alan McGovern]

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 at 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 at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-list/attachments/20090117/875f3c21/attachment.html