Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Jonathan - Many thanks for this answer. I suspected this to be the case, but wants confirmation from someone more familiar with it. Jonathan Pryor wrote: On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:19, Andy Lewis wrote: snip/ First, regarding Mono licensing. It appears to be a mix of GPL, LGPL, and X11 licenses. Does this combination allow me to develop commercial applications using mono and distribute them using the free licenses, provided that I am not distributed modified Mono libraries or components, and only my own code is closed source? Or does that require a different (non-free) license? Yes, depending on what your app does. The runtime assemblies (*.dll; all assemblies a managed program is likely to reference) are under the MIT/X11 license. As such, you can freely use them, copy them, integrate them into your own proprietary apps, print the source, start a fire, whatever. [1] The runtime libraries (*.so, such as libmono.so, libmint.so) are licensed under the LGPL. As such, you can link against them, permitting better integration between managed and unmanaged code (such as an existing unmanaged application, like Evolution). The applications (*.exe, such as mcs.exe, mono, mint, etc.) are GPL. You wouldn't link against them anyway, but you can't create a proprietary C# compiler based on MCS, for example. Hopefully that clears matters up for you. - Jon [1] I'm not liable for any fires started in this fashion. :-) ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Could you point me to some more information on the upcoming patent review you mention? It may be that this will resolve my questions. In the meantime, I have no immediate compelling need to use Mono, although I do have the interest. While I may invest the time to learn about it, I will most likely not look to implement anything substantial until I can find a clear answer on this. In the meantime, if the Ximian lawyers have already answered it clearly, I think putting something a bit more solid in the FAQ might help. Pointing me to the FAQ only helps if it actually answers the question. In this case, it does not do so. Nik Derewianka wrote: if i still don't understand this, please help me to understand it :) I think what you need is what the upcoming Patent Review might provide. For now you will probably just have to trust the Ximian monkeys who have probably given this a bit more thought than you have and have access to a few more legal resources than you have. Regards, Nik ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Hmm. Actually, what I think it means is that the efforts to assuage the fears of the users in this regard has not had the success we need. I'm not intending to criticize the efforts to clarify this situation up to this point at all - it seems that significant effort has been put into understanding the issue, and explaining it to the Mono users. And I can understand why most people are bored to death with this subject matter. However, as long as this question keeps popping up, it means it has not been sufficiently answered by the FAQ (as the original poster stated). And as long as the question is not sufficiently answered, the uncertainty will remain as a barrier to adoption for Mono. The question for this group is to what extent that barrier should be addressed. I think that question has already been answered. But let's not discourage questions like this, even if the group is bored and tired of the subject. It simply lets the group know that Mono is becomiing more widely considered, and the result of this will be more and more legal concerns. We need to be prepared to either provide a better answer to their questions, a more concrete answer like Microsoft WILL NOT sue because x, y, and z (and who's going to pay for that?), or be prepared to provide the same answer as before (We don't think Microsoft will sue, but you should seek your own legal advice) and be understanding when people go elsewhere for their solution. Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/14/2004 12:35:40 PM Hello, does that mean thay you/mono-devel-team doesn't know the answer to my (original) question? We have gone through this too many times, to the point that we have added this to the FAQ. It means you are just very late asking that question, and most people are bored to death with the subject who has been answered in the FAQ. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Hello, 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. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
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 unhelpful. - 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 $0.01? - 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 FAQ. - 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 again. 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. Thanks... p.s. - check definition 3.b. of community ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=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: Hello, 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. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, 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. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list I just have to add my $0.02 here. A clear-cut example of how a patent issue can have an impact on the GPL is the following: If you develop an MPEG-2 encoder on your own (for example, trying to decode DVD-Video), using the ISO documents (ISO/IEC 13818), there still is the problem of trying to obtain patent licensing from the MPEG Licensing Authority. The current per-unit licensing for a decoder (software decoders are treated the same as a hardware decoder) is about $2.00 per copy shipped. This, BTW, is considered by courts to be a Reasonable and Non-Discriminitory license, so buyer beware. (See http://www.mpegla.com/) If you write software using these specs, you own the copyright. That is not disputed. You can even distribute that software under the terms of the GPL. It is just that clause 7 of the GPL kicks in: *7.* If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. That would essentially kill any open source project using the GPL in this situation. Think about it carefully. That is one reason why Linux-based DVD systems are so slow to develop, and even the ones that are around have some very questionable legal background. I would strongly not recommend Ximian or any other group that wants to protect their behind to do something of this nature (DVD-Video processing) unless you are absolutely sure all of the patents have expired or don't cover your activities. I would also love to release some MPEG manipulation libraries for mono (and I still might), but there certainly are some issue to deal with before it happens. How this related to Microsoft and the C#/CLI patents is not directly impacted, but the issue certainly is something to consider. If Microsoft were to only charge $0.01 per copy of mono shipped, it could potentially kill the whole project, but still be considered a reasonable license. That Microsoft has granted royalty-free license might make it difficult to backtrack later, not to mention the P.R. impact they would have on all open source/free implementations of the dotNet platform. It would make the effort to establish the PNG group and format pale by comparison in a worst-case situation. I guess too many people still remember the BS with Unisys and the GIF data format. Thank goodness the LZW patent has expired. And yes, I do know the difference between patents, copyright, and trademarks. -- Robert Scott Horning 218 Sunstone Circle Logan, UT 84321 (435) 753-3330 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
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. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 21:23, Alex Combas wrote: *sigh* Dear Mr Troll, ok, it the flames are already burning, this won't hurt more :) 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 opensource. yes, i also respect him very much, but he still didn't answer my (imho also andy's) question. 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. maybe you're right here, i also like very much his blog entries, but his latest mails are a little bit ...let's say not that informative as his blog entries 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. wow, we got a mail from Miguel de Icaza PERSONALLY! WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW let's all of us pray before Miguel :))) (no, i don't want to offend anyone, but words like personally anser and so on, it seems s funny to me) btw. he works/owns/whatever in/for a company which is primarily focused on mono. Andy in contrast seems to be a developer, who would like to use mono. so basically Miguel is selling something, and Andy wants (wanted, to be more precise) to buy it. so we could also look at this from the following point: Andy wasted his time asking the seller some questions about a product, and he got no answers from the seller. The seller only told him, that he doesn't understand what he is asking, so he should better learn all stuff-not-exactly-needed-for-programmers, and then...no, he won't get answers even then. i am not saying that's the correct point of view. but imho it's as good as your point of view. But no, he decided that he would personally try to asuage your fears regarding MS and Mono, and got flamed for his efforts. the same as above. 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 found. he asked...how many times? 2x? 3x? and he always got the same answer: we-know-better-but-we-dont-give-you-any-proof-go-and-learn-about-patents-and-copyrights 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 :) have a nice day too :))) 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. i hope you meant this as a joke :) gabor ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 16:57, Miguel de Icaza wrote: 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've also read it i think twice.. and i saw the stuff abour RAND and so on. 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. i usually believe what people say, and i am also more believing if someone says it who already made a name in the open-source/linux world. it's not that i don't believe you spoked to Jim or to the ECMA folks. it's just that it is NOT ENOUGH imho. i imagine that i would want to persuade the management in my company about that we should switch to mono, because c# is much better than java. they would ask me: we heard that c#/dotnet was originally a microsoft product. how can we be sure that ms won't stop mono after some time? my answer: Miguel de Icaza spoke to jim and to the ECMA folks. they said it is ok. i don't think that would be enough for them. they would want to see some more solid evidence. but you can't provide any solid evidence, because there is no solid evidence imho. but there should be! please, understand, that i like mono, and i would like to use mono in the future, and all i want for mono is that the legal stuff becomes more safe. i ask again: can't suse/ximian/novell as a commercial company ask/negotiate with microsoft to produce an announcement or whatever? as i see novell is investing a lot into mono (simias and so on), so they think it will be allright. maybe they have some more formal documents from microsoft but they can't publish them? i'll say it again: if you don't want to read about mono-licensing-problems in EVERY mono review, then do something about it! and no, the faq is not good enough in that part. read it again. and no flames please, the other branch of this thread is reserved for that : gabor ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
--- Shantanu Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sheesh!! I haven't seen a greater troll on this list than this one. Of course everybody acknowledges the contribution and position of Miguel. But I am sorry to notice that the post by Alex Combas seems to have nothing to do with the main subject. Actually it's just *BS*. Good, Im glad that everyone noticed that I was not commenting on the main subject. I was simply trying to make the point that flaming people is not a good way to get the information you need. Also I made the point that flaming a respected member of the community (like Miguel) is especially ill advised. I purposely did not comment on the main subject. The point I was making was about manners, not patents. I fail to understand how it can be considered *BS*. Im asuming that you use the word BS to mean that I was either lying, misleading, or otherwise acting in an underhanded way. However the part about calling him Mr Troll was a flame, I appologize, mostly that was done for laughs, and the same goes for the part about his hissy fit. Im will not reply on this subject further. Alex Combas sabmoc@irc.gnome.org#mono ps. Greatest, troll, ever. Wow, Im honored. The issues raised by Mr Lewis are completely genuine, and had the Mono FAQ answered them convincingly there wouldn't be so many recurring questions in the first place. The post by Robert Scott Horning highlights what could go wrong (in respect of clause 7 of the GNU GPL). If what Robert explained (that M$ decides to charge a nominal royalty of $0.01 on .NET implementation under RAND) happens to Mono someday, how could the Mono community work around that? And would that not affect Ximian's distributing Mono at all? Shantanu __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Hello, i don't think that would be enough for them. they would want to see some more solid evidence. And is was said on the O'Reilly article, and echoed on this discussion (but nobody seems to be paying attention) we are doing a legal review. The legal review is in progress, and there is not more I can say that has not been said already in public. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Ok, I thought we killed this particular issue a long time ago.. (grin) Here is the take I get from Miguel and someone correct the perception if I am incorrect Your application makes use of the framework not the actual libraries (unless youcreate a librarythat extends an existing one). So your OWN libraries should be safe to do whatever you wish with them. Your applications themselves should be fine. If you were creating your own C# compiler or assemblies using the existing APIs (System.Windows, System.Web, etc...) You "could" be at risk. It again depends on what the terms of the ECMA agreement is and what the API patents actually are. This particular issue would fall into the lap of the Open Source apps of dotGNU, Mono, and others (I think Intel has an implementation - but not open source). So the basics of the answer is that you are not directly affected if Microsoft has some sort of fee. Your application can freely use the libraries, but only for the creation of your own apps.If you are planning to create a lot of extended librariesor your own compiler (I think few of us are on this list for that), then you may want to review it (the license and theRAND terms)more closely. Technically the people to actually ask for your own satisfaction are Microsoft and ECMA to be sure that they are all on the same page. ECMA regarding the ECMA specs, and Microsoft for the API issue and overall RAND terms if you are unclear. Everyone, am I pretty much right? Miguel, is this the jist of the issue you are trying to sum up for everyone? Richard Norman Application/Web Developer** The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies. **
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
I'm sure everyone here is looking forward to the results of the formal review. Will you post it to this list and update the FAQ once it's done. Thanks! -Nick On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 14:41, Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, i don't think that would be enough for them. they would want to see some more solid evidence. And is was said on the O'Reilly article, and echoed on this discussion (but nobody seems to be paying attention) we are doing a legal review. The legal review is in progress, and there is not more I can say that has not been said already in public. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
--- Stuart Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I hope not, because I still want to use Mono, and I really hope that *someone* comes up with an answer to Andy's valid question, which is: Where's the authoritative statement which says that Microsoft will continue to license the ECMA technologies *royalty-free*, as opposed to just RAND, and how legally binding is that statement? I guess it goes without saying that I do not speak in behalf of anyone but myself. So as far as when I said that I doubt Andy would be getting any more info from anyone else I was really out of line there. In Andy's flame to Miguel the first thing he implied was that he was angry and that he was leaving the mailing list, but now in his latest email he has appologized for stepping over the line. So as far as I am concerned the whole thing is just water under the bridge now. I would like to encourage Andy not to feel bad, to continue using Mono, and to continue to voice his opinions and idea's on the mono-list. I only object to flaming hardworking developers who take time out of their busy schedule to asnwer email on a public mailing list. I dont care what the subject is, that is just bad taste. Dont get me wrong, I totally agree that hard questions _need_ to be asked and I think its a good thing when people are BOLD enough to ask them. But I also think that when people start demanding ultimate and completely binding answers to difficult questions that they are going a bit to far. Ask your questions, wait for answers, and if your not totally satisfied with the answers that you get (or the emperical evidence that backs up the answers) then you are free to walk away. Nobody is putting a gun to your head demanding that you use Mono and like it. But I really hope no one leaves over this, and Im sorry if any of my comments push people away. Im really looking forward to this legal review, and I think that all this will become a total non-issue after the legal review is complete. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 22:41, Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, i don't think that would be enough for them. they would want to see some more solid evidence. And is was said on the O'Reilly article, and echoed on this discussion (but nobody seems to be paying attention) we are doing a legal review. The legal review is in progress, and there is not more I can say that has not been said already in public. thank you, this is the answer i was waiting for. gabor ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 21:25, Andy Satori wrote: rant/ hmmm i understand that mono seems to be safe because for now it seems that mono helps microsoft to generate money, and also some microsoft-developer/mono-inventor/programmer/whatever said that RAND in this case means free (as in everything, be it beer or speech or whatever). am i correct? but, i would like to have/hear/see some more solid/stable/safe stuff. example: python. if i check the webpage, i know they are gpl-compatible, have a quite open development model and so on. i simply can be sure that if i use it, there will be no license problems. now: can you show me a webpage or link or whatever where Microsoft (as the company, not just one of their developers) declares, than all CLI and dot-net stuff(runtime,core-classes and xml to be specific) is free to implement for anyone? to summarize: tell me why it is IMPOSSIBLE for microsoft to hurt/stop mono development. i already heard why it is not probable. thanks, gabor ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
I am not a lawyer, neither am i familiar with these or any patent issues, and I don't care at all. However, The real question you should be asking yourself seems to be: Why am I asking this here, and not on the wine mailing list Unlike wine, mono implements something that is being standardized by the ECMA. Wine is implementing a completely closed, proprietary api developed by microsoft. It seems to me, if microsoft was going to enforce patent issues on any open source project, wine would be a far better candidate than mono. Since wine seems to still be under heavy active development, and without any patent issues, the big issue over mono seems kinda moot, and a lot like FUD. --Todd On Sun, 2004-14-03 at 19:03 +0100, gabor wrote: On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 21:25, Andy Satori wrote: rant/ hmmm i understand that mono seems to be safe because for now it seems that mono helps microsoft to generate money, and also some microsoft-developer/mono-inventor/programmer/whatever said that RAND in this case means free (as in everything, be it beer or speech or whatever). am i correct? but, i would like to have/hear/see some more solid/stable/safe stuff. example: python. if i check the webpage, i know they are gpl-compatible, have a quite open development model and so on. i simply can be sure that if i use it, there will be no license problems. now: can you show me a webpage or link or whatever where Microsoft (as the company, not just one of their developers) declares, than all CLI and dot-net stuff(runtime,core-classes and xml to be specific) is free to implement for anyone? to summarize: tell me why it is IMPOSSIBLE for microsoft to hurt/stop mono development. i already heard why it is not probable. thanks, gabor ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
rant/ hmmm i understand that mono seems to be safe because for now it seems that mono helps microsoft to generate money, and also some microsoft-developer/mono-inventor/programmer/whatever said that RAND in this case means free (as in everything, be it beer or speech or whatever). am i correct? sigh/ Maybe a mono-legal-list@ should be create for this stuff. it is getting to be a very old, battered, bruised topic. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 20:00, Adam Williams wrote: rant/ hmmm i understand that mono seems to be safe because for now it seems that mono helps microsoft to generate money, and also some microsoft-developer/mono-inventor/programmer/whatever said that RAND in this case means free (as in everything, be it beer or speech or whatever). am i correct? sigh/ Maybe a mono-legal-list@ should be create for this stuff. it is getting to be a very old, battered, bruised topic. does that mean thay you/mono-devel-team doesn't know the answer to my (original) question? gabor ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Hello, example: python. if i check the webpage, i know they are gpl-compatible, have a quite open development model and so on. i simply can be sure that if i use it, there will be no license problems. now: can you show me a webpage or link or whatever where Microsoft (as the company, not just one of their developers) declares, than all CLI and dot-net stuff(runtime,core-classes and xml to be specific) is free to implement for anyone? You are confused. Patents are different than copyrights. The GPL license is a copyright license, but it can not grant rights of things it does not own. So if you infringe a patent, lets say there is an imaginary Doofy Co that has a patent on XML-based filesystem, it does not matter if you use .NET, Java, Python, GCC or GNU Emacs. You will still violate the patent. So your question needs to be restated with the above in mind. Copyright infringement is different than patent infringement and different from trademark infringement. Now, the major problem is that we have a lot of people that do not understand the difference between those ones arguing on the lists. Until this point, very few people know what they are talking about in this matter, and it is hard to have a discussion when the most basic principles are just miss-understood. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Hello, does that mean thay you/mono-devel-team doesn't know the answer to my (original) question? We have gone through this too many times, to the point that we have added this to the FAQ. It means you are just very late asking that question, and most people are bored to death with the subject who has been answered in the FAQ. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
[Mono-list] Mono and Patents
There is no right answer to this until it is tested in court. Much like SCO/IBM/Linux issue. I am getting into mono now because I know that worst case scenerio (just like with SCO on Linux), if MS squashed Mono, it would be redeveloped, probably quickly, i.e. within months, and then MS would face a competitive product, which ultimate is better (and free), that will dry up the market they will have for their .Net products. Thats the nice thing about GPL and free software with many supporters, (mix that with countries that realize MS is an illegal monopoly), is that its software can never die, or be pushed out of existence by any flunky US court cases (thats assuming there is negative results on GPL based cases). To be a safe user of Mono, (much like a safe user of Linux), you'd have to get it from a vendor that will endemnify it, and maybe some day soon, who knows, that could happen. Dell, IBM, HP, etc are already endemnifying against actions on Linux, to protect their end users. I wonder, is Mono part of a Redhat that HP (for example) endemnies against? or do they preclude this? -tl ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents
Hi, There is no right answer to this until it is tested in court. Much like SCO/IBM/Linux issue. There is no SCO-IBM issue other than in Darl's head. Everyone and his dog agrees there is no validity in it. http://www.groklaw.net for the latest info. To be a safe user of Mono, (much like a safe user of Linux), you'd have to get it from a vendor that will endemnify it, and maybe some day soon, who knows, that could happen. Why? Just because a number of distro companies (and IBM) decide to indemnify doesn't mean anything. All it's there for is to say to customers, don't worry, use linux and we'll protect you against any trumped up charges from SCO. Mono is also a different case. Mono has nothing to do with MS, but is based on the EMCA standards for the language. It is using a clean implementation (AFAIK) of the windows.forms stuff. MS, like SCO and Linux, has no hold on mono. Use it and be happy. TTFN Paul -- Logic, my dear Zoe, is merely the ability to be wrong with authority Dr Who signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [good] Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents
I agree with you 100% but suits want that kinda shit, I am just relating what i am seeing/hearing with multi-billion dollar companies I consult for in Canada, they get worried about this shit, and your rational below (I buy it), but the heads of IT's, well they need a bit more to feel comfortable. Also remember, the US DOJ has managed to NOT hand out any justice what so ever in anything to do with MS, the fines are simple some small part of interest on the profits they made from the screw fest the dealt out to Netscape,Sun, etc,etc. My point is, use Mono, be happy, and if MS comes in to screw things up, hopefully Mono steers around it, just as Linus has said Linux can steer around SCO (if they won). -tl Paul wrote: Hi, There is no right answer to this until it is tested in court. Much like SCO/IBM/Linux issue. There is no SCO-IBM issue other than in Darl's head. Everyone and his dog agrees there is no validity in it. http://www.groklaw.net for the latest info. To be a safe user of Mono, (much like a safe user of Linux), you'd have to get it from a vendor that will endemnify it, and maybe some day soon, who knows, that could happen. Why? Just because a number of distro companies (and IBM) decide to indemnify doesn't mean anything. All it's there for is to say to customers, don't worry, use linux and we'll protect you against any trumped up charges from SCO. Mono is also a different case. Mono has nothing to do with MS, but is based on the EMCA standards for the language. It is using a clean implementation (AFAIK) of the windows.forms stuff. MS, like SCO and Linux, has no hold on mono. Use it and be happy. TTFN Paul ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
if i still don't understand this, please help me to understand it :) I think what you need is what the upcoming Patent Review might provide. For now you will probably just have to trust the Ximian monkeys who have probably given this a bit more thought than you have and have access to a few more legal resources than you have. Regards, Nik ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Actually Migel, I believe I started this round with this question, and while I am not a lwyer, I do have a fundamental understanding of the difference beween patents and copyrights. In addition, I have read, and re-read the FAQ, and everything else I could find on this particular topic before posting to this list. I certainly understnad that this is a topic that has been beaten to death time and again, but I am asking it because I do not yet have a clear answer, and the FAQ does not provide it either. If I am asking in the wrong place, I apologize, and please tell me where I shoudl ask. I use both Linux and Windows personally and profesionally, and while, yes, I do personally prefer Linux. My concerns over this topic I feel are legitmate. I ask the same questions about every technology I use- I read every license agreement, and every legal document I sign. I am sorry if you feel that concern over a recurrance of historical pattern of behavior in the case of Microsoft is bigotry. My question is as follows: 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. Thanks... Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, does that mean thay you/mono-devel-team doesn't know the answer to my (original) question? We have gone through this too many times, to the point that we have added this to the FAQ. It means you are just very late asking that question, and most people are bored to death with the subject who has been answered in the FAQ. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
[Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Please forgive me as I am sure what I am asking has been discussed and debated at length, and I do not mean this as a troll or as flame bait, but I do have some questions not clearly answered in the FAQ or other places on the site regarding the intellectual property underlying Mono. I ma a developer, primarily Java these days, and I certainly acknowledge that the CLI and related technologies offer some very cool possibilities, but before jumping into using them, I want to clarify a few things. First, regarding Mono licensing. It appears to be a mix of GPL, LGPL, and X11 licenses. Does this combination allow me to develop commercial applications using mono and distribute them using the free licenses, provided that I am not distributed modified Mono libraries or components, and only my own code is closed source? Or does that require a different (non-free) license? Second, and more critically, I have a question about the Microsoft patents(s) on the technology. I have read about this as much as I can find, and I am assuming I am simply missing something. It appears to me that the ECMA standard on which Mono is based, is also clearly covered by at least one Microsoft patent. The ECMA rules require that such patents be available for RAND licensing. In addition, there is the post from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - one of the patent inventors I believe, that the agreement is that in this case the RAND patent licensing is simply free (apparently both freedom and beer). I have been in the software industry since the early 80s, and I know I am stating some well known items here, but long-term strategic anti-competitive behavior is a consistent hallmark of Microsoft, now standing convicted (albeit with minimal penalties) of anti-competitive behavior. Gnome, Linux, and open source are openly acknowledged as the biggest threats to the Microsoft empire. This empire includes a vast legal team, and a recent policy of monetizing intellectual property such as patents. They have declared themselves the enemy of Linux and open source, and campaign, undermine, and lobby against it. My understanding of RAND licensing is that reasonable is a very subjective term. Should Microsoft begin to require a license for this technology, who is to say what reasonable is? There is no requirement that I no of that such license be structured to allow open source implementations, so long as it is reasonable in the legal sense, and non-discriminatory. Clearly relying on Microsoft's good nature is not going to work, and the interpretation of a court may be no better, though could come at great expense. The post from jsmiller, while comforting, does not appear binding. He states the intent and agreement among the parties, but that is not a contract, and isn't binding. Who (lawyers?) has looked at this and confirmed that Microsoft can't turn around and make that ECMA standard non-free? What I guess I am looking for is the smoking gun that declares that the patents on the ECMA spec are free, will remain free, and can not be used against the OSS community at some later date. If Gnome 3.0 for example is intended to include a large investment in Mono technology, where is the guarantee that Microsoft simply can't announce a new policy that conveniently prevents part or all of Mono from being distributable under the GPL or LGPL, or even for free? A step like that could cause incredible harm to many communities and potentially result in a huge loss of effort and/or a legal mess comparable to the current SCO fiasco. Anyone who believes Microsoft would not find a way to do something like that if it were even remotely possible is, I believe, suffering from severe misconceptions. Even MySQL pulled a move like this by making their newer client libraries GPL or commercial only instead of continuing LGPL support. I am assuming that this has been looked at, and the smoking gun exists that provides this exists or so much would not be planned around this technology. My problem is that I can not find it. I can't find that one clear solid item that clears up the risks. If someone could please point me to the discussions, documents, threads, etc. that present this, I would be greatly appreciative. Mono does look cool, but I can't in good consciousness use it until I am sure that the underlying licensing model is secure. Once again, many thanks in advance... ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
rant Please excuse me for my bluntness. The Microsoft Patent in this instance is largely irrelevant, for the very reasons that you mention as being reasons to worry. Nothing, and I mean nothing, that Microsoft could do technically would be as critically damaging to the already fragile, and crumbling image that Microsoft has within the Enterprise world, than attempting to leverage that patent upon the standards body that they are working with. Further, that very excercise would undermine their efforts with the Media codecs and the standards bodies. It would be tantamount to aiming a gun at your foot, pulling the trigger and wondering how you got shot in the foot. Further, for Microsoft, Mono is a 'good thing' because while it means that .NET code is easier to port to non-Windows platforms, it also means that their chosen language will be the language of choice on many platforms, expanding their reach as well as the reach of their tools. After all, Windows itself is a means to an end, not the end itself. It's all about profit. So long as Windows generates revenue, it's a winner. Today, Windows generates a profit because it leverages Office into the enterprise world, where profits are the most easily recognized. The .NET framework is another road to leveraging that profit center. By getting developer's regardless of platform, to leverage a technology that helps them sell units of Application Center ($30k / CPU), BizTalk ($28k / CPU), SQL Server ($12k) etc. These are pure, unadulterated profits, and they leverage Windows and .NET, but they have no value if the marketplace cannot consume them. Mono not only makes consumption feasable, but practical. Further Mono's licensing, much like that of Rotor is such that the code you generate using these open source tools is completely yours to place under any license you wish, so long as you aren't shipping modified versions of GPL'd code. The same as code generated by Microsoft's compilers doesn't restrict your rights on the generated output. All of that said, and bear in mind, that until fairly recently I was for all intents and purposes and Microserf. I used Windows 286, then Windows 386, and Windows 3. I followed the Microsoft line and went to Microsoft OS/2, then followed back to Windows NT 3.1, and 3.51, NT4, 2000, XP. I played with Linux, BeOS and a few others along the way, but along the way, I followed the MS development line. I've practiced what they preached. Today, I'm still doing so, only I'm doing it using Mono, on my Mac. Why? because I can. And that my friend, is the point. Mono, gives the consumer the one thing that Microsoft needs the most, and the one thing that will keep them away from stiff, possibly corporate entity threatening sanctions for their behaviour. Mono, is the Apple in the development tools ointment that Microsoft requires to keep themselves solvent, and there is no better motivation for a company predicated on profit than staying solvent, and retaining the freedom to compete. That bevy of smarmy bastards known as the Microsoft Legal team are more aware of the fine line between competition and a monopoly than any of us, they watched the damage that the consent decree did to IBM 30 years ago, they are unlikely to allow themselves to be put in the same position. /rant Sorry but I had to get that off my chest. Andy ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Hello, One thing is that the patent stuff has been discussed many times, the archives will tell you more than I can. On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:19 -0500, Andy Lewis wrote: Please forgive me as I am sure what I am asking has been discussed and debated at length, and I do not mean this as a troll or as flame bait, but I do have some questions not clearly answered in the FAQ or other places on the site regarding the intellectual property underlying Mono. I ma a developer, primarily Java these days, and I certainly acknowledge that the CLI and related technologies offer some very cool possibilities, but before jumping into using them, I want to clarify a few things. First, regarding Mono licensing. It appears to be a mix of GPL, LGPL, and X11 licenses. Does this combination allow me to develop commercial applications using mono and distribute them using the free licenses, provided that I am not distributed modified Mono libraries or components, and only my own code is closed source? Or does that require a different (non-free) license? My understanding is that as long as they are unmodified you should not have a problem. But you should read the licenses and perhaps consult legal advice. Keep in mind linking to GPL software by closed source apps is not permitted, but that is not very well defined in a C# sense. Second, and more critically, I have a question about the Microsoft patents(s) on the technology. I have read about this as much as I can find, and I am assuming I am simply missing something. It appears to me that the ECMA standard on which Mono is based, is also clearly covered by at least one Microsoft patent. The ECMA rules require that such patents be available for RAND licensing. In addition, there is the post from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - one of the patent inventors I believe, that the agreement is that in this case the RAND patent licensing is simply free (apparently both freedom and beer). I believe that it was jointly submitted by Microsoft, HP, and Intel as RAND and royalty-free ($0.00 cost). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. See more here: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4557 ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:19, Andy Lewis wrote: snip/ First, regarding Mono licensing. It appears to be a mix of GPL, LGPL, and X11 licenses. Does this combination allow me to develop commercial applications using mono and distribute them using the free licenses, provided that I am not distributed modified Mono libraries or components, and only my own code is closed source? Or does that require a different (non-free) license? Yes, depending on what your app does. The runtime assemblies (*.dll; all assemblies a managed program is likely to reference) are under the MIT/X11 license. As such, you can freely use them, copy them, integrate them into your own proprietary apps, print the source, start a fire, whatever. [1] The runtime libraries (*.so, such as libmono.so, libmint.so) are licensed under the LGPL. As such, you can link against them, permitting better integration between managed and unmanaged code (such as an existing unmanaged application, like Evolution). The applications (*.exe, such as mcs.exe, mono, mint, etc.) are GPL. You wouldn't link against them anyway, but you can't create a proprietary C# compiler based on MCS, for example. Hopefully that clears matters up for you. - Jon [1] I'm not liable for any fires started in this fashion. :-) ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
