Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26224/1090/ http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html
De Icaza announced that Mono will be split in half. *"In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions,"* he explains, *"One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others."* After all the talk that Mono was "harmless", why the sudden awareness of the risk? On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Frisby, Adam <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh lord. > > > > The point is quite simple – > > Mono is based on the EMCA 334/335 and ISO/IEC23270:2006 standards, those > standards allow components within them to be patent, provided they are > licensable under ‘RAND’ terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory). The > shadow hanging over Mono was that Microsoft could charge a “reasonable” sum > for whatever components within that may be patented/[able]. > > > > By putting EMCA 334/335 into the community pledge means Microsoft has > waived the right to collect those terms (in whole.), the exceptions are > components of C# which are not in the ECMA standards, these are – ASP.NET(* - > although there is a Microsoft implementation in under the MSPL I > believe, which voids the threat there[?]), ADO.NET (used for database > access to MSSQL, etc), WinForms[?] and some components of the Microsoft.* > namespace. > > > > Because of this – Mono have started separating their packages, so you can > get a ‘clean’ version, and a ‘potentially has issues’ version (ie the > version with ASP, ADO, etc). The good news is, OpenSim will run on the > ‘clean’ version – the only exception to this will be the MSSQL adapter which > relies on ADO.net – however given that anyone using that adapter will also > be very likely using .NET, I don’t believe that is a problem. > > > > Ubuntu already ships a separated distribution of Mono which allows you to > only optionally install the bits that aren’t covered by the patent pledge. > > > > Adam > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *lamont cranston > *Sent:* Sunday, 12 July 2009 11:04 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels > Mono legal concerns > > > > Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter > intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on > Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it > does. > Fact is not FUD. > You don't need amnesty if you are innocent. > > I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is > so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the > public. > What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time? > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700 > Kyle Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000 > > > Opensource Obscure <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and > > >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments, > > >> especially from free-software advocates. > > >> > > >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns > > >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or > > >> > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars > > > > > > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break > it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of > a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth > breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses > are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time. > > > > > > I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not > > legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :): > > > > The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a > > promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith > > rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue > > them for it anyway. If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and > > the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if > > they try, they will have the court rule against them. It's been this > > way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported > > England's. > > Really good to know, thanks. :) > > > > > > (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a > > promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue > > you. It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.) > > > > This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes > > go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they > > have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds > > that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard. This > > license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though. > > > > Again, IANAL. Check with an IP lawyer if you want to. > > Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod* > > > -- > Ethan Grammatikidis > > Those who are slower at parsing information must > necessarily be faster at problem-solving. > _______________________________________________ > > Opensim-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users > > > > > -- > (\__/) > (='.'=) > (")_(") > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users > > -- (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
_______________________________________________ Opensim-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
