Clarification on the Mono and MS .NET issue

[alternatealias]

The 'standard' does not cover the entire .net, parts implemented by MONO are not covered. (windows.forms?)

That does not taint the whole of Mono, just the non-ECMA portions.

If by completely open you mean, "subject to a patent deal to MS, Novell reserves the right to relicense all code contributed to MONO completely", you are right.

Same as Sun with Java and OpenOffice and a plethora of other projects (unrelated to Sun or Novell).

And that was true until MS and Novell made a deal so MS can help MONO devs.

Wow, you really like to FUD, don't you?

This is completely irrelevant.

Except that you can actually use Sun's OS implementation of Java. And it will be GPLed. Of course, it is not much better than MONO hence the reason we wouldn't want gnome growing a Java dependency either.

Like I mentioned ECMA 334/335 don't cover all .net, hence Miguel's "at least"

But it does cover all the important parts that any Linux-based .NET application might use.

No one is writing desktop Linux applications using ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms (which are the only parts not covered by the ECMA RAND-Z promise)

The moonlight debacle should be enough to prove there are reasons to worry about MONO's so called openness and Novell: http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/10/...t-only-novell/ (Short story: in order to use so called "open source" Moonlight you need to either pay for SLED or download it directly from Novell (Just like any proprietary market drug))

Same with Ubuntu's Netbooks - Ubuntu is licensing proprietary codecs (including Windows Media). Like Moonlight, you have to get Netbooks directly from Ubuntu.

Exactly the reason I want MONO away of ubuntu's default install.

No, you want Mono removed from Ubuntu because you are in league with the BoycottNovell news site whom are on a crusade to destroy anything Novell-related.

You guys also frequently lie about many things in order to confuse the issue (just look at all your ranting above for proof of this).

Unless we remember most relevant .net apps use windows.forms, which as we know is not legal.

There you go spreading false information again.

None of the Linux Mono applications use Windows.Forms, therefor none of the "relevant" applications use Windows.Forms. Certainly none that Ubuntu ships.

That's the problem with .net , it is barely optionally-open, MS has already exploited the system to bring us more optionally open standards, like OOXML (Guess what the double OO it really stands for), I shall warn that they will push even more for these lame things.

I fail to see how OOXML is in any way related to this discussion. Just like Roy Schestowitz, whenever any of you hypocrites gets flustered you fall back to complaining about OOXML in order to rile people up as if it were somehow relevant.

It's not.

[klange]

The Mono package installed by default in Ubuntu - and the only one available in the repos - does not have the non-standards parts of Mono. That's why we get stuck at such an old version. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Mono just as there's nothing wrong with Wine.

(btw, there's a PPA on Launchpad called "mono-edge" that contains the newest Mono packages, with all the Windows.Forms and other things.)

[saulgoode]

Except that you can actually use Sun's OS implementation of Java. And it will be GPLed. Of course, it is not much better than MONO hence the reason we wouldn't want gnome growing a Java dependency either.

Like I mentioned ECMA 334/335 don't cover all .net, hence Miguel's "at least"

But it does cover all the important parts that any Linux-based .NET application might use.

No one is writing desktop Linux applications using ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms (which are the only parts not covered by the ECMA RAND-Z promise)

I don't see Mono (ECMA 334/335) mentioned as being covered. Where exactly might one find this "ECMA RAND-Z promise" of which you speak?

The Mono Licensing FAQ page states (with regard to the ECMA 334/335-covered components) that "Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose."

No such grant has ever been made. Nothing exists on the web which suggests that such a grant has ever been made.

The only thing that's changed since the ECMA standards were accepted is that an agreement was made between Microsoft and Novell whereby Microsoft indemnifies Novell customers from patent lawsuits with regard to .NET technologies -- not Ubuntu users, not Red Hat users, not Slackware users, not Mandriva users. Not even Linspire or Xandros customers are indemnified (though those two distros signed their own "covenants" with Microsoft, Mono was explicitly excluded from their patent agreements).

The Mono project is lying when they assert that Microsoft has granted everyone a right to use MS .NET patented technology (ECMA or no) for any purpose, and for free. Such a grant only exists for Novell customers, and this exists because Novell makes royalty payments to Microsoft covering the possibility of infringement.

[smartboyathome]

And what I always say to this: If we get rid of that, we get rid of all possibly infringing code, including the double click and sudo, both of which have patents owned by Microsoft.

[saulgoode]

And what I always say to this: If we get rid of that, we get rid of all possibly infringing code, including the double click and sudo, both of which have patents owned by Microsoft.

SUDO was created in 1980. Microsoft's first patent was in 1986. Microsoft's first software patent was in 1988.

[smartboyathome]

Yes, but sudo now conflicts with the patent by MS for the UAC. I dont know much about patents, though, so I might be misinformed.

[vexorian]

Yes, but sudo now conflicts with the patent by MS for the UAC. I dont know much about patents, though, so I might be misinformed.

Yes, you are.

* UAC patents are much different.
* If they were the same, they can't sure for sudo, it would be a little suicidal to sue the very prior art...

* As a matter of fact, sudo now would protect anyone trying to implement something described by the UAC patent...

MONO is different for the fact its purpose is actually to implement patented specs...

[saulgoode]

Originally Posted by saulgoode:
According to the Mono Project, Mono already includes ADO.NET and ASP.NET; and development versions include Windows.Forms (is this an implementation of WinForms.NET?). Are these components being stripped out of the Ubuntu version of Mono? Are they not implementations of technologies that might read on Microsoft patent claims?

yes, but they are not part of the core mono package - they are addons.

It does not really matter whether or not they are part of the "core mono package". What matters is whether they are included in Ubuntu.

According to wikipedia, the ECMA portions of the .NET framework are available under RAND-Z (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory; Zero-cost) terms.

I don't see any mention of RAND-Z in the Mono Wikipedia article. Perhaps you could cite an appropriate passage?

What I do see states "The base technologies submitted to the ECMA, and therefore also the Unix/Gnome-specific parts, may be non-problematic."

Not quite the grand assertion for which I was hoping.

This is also pretty well common knowledge at this point.

In other words, there are no actual facts which support your claim.

Microsoft have never claimed that the core EMCA portions of Mono needed to be licensed.

Again, you are wrong. From David Berlind's Reality Check.

According to Microsoft's director of intellectual property Michele Herman, who I interviewed earlier this year, the answer is a qualified yes. "If someone implemented a product that conforms to the specification, we believe we have a patent or one pending that's essential to implementing the specification." Herman also cautions that "to the extent that other vendors that have developed other applications or middleware and have patents on them, those vendors could also choose to enforce those patents if the relevant intellectual property is essential to deploying an implementation of the CLI."

According to Herman, third parties will have to enter into a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license agreement with Microsoft."

I would recommend reading that article, or perhaps GNOME developer Seth Nickell's webblog
on the topic. Sure it was written back in 2004, BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED -- (except for Novell negotiating an unreasonable and discriminatory licensing agreement with Microsoft).

More recently (about two weeks ago), Brian Goldfarb, the Lead Product Manager for Microsoft's Web Platform and Tools division stated, "Moonlight is usable for anyone on any distribution of Linux (redhat, ubuntu, etc.) -- it is not limited just to Novell as Mono is."


If the terms of this hypothetical RAND-Z license can't be examined, how are we to determine if GNU/Linux distros other than Novell's are covered by it?

[geoken]

I don't understand why people arguing that Mono has no patent problems continue to cite ECMA certification.

RAND doesn't mean patent amnesty. I think it can be argued that what the Novell agreement has done is set the bar for what could be considered 'Reasonable and non discriminatory". Seeing as how RAND doesn't require a specific definition of what is reasonable or what is non discriminatory, all we would have to go by are past agreements (if they exist). In other words, if some team of devs were working on a Mono app and MS asked them for $164,000 could those devs really claim the liscensing terms were unreasonable or discriminatory (thereby violating RAND) given what Novell has paid for that patent amnesty. Likewise, would it be unreasonable for Microsoft to request 1 million from Canonical or Red Hat?

[alternatealias]

If Ubuntu ships the Windows.Forms addon, then that is a separate issue from whether or not core Mono is safe.

As far as a RAND-Z promise, talk to the GNU developers working on Portable.NET or send an email to Microsoft itself for confirmation.

Here is a quote from Jim Miller from the Microsoft .NET team:

The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that are essential for implementing its standards are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms" for the purpose of
implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all
International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis
for this purpose.

From the ".NET Framework" wikipedia article:

While Microsoft and their partners hold patents for the CLI and C#, ECMA and ISO require that all patents essential to implementation be made available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms." In addition to meeting these terms, the companies have agreed to make the patents available royalty-free.

Satisfied?