Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Mono on ubuntu

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Issaquah, Washington
    Beans
    293

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by LaRoza View Post
    It is free software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#License

    It follows the ECMA standard.
    Even from M$ employee own lips, mono is not free unlike supposedly Moonlight:

    http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10535...889966&start=0

    http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum...discriminatory < and this if you care to read it.

    http://www.microsoft.com/interop/col...ns2.aspx#clone < then there is this lovely bit of information,,oops you might have missed that.

    All in all, it is clear that the ECMA/.Net/Mono patent conditions are far from either “reasonable” or “non-discriminatory".

    Why people are so quick to trust 'promises' from those whom have clearly indicated that they see linux as a 'cancer' is illogical and should be scrutinized by anyone that cares about FOSS.

    cheers
    nl

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL.
    Beans
    53
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Even from M$ employee own lips, mono is not free unlike supposedly Moonlight:

    http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10535...889966&start=0
    So a Microsoft employee spreads FUD and you take the bait. Grats for being a sucker.

    It's in Microsoft's best interest to shroud Mono in FUD (just like it's in their best interest to FUD Linux and other Free Software), but they can't do jack about it because:

    1. Core Mono implements ECMA 334 and 335 which are under RAND-Z terms - therefor Microsoft has given up their rights to sue over patent infringement.

    2. If Mono's Windows.Forms infringes on patents, then so does DotGNU's implementation as well as WINE. WINE has existed for a decade and Microsoft hasn't sued and WINE is far more widely depended on than Mono's Windows.Forms will ever be.

    Contrary to what a lot of the Mono-Haters/FUDers like to tell you, Windows.Forms is not a core component of Mono nor is it required to write GUI apps under Linux or MacOS (or even Windows). Nor is it even used to write any of the current Mono apps under Linux.

    3. ASP.NET: More-or-less in the same boat as Windows.Forms. If Mono's ASP.NET infringes on patents (even those not maintained by Microsoft), then it is very likely that PHP also infringes upon said patents.

    4. There exists the OIN to counter any IP attacks against many Free Software projects... INCLUDING Mono.

    Let's also not forget that Microsoft has a huge plethora of patents - many of which very likely /are/ infringed by Free Software. Other than a few idle threats, Microsoft hasn't done anything about it. Why not? Because it would destroy them - either in a patent nuclear war or else it would be hit with more anti-compete law suites.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Bravo for finding a clueless document and pointing to it as fact.

    You see, you failed to realize that ECMA 334 and 335 are not under RAND, they are under RAND-Z - e.g. Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory; Zero-cost.

    As the article states, RAND means "we apply a uniform fee", which in this case is $0. How does that ban Free Software from implementing it? It doesn't. RAND does, but only if the cost is > $0 (and even then it doesn't "ban" Free Software implementations, it just means there is a cost).

    RAND-Z is as reasonable and non-discriminatory as you can get.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    http://www.microsoft.com/interop/col...ns2.aspx#clone < then there is this lovely bit of information,,oops you might have missed that.

    All in all, it is clear that the ECMA/.Net/Mono patent conditions are far from either “reasonable” or “non-discriminatory".
    Okay... so Xandros doesn't get to call Mono as a "Cone Product" in their deal with Microsoft. Whoopty-doo (ok, so it affects Xandros - but it doesn't affect the rest of us).

    This document does not prove that Mono infringes any patents or that Microsoft will sue, it just means that Microsoft wasn't willing to include Mono in their deal with Xandros. Just like they didn't include OpenXchange or OpenOffice/StarOffice.

    Should we all stop using those products now too?

    Your logic is hilarious.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Why people are so quick to trust 'promises' from those whom have clearly indicated that they see linux as a 'cancer' is illogical and should be scrutinized by anyone that cares about FOSS.

    cheers
    nl
    I don't blindly trust any promises from Microsoft, but in the case of Mono - it's not the promise I trust, it's the fact that Microsoft is in a position which disallows them from attacking Mono over patents (or at least the core components of Mono) and the fact that it is very unlikely they'd sue over the non-core components.

    In other news... SecondLife is rolling out Mono-based servers:

    http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/08/20/mono-launch/

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Issaquah, Washington
    Beans
    293

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by alternatealias View Post
    So a Microsoft employee spreads FUD and you take the bait. Grats for being a sucker.

    It's in Microsoft's best interest to shroud Mono in FUD (just like it's in their best interest to FUD Linux and other Free Software), but they can't do jack about it because:

    1. Core Mono implements ECMA 334 and 335 which are under RAND-Z terms - therefor Microsoft has given up their rights to sue over patent infringement.

    2. If Mono's Windows.Forms infringes on patents, then so does DotGNU's implementation as well as WINE. WINE has existed for a decade and Microsoft hasn't sued and WINE is far more widely depended on than Mono's Windows.Forms will ever be.

    Contrary to what a lot of the Mono-Haters/FUDers like to tell you, Windows.Forms is not a core component of Mono nor is it required to write GUI apps under Linux or MacOS (or even Windows). Nor is it even used to write any of the current Mono apps under Linux.

    3. ASP.NET: More-or-less in the same boat as Windows.Forms. If Mono's ASP.NET infringes on patents (even those not maintained by Microsoft), then it is very likely that PHP also infringes upon said patents.

    4. There exists the OIN to counter any IP attacks against many Free Software projects... INCLUDING Mono.

    Let's also not forget that Microsoft has a huge plethora of patents - many of which very likely /are/ infringed by Free Software. Other than a few idle threats, Microsoft hasn't done anything about it. Why not? Because it would destroy them - either in a patent nuclear war or else it would be hit with more anti-compete law suites.



    Bravo for finding a clueless document and pointing to it as fact.

    You see, you failed to realize that ECMA 334 and 335 are not under RAND, they are under RAND-Z - e.g. Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory; Zero-cost.

    As the article states, RAND means "we apply a uniform fee", which in this case is $0. How does that ban Free Software from implementing it? It doesn't. RAND does, but only if the cost is > $0 (and even then it doesn't "ban" Free Software implementations, it just means there is a cost).

    RAND-Z is as reasonable and non-discriminatory as you can get.



    Okay... so Xandros doesn't get to call Mono as a "Cone Product" in their deal with Microsoft. Whoopty-doo (ok, so it affects Xandros - but it doesn't affect the rest of us).

    This document does not prove that Mono infringes any patents or that Microsoft will sue, it just means that Microsoft wasn't willing to include Mono in their deal with Xandros. Just like they didn't include OpenXchange or OpenOffice/StarOffice.

    Should we all stop using those products now too?

    Your logic is hilarious.



    I don't blindly trust any promises from Microsoft, but in the case of Mono - it's not the promise I trust, it's the fact that Microsoft is in a position which disallows them from attacking Mono over patents (or at least the core components of Mono) and the fact that it is very unlikely they'd sue over the non-core components.

    In other news... SecondLife is rolling out Mono-based servers:

    http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/08/20/mono-launch/
    Why reinvent the wheel, when you can share ;

    Perhaps the better question to ask is why Novell, after performing a legal assessment early in 2006, deemed it unsafe to implement Mono without entering into a Patent Covenant with Microsoft later that year?

    Even if RedHat deemed Mono safe -- feel free to provide a reference supporting that, as RedHat doesn't include Mono -- nowhere have I seen that it was based upon RAND promises from Microsoft. If anything (and again RedHat doesn't include Mono), comments from RedHat personnel (in an unofficial capacity) indicate that any "safety margin" is based upon Mono being included in the Open Invention Network. Likewise, none of the comments from Mark Shuttleworth cite hypothetical RAND licenses from Microsoft as being behind Ubuntu's decision.

    So none of this supports the assertion from the Mono Project that Mono is indemnified by Microsoft.

    cheers
    nl

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CT, USA
    Beans
    5,267
    Distro
    Ubuntu 6.10 Edgy

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by alternatealias View Post
    So a Microsoft employee spreads FUD and you take the bait. Grats for being a sucker.

    It's in Microsoft's best interest to shroud Mono in FUD (just like it's in their best interest to FUD Linux and other Free Software), but they can't do jack about it because:
    It's foolish give legal advice or accept it over internet.

    GPL is free from this problems (until next attack), and software produced in a shadow of convicted monopolist should be used only after advice of legal advisor you (or company) hired to take care of your interests.

    For a free software developer, choice between free and suspicious is clear enough: little to gain and much to lose. For a commercial, it's different, that's why your company has a lawyer.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL.
    Beans
    53
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by pmasiar View Post
    It's foolish give legal advice or accept it over internet.

    GPL is free from this problems (until next attack), and software produced in a shadow of convicted monopolist should be used only after advice of legal advisor you (or company) hired to take care of your interests.

    For a free software developer, choice between free and suspicious is clear enough: little to gain and much to lose. For a commercial, it's different, that's why your company has a lawyer.
    Deciding to not use a piece of software and bad-mouthing it are two totally different things.

    Since it is obvious that Neighborlee is clueless about Mono, he shouldn't be bashing it - even if he disagrees with its usage.

    I'll choose to continue using Mono in my company and in any new side projects I start because the likelyhood of me or any of my users getting sued is next to 0.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL.
    Beans
    53
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Why reinvent the wheel, when you can share ;

    Perhaps the better question to ask is why Novell, after performing a legal assessment early in 2006, deemed it unsafe to implement Mono without entering into a Patent Covenant with Microsoft later that year?
    Have any proof that that was the reason behind their deal? If not ,then you are just assuming... and you know what assuming says about you, right?

    Something about you being an ***.

    [
    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Even if RedHat deemed Mono safe
    If RedHat deemed it safe, why did Novell not deem it safe?

    RedHat isn't in the habit of deeming something safe that isn't. Their lawyers err on the side of caution, so if they deemed it safe then for all practical purposes, it likely is (for at least the reasons I explained above).

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    -- feel free to provide a reference supporting that, as RedHat doesn't include Mono
    Originally RedHat did not include Mono until their lawyers had time to evaluate it.

    They do now include Mono (starting with Fedora 8 I believe?). I've heard rumors that Mono packages were removed from the Live CD, but that's the Live CD which you likely want to keep as a minimal desktop since it has to run on a ramdisk.

    The Fedora packager for Mono contacted the Mono mailing-list the other day asking about the --with-moonlight configure option for Mono 2.0, so it sounds to me like they are still packaging it.

    The packager for F-Spot and Banshee recently stepped down, so that may be another reason why no Mono apps are on the Live CD - you can't assume that just because they are no longer on the Live CD that the RedHat lawyers have suddenly deemed Mono "unsafe". More than likely it's because the packages for F-Spot and Banshee are broken and so not included on the preview CDs.

    You Mono-Haters really like to draw conclusions from insufficient information, don't you?

    It seems to be a trend with you guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    -- nowhere have I seen that it was based upon RAND promises from Microsoft.
    You can request that information from ECMA, or I'm sure the Mono and/or DotGNU developers could confirm it.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    If anything (and again RedHat doesn't include Mono), comments from RedHat personnel (in an unofficial capacity) indicate that any "safety margin" is based upon Mono being included in the Open Invention Network.
    That is certainly one of the reasons it is "safe", yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Likewise, none of the comments from Mark Shuttleworth cite hypothetical RAND licenses from Microsoft as being behind Ubuntu's decision.
    There you go assuming again...

    Have you asked about it specifically? If not, then how can you assume that it is not part of the equation?

    RAND-Z is mostly only interesting to developers of the technology anyway, since it is typically them (or the distributor) who worries about licensing any patents involved (which is why non-zero-cost RAND terms are not Free Software friendly, because it is unclear who pays the licensing fees).

    Since it is RAND-Z, most people don't care (and thus don't bother to look for) which patents Microsoft may have on ECMA 334 and 335 (because it's irrelevant).

    For all you know, there aren't any patents that apply - maybe /that's/ the reason Mark Shuttleworth hasn't listed RAND-Z as a reason that Mono is "safe". You simply don't know.

    Since you don't know, you can't draw your conclusion from what Mark Shuttleworth has stated.

    I suggest you attend a few logic courses at your local community college, you'll learn a lot and might start to make much less confused/illogical arguments.
    Last edited by alternatealias; August 22nd, 2008 at 03:36 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CT, USA
    Beans
    5,267
    Distro
    Ubuntu 6.10 Edgy

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by alternatealias View Post
    Since it is obvious that Neighborlee is clueless about Mono, he shouldn't be bashing it - even if he disagrees with its usage.

    I'll choose to continue using Mono in my company and in any new side projects I start because the likelyhood of me or any of my users getting sued is next to 0.
    I am not ready to invest time to evaluate any of you: Neighborlee might be wrong or right, and you too. Way too much trouble, but summary is obvious: it is far from pristine clean.

    For your company, lawyer and top brass made the decision that risk is worth the reward, and even you admit risk is not 0. If I was FOSS developer, why I spend hours researching claims of both of you guys, and then take even minimal financial risk, if I know for sure I will not have any financial reward ever?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL.
    Beans
    53
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by pmasiar View Post
    I am not ready to invest time to evaluate any of you: Neighborlee might be wrong or right, and you too. Way too much trouble, but summary is obvious: it is far from pristine clean.

    For your company, lawyer and top brass made the decision that risk is worth the reward, and even you admit risk is not 0. If I was FOSS developer, why I spend hours researching claims of both of you guys, and then take even minimal financial risk, if I know for sure I will not have any financial reward ever?
    I'm not arguing that you should use Mono - use whatever you deem appropriate.

    Just be aware that no matter what language/tools you choose, there is ALWAYS some risk.

    It is impossible to not infringe on patents when writing software.

    I know this from personal experience as a professional software developer.

    The question is how high is the risk of getting sued, not whether you infringe or not.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Issaquah, Washington
    Beans
    293

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    If RedHat deemed it safe, why did Novell not deem it safe?
    One company decided to make their business model revolve around M$, the other has stayed clean.

    Originally RedHat did not include Mono until their lawyers had time to evaluate it.

    They do now include Mono (starting with Fedora 8 I believe?). I've heard rumors that Mono packages were removed from the Live CD, but that's the Live CD which you likely want to keep as a minimal desktop since it has to run on a ramdisk.
    Wrong; Redhat has 'never' included mono, and they never will.

    The Fedora packager for Mono contacted the Mono mailing-list the other day asking about the --with-moonlight configure option for Mono 2.0, so it sounds to me like they are still packaging it.
    THey are free to package it,,but its not included by default on livecd

    The packager for F-Spot and Banshee recently stepped down, so that may be another reason why no Mono apps are on the Live CD - you can't assume that just because they are no longer on the Live CD that the RedHat lawyers have suddenly deemed Mono "unsafe". More than likely it's because the packages for F-Spot and Banshee are broken and so not included on the preview CDs.
    see above

    You Mono-Haters really like to draw conclusions from insufficient information, don't you?

    It seems to be a trend with you guys.
    Where have I indicated hate to you?

    You can request that information from ECMA, or I'm sure the Mono and/or DotGNU developers could confirm it.
    Darn, I was hoping , that since you brought this clincher-deal up , you already had direct links , my bad.



    That is certainly one of the reasons it is "safe", yes.
    Where, on this OIN page does it state mono is covered; I looked many times and have yet to find it.


    RAND-Z is mostly only interesting to developers of the technology anyway, since it is typically them (or the distributor) who worries about licensing any patents involved (which is why non-zero-cost RAND terms are not Free Software friendly, because it is unclear who pays the licensing fees).
    Since it is RAND-Z, most people don't care (and thus don't bother to look for) which patents Microsoft may have on ECMA 334 and 335 (because it's irrelevant).
    If its of only interest to developers, then I guess it does not apply to this conversation of mono's legality; thanks for clearing that up.

    For all you know, there aren't any patents that apply - maybe /that's/ the reason Mark Shuttleworth hasn't listed RAND-Z as a reason that Mono is "safe". You simply don't know.
    You bear the burden of proof, not me, in showing that its a safe technology, when all 'reasonable' signs indicate is definitely is not M$ is a convicted monopolist who sees linux as a Cancer , so if you really feel comfy in using their stuff, go right ahead, but the rest of us who love FOSS will avoid its less than pristine nature Im sure.


    I suggest you attend a few logic courses at your local community college, you'll learn a lot and might start to make much less confused/illogical arguments.
    You are free to resort to attacks like this, but it wont win anyone over, and likely you will lose many; a sign of desperation , as it just shows your lack of character.

    cheers
    nl

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL.
    Beans
    53
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: Mono on ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    One company decided to make their business model revolve around M$, the other has stayed clean.
    That doesn't answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Wrong; Redhat has 'never' included mono, and they never will.
    Wrong. Fedora has shipped Mono by default.


    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    THey are free to package it,,but its not included by default on livecd
    Have any links to support this claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    see above
    Indeed, see above. You keep insisting that Red Hat is not allowed to ship Mono packages but fail to provide any links.

    I'll tell you what, I'll fire off an email to Tom "Spot" Calloway from Red Hat Legal and get his opinion on the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Where have I indicated hate to you?
    Are you not spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about whether or not Mono is reasonably safe from patent attacks from Microsoft?

    I believe you are. That indicates hate.


    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Darn, I was hoping , that since you brought this clincher-deal up , you already had direct links , my bad.
    I had evidence in my Inbox a few years ago, but company policy is to delete mail older than a few months.

    It would be trivial to send a query to a Microsoft or ECMA representative yourself if you really cared to know (which I suspect you don't, hence why you haven't actually done it but yet insist that Mono does not fall under RAND-Z terms).

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    Where, on this OIN page does it state mono is covered; I looked many times and have yet to find it.
    You might check the following link by gdk@redhat.com:

    http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html


    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    If its of only interest to developers, then I guess it does not apply to this conversation of mono's legality; thanks for clearing that up.
    I never said that. If you had bothered to read what I stated, you'd have seen that what I said was that it is mostly only of interest to developers/distributors because it is typically those guys who end up paying the licensing fees (when there are fees).

    However, in the case of Mono - there are no fees.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    You bear the burden of proof, not me
    No, you are making a straw-man argument here.

    You cannot prove that Mono is risk-free, just like you can't prove that Java or OpenOffice or Pidgin or Ubuntu or Linux are risk-free.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    , in showing that its a safe technology, when all 'reasonable' signs indicate is definitely is not
    At least Red Hat, Ubuntu and Linden Labs have deemed Mono reasonably safe, so what are these signs you speak of?

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    M$ is a convicted monopolist who sees linux as a Cancer
    And this proves Mono is unsafe...how?

    If this is your strongest argument (and it appears that it is based on how often you fall back to this argument), then your position is pretty weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    , so if you really feel comfy in using their stuff, go right ahead,
    Thanks, I'm glad you feel that way - so stop trying to force your way on me by demanding that Ubuntu drop Mono.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    but the rest of us who love FOSS
    I love F/OSS too. Luckily, even by Richard Stallman's definition, Mono is F/OSS.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    will avoid its less than pristine nature Im sure.
    How do you define pristine? "Not in any way related to Microsoft"?

    If that's your definition of "pristine", I suggest you audit your system - odds are incredibly high that you have Microsoft influenced technologies on your system.

    If you define "pristine" as "risk-free from patents" then I suggest you uninstall your entire system right now because I guarantee software you run infringes someone's patents somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by neighborlee View Post
    You are free to resort to attacks like this, but it wont win anyone over,
    It wasn't an attack, it was a suggestion. You kept drawing conclusions from insufficient data and obviously failed to even realize it, so I was suggesting that you do some learning about logic such that you could make better arguments in the future.

    Meanwhile, I see that you ran to the BoycottNovell IRC channel and got Roy's help to publicly attack me on his website.

    Real mature.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •