Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo? Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
This is not the normal "**** mono" post. I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: Fedora and *All* our Users (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
Frank
Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
I suppose you can look for packages depending on mono-core.
- fabian
This is not the normal "**** mono" post. I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: Fedora and *All* our Users (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
Frank
-- jabber | msn | skype: frankly3d http://www.frankly3d.com
Frank Murphy, Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:38:45 +0100:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo?
Sure, there is, but no need to panic ... sky is not falling yet (and there are many reasons to believe it never will).
Note for example, that default installation of Fedora 12 probably won't require Mono at all (Tomboy was replaced by Gnotes, although the main reason was savings of many megabytes instead of legal concerns).
Best,
Matěj
P.S.: Says the one who does yum remove mono-* after every upgrade of Fedora.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Matej Cepl mcepl@redhat.com wrote:
Frank Murphy, Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:38:45 +0100:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo?
Sure, there is, but no need to panic ... sky is not falling yet (and there are many reasons to believe it never will).
Note for example, that default installation of Fedora 12 probably won't require Mono at all (Tomboy was replaced by Gnotes, although the main reason was savings of many megabytes instead of legal concerns).
Best,
Matěj
P.S.: Says the one who does yum remove mono-* after every upgrade of Fedora.
I don't think you need to really worry about Mono itself. If you really are worried about Microsoft suing your brains out, just remove mono-web and mono-winforms. You don't even need those two for most packaged Mono apps on Linux. Only if you want to run applications compiled for .NET framework on Visual Studio/SharpDevelop.
On 29/06/09 09:42, King InuYasha wrote:
I don't think you need to really worry about Mono itself. If you really are worried about Microsoft suing your brains out, just remove mono-web and mono-winforms. You don't even need those two for most packaged Mono apps on Linux. Only if you want to run applications compiled for .NET framework on Visual Studio/SharpDevelop.
I would be worried about users\devs who use fedora apps which depend on C#. Is C# used just for web-apps (fedora context)?
Frank
-- Beating my tom-tom
On 06/29/2009 02:30 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
I would be worried about users\devs who use fedora apps which depend on C#. Is C# used just for web-apps (fedora context)?
# repoquery --whatrequires --all --recursive mono-core
It is mostly desktop apps and not web apps. Nothing Fedora specific about them.
Rahul
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 08:38 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo? Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
The contingency plan, I imagine, is "take off, nuke the site from orbit". As for listing dependencies, yes, we have tools for that:
atropine:~% repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps mono-core evolution-sharp-0:0.20.0-1.fc11.i586 mono-nunit-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 bytefx-data-mysql-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-sharpcvslib-0:0.35-9.fc11.i586 ice-csharp-0:3.3.1-1.fc11.i586 gnome-rdp-0:0.2.3-3.fc11.i586 cowbell-0:0.3-0.svn34.4.fc10.i386 mono-tools-0:2.4-8.1.fc11.i586 muine-0:0.8.10-4.fc11.i586 bless-0:0.6.0-2.fc11.i586 banshee-mirage-0:0.4.0-5.fc11.i586 avahi-sharp-0:0.6.25-1.fc11.i586 flickrnet-0:2.1.5-2.fc11.i586 mono-moonlight-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-data-sqlite-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-web-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-data-firebird-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 xsp-0:2.4-8.fc11.i586 gbrainy-0:1.1-3.fc11.i586 banshee-0:1.4.3-3.fc11.i586 gtk-sharp2-0:2.12.7-4.fc11.i586 monsoon-0:0.21-1.fc11.i586 kimono-0:4.2.4-2.fc11.i586 flickrnet-0:2.1.5-1.fc11.i586 webkit-sharp-0:0.2-3.fc11.i586 mono-jscript-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 incollector-0:1.0-8.fc11.i586 monsoon-0:0.20-2.fc11.i586 podsleuth-0:0.6.3-2.fc11.i586 log4net-0:1.2.10-5.fc11.i586 webkit-sharp-0:0.2-1.fc11.i586 monodoc-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 ipod-sharp-0:0.8.1-2.fc11.i586 gtksourceview-sharp-0:2.0.12-8.fc11.i586 mono-nat-0:1.0-3.fc11.i586 kimono-0:4.2.2-5.fc11.i586 gnome-guitar-0:0.8.1-2.fc11.i586 gnome-sharp-0:2.24.0-3.fc11.i586 mono-addins-0:0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11.i586 beagle-thunderbird-0:0.3.9-6.fc11.i586 gecko-sharp2-0:0.13-2.fc11.i586 mono-devel-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 avahi-ui-sharp-0:0.6.25-1.fc11.i586 mono-extras-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 monodoc-devel-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 xsp-tests-0:2.4-8.fc11.i586 mono-data-oracle-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 gtk-sharp-gapi-0:1.0.10-22.fc11.i586 mono-nunit-devel-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 cdcollect-0:0.6.0-7.fc11.i586 gtksourceview2-sharp-0:1.0-3.svn89788.3.fc11.i586 tasque-0:0.1.8-2.fc11.i586 mono-nunit22-1:2.2.10-9.fc11.i586 boo-0:0.8.1.2865-6.fc11.i586 gmime-sharp-0:2.4.3-3.fc11.i586 dbus-sharp-0:0.63-11.fc11.i586 graphviz-sharp-0:2.20.3-3.fc11.i586 gnome-desktop-sharp-0:2.26.0-1.fc11.i586 notify-sharp-0:0.4.0-0.6.20080912svn.fc11.i586 sublib-0:0.9-4.fc11.i586 ibm-data-db2-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-winforms-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-data-sybase-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-basic-0:2.4-5.fc11.i586 ndesk-dbus-0:0.6.1a-4.fc11.i586 mono-locale-extras-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 mono-core-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 monosim-0:1.3.0.2-2.fc11.i586 mono-ndoc-0:1.3.1-4.fc11.i586 tomboy-0:0.14.1-2.fc11.i586 mono-data-postgresql-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 beagle-evolution-0:0.3.9-6.fc11.i586 ndesk-dbus-glib-0:0.4.1-4.fc11.i586 gnome-do-0:0.8.1.3-5.fc11.i586 mono-nat-0:1.0-2.fc11.i586 taglib-sharp-0:2.0.3.2-2.fc11.i586 f-spot-0:0.5.0.3-8.fc11.i586 mono-cecil-flowanalysis-0:0.1-0.8.20080409svn100264.fc11.i586 banshee-mirage-0:0.5.0-2.fc11.i586 themonospot-0:0.7.1.1-2.fc11.i586 mod_mono-0:2.4-4.1.fc11.i586 mono-zeroconf-0:0.7.6-8.fc11.i586 gnome-keyring-sharp-0:1.0.1-0.2.115768svn.fc11.i586 beagle-0:0.3.9-6.fc11.i586 gnome-subtitles-0:0.8-7.fc11.i586 db4o-0:6.1-6.fc11.i586 mono-data-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 monotorrent-0:0.72-2.fc11.i586 tomboy-0:0.14.2-1.fc11.i586 mono-debugger-0:2.4-8.fc11.i586 bareftp-0:0.2.2-2.fc11.i586 banshee-musicbrainz-0:1.4.3-3.fc11.i586 gsf-sharp-0:0.8.1-9.fc11.i586 gnome-guitar-0:0.8.1-4.fc11.i586 gtk-sharp-0:1.0.10-22.fc11.i586 beagle-gnome-0:0.3.9-6.fc11.i586 mono-web-devel-0:2.4-19.fc11.i586 nant-1:0.85-27.fc11.i586
- ajax
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankly3d@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo?
As Ajax said, the contingency plan would be "nuke from orbit", just as it is for any legally objectionable software in Fedora.
However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight, we'll play their game. There is no benefit to Microsoft due to the "mutually assured destruction" principle.
Jon Stanley (jonstanley@gmail.com) said:
However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight,
... it's not OIN patents, it's that mono is in the OIN list of protected packages. Just clarifying.
Bill
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jon Stanley (jonstanley@gmail.com) said:
However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight,
... it's not OIN patents, it's that mono is in the OIN list of protected packages. Just clarifying.
Does OIN cover the specific version we're carrying? I thought OIN was version specific.
-sv
Seth Vidal (skvidal@fedoraproject.org) said:
However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight,
... it's not OIN patents, it's that mono is in the OIN list of protected packages. Just clarifying.
Does OIN cover the specific version we're carrying? I thought OIN was version specific.
It covers a specific version of a package, and the functionality provided by that version in any successive release of that package. So, even though libX11 was split out of the xorg-x11 package after the OIN package list was approved, it's still covered.
Bill
Jon Stanley on 06/29/2009 09:42 AM wrote:
However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight, we'll play their game. There is no benefit to Microsoft due to the "mutually assured destruction" principle.
The only way you'd see a lawsuit would be if a third party company had .NET patents. Microsoft doesn't fight you directly. They find a punching bag and use that instead. Eg. Microsoft picking a fight using SCO. Eg. Microsoft picking a fight with RH and JBoss using a small Texas software company. Etc.
On 06/29/2009 10:42 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
As Ajax said, the contingency plan would be "nuke from orbit", just as it is for any legally objectionable software in Fedora.
I'm not sure what the time horizon is between Fedora Legal DEFCON levels, but the mono project's retreat plan is to invent-around, then break compatibility as needed (with mounting prior-art challenges as a follow-up). So one might conceivably see a more pure mono emerge shortly after such a challenge.
At least for the libraries.
Microsoft claims certain of its patents are _essential_ to implement C# and the CLI (mono links to a letter from Jim [mumble] from Microsoft in their FAQ).
OSNews is currently attempting to engage Microsoft in learning the terms of their RAND license under ECMA rules. Last I checked they were 30 days in with no response.
-Bill (writing as somebody who hasn't ruled out hacking up a 'Conflicts: mono' bogon RPM, for insurance purposes)
Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS.
($LANGUAGE has been Java, Javascript and now C#).
As for mono it is simply treated the same as other packages if there are legal issues it can be removed, if not there is no reason to do anything.
drago01 wrote:
Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS.
So what? His concerns are real.
($LANGUAGE has been Java, Javascript and now C#).
Java used to be non-Free, so of course it was bad to depend on it. Especially for those programs which didn't work with the implementations which were Free Software at the time (GCJ/Classpath-based stuff).
I'm not familiar with the JavaScript story, but if he really recommended against using it, there was certainly a valid reason.
Kevin Kofler
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
drago01 wrote:
Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS.
So what? His concerns are real.
Depends on how you read them and whether you agree with him or not. And for most cases I don't.
Saying mono is evil while having DotGNU seems odd to me (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/)
($LANGUAGE has been Java, Javascript and now C#).
Java used to be non-Free, so of course it was bad to depend on it. Especially for those programs which didn't work with the implementations which were Free Software at the time (GCJ/Classpath-based stuff).
Suns Java implementation was non free, Java itself had a open spec (so that you can implement your own java vm if you want). People wrote code that required the Sun implementation for obvious reasons. But as Sun opened there implementation in form of openjdk this is a issue of the past.
For C# people seem to do it the other way around free software seems to always require the free implementation (even on windows).
I'm not familiar with the JavaScript story, but if he really recommended against using it, there was certainly a valid reason.
drago01 wrote:
Saying mono is evil while having DotGNU seems odd to me (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/)
He also recommends against using DotGNU to develop your new Free Software in (because of the same patent risk as for Mono).
I'm not familiar with the JavaScript story, but if he really recommended against using it, there was certainly a valid reason.
That's a rant against web apps rather than against JavaScript as a language and I agree with that one too: web apps are a way to push proprietary software onto people who claim to use only Free Software. In most cases, a portion of the code runs on your browser (that's where JavaScript comes into play), but is often licensed under a proprietary license, another portion runs on the web server and is completely out of your control (so it's even more proprietary than the average proprietary software). If you're using a proprietary web app, you're NOT using Free Software, but proprietary software, even if the browser you're using is Free Software.
Kevin Kofler
On 06/29/2009 08:49 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
drago01 wrote:
Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS.
So what? His concerns are real.
Depends on how you read them and whether you agree with him or not. And for most cases I don't.
Saying mono is evil while having DotGNU seems odd to me (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/)
Did you even read the article? I don't see where FSF cliams mono is evil. Their position is far more nuanced than that. What FSF is suggesting is to treat Mono purely as a (legacy) compatibility layer and not use it for new applications.
"This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.
The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk."
Rahul
Kevin Kofler, Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:08:11 +0200:
I'm not familiar with the JavaScript story, but if he really recommended against using it, there was certainly a valid reason.
His point was that thousands of line of hardly obfuscated Javascript (think Google Docs) is hard to recognize from binary-only distribution, which I can see as pretty good argument. And yes I know that this obfuscation is not for malicious reasons (it's compression as well), but still, it would be lovely if source for Google Docs was available somewhere.
Matěj
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Matej Ceplmcepl@redhat.com wrote:
Kevin Kofler, Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:08:11 +0200:
I'm not familiar with the JavaScript story, but if he really recommended against using it, there was certainly a valid reason.
His point was that thousands of line of hardly obfuscated Javascript (think Google Docs) is hard to recognize from binary-only distribution, which I can see as pretty good argument. And yes I know that this obfuscation is not for malicious reasons (it's compression as well), but still, it would be lovely if source for Google Docs was available somewhere.
Well as the code has a non free license anyway its better that it is obfuscated. So a developer cannot read and get "infected" by it. Write his own code and copy parts of the code which he is not allowed to copy.
Sure getting Google to release it under a free license would be a good thing, but I doubt that will do it anytime soon :(.
Matej Cepl wrote:
His point was that thousands of line of hardly obfuscated Javascript (think Google Docs) is hard to recognize from binary-only distribution, which I can see as pretty good argument.
Right. The point isn't really about JavaScript the language, but about its integration into browsers and how it ends up used. It basically hides proprietary software in what users perceive as "content".
Kevin Kofler
drago01, Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:00:56 +0200:
Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS.
($LANGUAGE has been Java, Javascript and now C#).
I am not big fan of RMS, but we have to admit that at least in case of Java, he was just right, and among other things, because of strong stand on the principle by the FLOSS community, Java is now free (ask some RH folks about making OOo working without Sun JRE).
Matěj
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankly3d@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo? Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
This is not the normal "**** mono" post. I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: Fedora and *All* our Users (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
On 07/07/09 09:24, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankly3d@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo? Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
This is not the normal "**** mono" post. I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: Fedora and *All* our Users (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
If legal are happy with this, it should be ok.
Regards,
Frank
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankly3d@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo? Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
This is not the normal "**** mono" post. I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: Fedora and *All* our Users (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL [2] => means you can't do it with GPL3
If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or RAND-Z patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it?
Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, and they never fulfilled (even after insistence).
I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it.
You need to stop believing in Santa.
Rui
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrarms@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankly3d@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo? Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
This is not the normal "**** mono" post. I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: Fedora and *All* our Users (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
So?
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
[2] => means you can't do it with GPL3
If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or RAND-Z patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it?
Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, and they never fulfilled (even after insistence).
I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it.
You need to stop believing in Santa.
We already had the OIN protection and this is additional safety.
But I am not a lawyer so I leave the judgment to them.
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
Who ever got these, could s/he please publish them? No one I know who has asked ever got it from Microsoft, even under promises.
[2] => means you can't do it with GPL3
If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or RAND-Z patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it?
Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, and they never fulfilled (even after insistence).
I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it.
You need to stop believing in Santa.
We already had the OIN protection and this is additional safety.
You seem to fail to grasp the concept that without weapons there's no war.
You think that by having weapons you're defended? That's rich... it only means you can probably fight back (depending on the infringement), not that you win or are defended.
But I am not a lawyer so I leave the judgment to them.
You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between a) having a right or b) not being sued if you infringe
Rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand your point.
1/You don't have the rights to do A. 2/ But you do A, you won't be sued.
Doesn't that make 1/ irrelevant in practice ?
- -- Dodji Seketeli Red Hat, Inc.
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:15, Dodji Seketeli dodji@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand your point.
1/You don't have the rights to do A. 2/ But you do A, you won't be sued.
Doesn't that make 1/ irrelevant in practice ?
No, it just means that the promise to not sue can be lifted at any time and leave every user vulnerable. If the code were licensed in such a way that the patent indemnification came with the license then when the license changes to remove the patent protection only users of the new versions are at risk. All users of the old versions are not at risk due to the license on those old versions. Licenses cannot be changed retroactively but promises outside the license can.
-- Jes
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 07:14 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:15, Dodji Seketeli dodji@redhat.com wrote:
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand your point.
1/You don't have the rights to do A. 2/ But you do A, you won't be sued.
Doesn't that make 1/ irrelevant in practice ?
No, it just means that the promise to not sue can be lifted at any time and leave every user vulnerable.
Except that, for the Microsoft Community Promise, it can not.
- ajax
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand your point.
1/You don't have the rights to do A. 2/ But you do A, you won't be sued.
Doesn't that make 1/ irrelevant in practice ?
Only if: a) you like doing illegal stuff which might bite your ass later b) the only one suing you would be Microsoft (in some jurisdictions others may do so).
Rui
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrarms@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue you" or "you have the right to implement this"
Where exactly is the difference?
I can redistribute the implementation as I wish because nobody will sue me if I do so .. which means that I HAVE the right to do so.
Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
Source?
You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between a) having a right or b) not being sued if you infringe
So what? "not being sued" is the key here... (does not matter how they phrase it, see above)
You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure you need a lawyer to clarification this.
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrarms@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue you" or "you have the right to implement this"
Where exactly is the difference?
In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.
Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?
Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
Source?
It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and the FAQ instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.
You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between a) having a right or b) not being sued if you infringe
So what? "not being sued" is the key here... (does not matter how they phrase it, see above)
You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure you need a lawyer to clarification this.
I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what is in the mouth of marketing agents.
Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times more than a marketing agent's tongue.
Rui
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue you" or "you have the right to implement this"
Where exactly is the difference?
In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
At the risk of getting bogged down in details: My understanding is that, in such countries, in order to have any standing in such a case, the third party bringing the suit against you would have to have some claim to a grievance against you as a result of your illegal action against Microsoft. I would be delighted to hear a scenario in which you think this could arise.
Also, please do remember that it is _not_ in itself illegal to distribute software that embodies someone else's patent. It's only illegal to do so without the owner's consent. If this is _not_ the case in some country, then everyone in that country needs to stop using the Linux kernel right now, because - to pick a trivial example - RCU is definitely patented.
I mean, basically you're asserting that - for whatever bizarro country you're talking about - not only can you not waive your own property rights, but other people can be sued for accepting your waiver at face value. Now, there do exist a handful of countries that haven't accepted the Berne Convention, but they tend to be countries with an even weaker notion of copyright...
- ajax
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue you" or "you have the right to implement this"
Where exactly is the difference?
In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
At the risk of getting bogged down in details: My understanding is that, in such countries, in order to have any standing in such a case, the third party bringing the suit against you would have to have some claim to a grievance against you as a result of your illegal action against Microsoft. I would be delighted to hear a scenario in which you think this could arise.
Unless you are a lawyer that specialize in multiple countries laws I'd avoid commenting one way or another. Of course what you say up to this point is reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's actually true :-)
Also, please do remember that it is _not_ in itself illegal to distribute software that embodies someone else's patent. It's only illegal to do so without the owner's consent. If this is _not_ the case in some country, then everyone in that country needs to stop using the Linux kernel right now, because - to pick a trivial example - RCU is definitely patented.
I mean, basically you're asserting that - for whatever bizarro country you're talking about - not only can you not waive your own property rights, but other people can be sued for accepting your waiver at face value. Now, there do exist a handful of countries that haven't accepted the Berne Convention, but they tend to be countries with an even weaker notion of copyright...
... which has nothing to do with patents, or property rights ...
SIGH!
People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer actually comment on the promise?
I guess some organization like the SFLC might be willing to comment if there is enough demand (and maybe they are already working on that).
Simo.
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 17:46 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
Also, please do remember that it is _not_ in itself illegal to distribute software that embodies someone else's patent. It's only illegal to do so without the owner's consent. If this is _not_ the case in some country, then everyone in that country needs to stop using the Linux kernel right now, because - to pick a trivial example - RCU is definitely patented.
I mean, basically you're asserting that - for whatever bizarro country you're talking about - not only can you not waive your own property rights, but other people can be sued for accepting your waiver at face value. Now, there do exist a handful of countries that haven't accepted the Berne Convention, but they tend to be countries with an even weaker notion of copyright...
... which has nothing to do with patents, or property rights ...
Eek, that's actually a good point, Berne is copyright not patent. Mea culpa.
- ajax
(Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)
Simo Sorce wrote:
People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer actually comment on the promise?
I guess some organization like the SFLC might be willing to comment if there is enough demand (and maybe they are already working on that).
Um... really? You mean they haven't, already?
GIYF:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&am...
(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the same OSP, and even so, given the opinion on how poorly OOXML is covered, I doubt M$ would do anything to make the Mono/C#/CLI situation appreciably better.)
Oh, and drago01:
I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].
I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they sure don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.
Next time, either check that 5 seconds of googling doesn't make you look like you don't know what you are talking about, or else point out why said googling does not invalidate your point :-).
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
(Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)
Simo Sorce wrote:
People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer actually comment on the promise?
I guess some organization like the SFLC might be willing to comment if there is enough demand (and maybe they are already working on that).
Um... really? You mean they haven't, already?
GIYF:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&am...
(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the same OSP, and even so, given the opinion on how poorly OOXML is covered, I doubt M$ would do anything to make the Mono/C#/CLI situation appreciably better.)
No its not the same "Open Specification Promise" != "Community Promise"
Oh, and drago01:
I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].
I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they sure don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.
I stated serval times that I am not a laywer and therefore can be wrong, than Riu stated that we don't need laywers because his point is obivious (to him). Besides my personal opinion to this is "I don't give a damn about software patents" (and they are void here anyway). But unfortunatly the US laws suck, and that won't change anytime soon.
Next time, either check that 5 seconds of googling doesn't make you look like you don't know what you are talking about, or else point out why said googling does not invalidate your point :-).
When providing links make sure that they cover the same topic ;) Because than _you_ look that you have no idea what you are talking about.
drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
(Thank you.)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&am...
(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the same OSP, and even so, given the opinion on how poorly OOXML is covered, I doubt M$ would do anything to make the Mono/C#/CLI situation appreciably better.)
No its not the same "Open Specification Promise" != "Community Promise"
...but there are certainly people weighing in on both.
Hmm, I thought I'd seen an actual statement from SFLC on the CP, but now I can't find it again. Still most of what I saw is others that feel the CP is no better than the OSP (some even said it is worse). Certainly some of the same points apply.
Oh, and drago01:
I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way [Riu does].
I don't about exact agreement with Riu's specific arguments, but they sure don't seem to share /your/ comfort level.
I stated serval times that I am not a laywer and therefore can be wrong, than Riu stated that we don't need laywers because his point is obivious (to him).
Fair enough. The point was just that your argument is better if 5 seconds of google doesn't appear to refute it. It was just a friendly suggest on 'how to make a better argument'.
But unfortunatly the US laws suck, and that won't change anytime soon.
Unfortunate, yes :-).
When providing links make sure that they cover the same topic ;) Because than _you_ look that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Touché. (Though my point was partly the obvious google results.) Still, you are right. How about these? http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-microsofts-promises-for-ever.h... http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/07/is-it-enough/
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrarms@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrarms@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] => means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue you" or "you have the right to implement this"
Where exactly is the difference?
In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.
Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?
In which jurisdictions can somebody sue me because I infringe a US Patent of a different company? And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent that is covered by the CP.
Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
Source?
It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and the FAQ instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.
I did read the FAQ and I could not find what you are referring to so I asked. But ok lets quote the FAQ:
------------------ Q: Why does Microsoft obtain patents that apply to specifications to which the Community Promise apply? Is that something that others do too?
A: Microsoft invests a significant amount of resources in research and development efforts. Like any other company that commits such resources to creating new technologies, Microsoft seeks to protect its investment by obtaining patents on the resulting innovations. At a minimum, patents have value in defending Microsoft with regard to patent infringement claims made by others. Many patent owners use their patents defensively to protect themselves against third-party law suits when they make their patents available under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND or RAND-Z) terms and conditions (including promises like the CP). ------------------
(The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)
How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything. They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with. There is no "you need a RAND or RAND-Z license to implement the standards that are covered by this promise", no matter how you read it.
You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between a) having a right or b) not being sued if you infringe
So what? "not being sued" is the key here... (does not matter how they phrase it, see above)
You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure you need a lawyer to clarification this.
I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what is in the mouth of marketing agents.
Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times more than a marketing agent's tongue.
No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want. "I don't trust MS so it must have holes", while blindly trusting anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do not exits in the text. Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.
In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way you do.
Note: this is my last email on this thread
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:55:15PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue you" or "you have the right to implement this"
Where exactly is the difference?
In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.
Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?
In which jurisdictions can somebody sue me because I infringe a US Patent of a different company?
Who told you only US patents are involved?
And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent that is covered by the CP.
Yes, you're possibly doing something illegal, in the US it's called patent infringement.
They just "promised" (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to sue you.
Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
Source?
It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and the FAQ instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.
I did read the FAQ and I could not find what you are referring to so I asked. But ok lets quote the FAQ:
Q: Why does Microsoft obtain patents that apply to specifications to which the Community Promise apply? Is that something that others do too?
A: Microsoft invests a significant amount of resources in research and development efforts. Like any other company that commits such resources to creating new technologies, Microsoft seeks to protect its investment by obtaining patents on the resulting innovations. At a minimum, patents have value in defending Microsoft with regard to patent infringement claims made by others. Many patent owners use their patents defensively to protect themselves against third-party law suits when they make their patents available under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND or RAND-Z) terms and conditions (including promises like the CP).
(The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)
How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything.
Two things:
1) they told so in several TC that analysed MS-OOXML, and even *promised* to bring these terms to the TCs. Guess what? The promise was worthless.
they *promised* to get these terms to some companies. Where are the terms? Microsoft doesn't even answer anymore.
and
2) Because, as the *promise* quite clearly tells you so:
No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.
Since they don't give you a license (just promise not to sue) you haven't got any right. The FAQ subtly reveals there's RAND or RAND-Z terms, and tries to fool you into believing "not suing" == "granting rights"
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the promise down the drain.
They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with.
You think filing software patents is correct? It may be legal in the US and a few other countries, but while filing a few software patents in the US may be viewed as a defense strategy in a software patent infected country, filing them by the thousands, even in countries where they're invalid, but you'll still have to pay possibly hundreds of thousands of Euros to prove that.
I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what is in the mouth of marketing agents.
Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times more than a marketing agent's tongue.
No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want. "I don't trust MS so it must have holes", while blindly trusting anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do not exits in the text.
And I don't see the point of scorning someone by implying they blindly mistrust Microsoft. It's not blind mistrust, the reality is filled with enough fishy things to give the benefit of doubt. Proof is needed.
Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.
In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way you do.
Funny enough we tried to get a lawyer team to analyse this problem in Portugal.
Microsoft, as president of the TC, chose the firm (a firm they have ties with, how un-surpriseing), and you know what they did? They acknowledged our question, decided to invent a new question, and then answered this new question.
You know what our question was? Whether that promise was a legally valid patent license grant (in shorter words).
They turned the question into "is the promise valid?" with the result being "in principle yes, but the courts will have the final word".
Now, if they want to avoid it this hard, do you think it's because they have honesty in their words?
Rui
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrarms@1407.org wrote:
And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent that is covered by the CP.
Yes, you're possibly doing something illegal, in the US it's called patent infringement.
They just "promised" (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to sue you.
So what about the patents owned by redhat? http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html It's also just "promise".
You claim that this is a worthless statement, but others (including MS here) claim that this is a legal binding document. So we need a lawyer or better a court decision to clear this up.
(The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)
How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything.
Two things:
1) they told so in several TC that analysed MS-OOXML, and even *promised* to bring these terms to the TCs. Guess what? The promise was worthless.
Only because it is called "promise" in the sense "we will bring this terms" it is not legaly binding. This document is different.
they *promised* to get these terms to some companies. Where are the terms? Microsoft doesn't even answer anymore.
See above.
and
2) Because, as the *promise* quite clearly tells you so:
No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.
Yes but we are talking about the things stated here.
Since they don't give you a license (just promise not to sue) you haven't got any right. The FAQ subtly reveals there's RAND or RAND-Z terms, and tries to fool you into believing "not suing" == "granting rights"
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the promise down the drain.
Same applies to Redhat.
They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with.
You think filing software patents is correct? It may be legal in the US and a few other countries, but while filing a few software patents in the US may be viewed as a defense strategy in a software patent infected country, filing them by the thousands, even in countries where they're invalid, but you'll still have to pay possibly hundreds of thousands of Euros to prove that.
Yes it is, even though I think that software patents are a stupid idea and should go away, if the law allows you to fill patents it is broken and needs fixing. Not that companies that file patents are evil. (Even RedHat owns and files softeware patents)
I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what is in the mouth of marketing agents.
Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times more than a marketing agent's tongue.
No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want. "I don't trust MS so it must have holes", while blindly trusting anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do not exits in the text.
And I don't see the point of scorning someone by implying they blindly mistrust Microsoft. It's not blind mistrust, the reality is filled with enough fishy things to give the benefit of doubt. Proof is needed.
" someone by implying they blindly mistrust Microsoft"
I never said that but the opposite "while blindly trusting anybody is wrong". Which implies do not trust anybody unless you have a reason. But trying to come up with any unproven statements isn't right either. And again whether this is worth anything has to be judged by a lawyer.
Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.
In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any lawyer would interprets it the way you do.
Funny enough we tried to get a lawyer team to analyse this problem in Portugal.
No you did not it was a _different_ (but similar) case.
drago01 wrote:
So what about the patents owned by redhat? http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html It's also just "promise".
True. However anything RH shipped as GPLv3 that uses a RH patent is no longer a mere promise, it's a legally binding patent license. Something that has yet to come out of M$.
(The same can be argued for GPLv2, just that v3 has a "better" license in this regard.)
...and I suspect you'd have more luck getting an actual license from RH if you asked for one.
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the promise down the drain.
Same applies to Redhat.
The question to ask here is how this applies when an actual license has been granted, as in the case of distributing GPLv3 software. (Especially as I don't see "irrevocable" in Section 11... or, indeed, anything about the term of the GPLv3 implicit patent license. Hmm, this is actually a good question at first glance.)
Argh... I know I said I wouldn't, but this one really needs to have some scale applied.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:43:28AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
They just "promised" (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to sue you.
So what about the patents owned by redhat? http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html It's also just "promise".
And it suffers from some of the "promise" and "not license grant" problems as well.
But I should point out a few things which must be duly noted in order to understand the scale difference.
(1) Red Hat does NOT have a history of attacking Free Software
(2) Red Hat does HAVE a history of promoting Free Software with deeds and words
(3) Red Hat opposes software patents: «Red Hat has consistently taken the position that software patents generally impede innovation in software development and that software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software.» -- First phrase in Red Hat's statement of position on software patents.
«A relatively small number of very large companies have amassed large numbers of software patents. We believe such massive software patent portfolios are ripe for misuse because of the questionable nature of many software patents generally and because of the high cost of patent litigation.»
(4) Red Hat fully acknowledges the most important Free Software Licenses: «Approved License means any of the following licenses: GNU General Public License v2.0 and v3.0; GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 and v3.0, IBM Public License v1.0; Common Public License v1.0; Q Public License v1.0; Open Software License v3.0; and any open source license granted by Red Hat. Red Hat may add to this list in its sole discretion by publication on this page.
(5) "any claim" (aka well defined) vs "necessary claims" (aka smoke screen)
As such, even though there are problems, Red Hat is a "good citizen", whilst Microsoft is a several times repeating offender.
Who would you give the benefit of doubt, and whom would you demand proof from?
Rui
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$ have got to be pretty high ;-).
More likely, M$ sells the patents to a puppet company that has made no such promise. Said company happily starts bringing lawsuits.
Hey, they've already got Myhrvold (Intellectual Ventures) to sell to, and OIN is useless against a tro^H NPE.
alfinity@boxbe.com
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Matthew Woehlke < mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Junk Score: 4 out of 10 (below your Auto Allow threshold) | Change: https://www.boxbe.com/mail-screening&tc=205147289_978180501 Approve sender: https://www.boxbe.com/policy_update?sender=fedora-devel-list%40redhat.com&am... Block sender: https://www.boxbe.com/policy_update?sender=fedora-devel-list%40redhat.com&am... ___
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$ have got to be pretty high ;-).
More likely, M$ sells the patents to a puppet company that has made no such promise. Said company happily starts bringing lawsuits.
Hey, they've already got Myhrvold (Intellectual Ventures) to sell to, and OIN is useless against a tro^H NPE.
-- Matthew Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies. -- You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
http://boxbe.com/?tc=205147289_978180501 | D93HG9EB
Matthew Woehlke writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$ have got to be pretty high ;-).
If you want legal advice, pay a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Microsoft's statement is what's generally called "covenant not to sue". When someone buys a business, they buy all the business's assets and liabilities. A covenant not to sue is generally considered a liability, and the covenant not to sue does not get to repudiated just by the virtue of the company changing owners.
Having said all that -- I agree that MSFT's promise is not to be given much weight. If MSFT desired to sue someone, I'm sure they'd come up with some way to claim that their cause of action falls outside the scope of this covenant. They have plenty of money to pay lawyers to invent creative arguments, and it will be up to the defendants to prove that MSFT's covenant applies, in their defense. Even better, they'll just get sued for some other reason, like MSFT claiming that they're violating some patent in Windows, and it's just purely by accident, heavens to betsy, that they have a bunch of Mono-based products.
Nothing to see here, move along.
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 19:06 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Matthew Woehlke writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$ have got to be pretty high ;-).
If you want legal advice, pay a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Microsoft's statement is what's generally called "covenant not to sue". When
Right. This is the form of words I was going to bring up.
I thought the difference between a grant of rights and a 'covenant not to sue' was fairly well-established and non-controversial, since that's the exact loophole in GPLv2 that Microsoft drove the Novell agreement through, and the main reason that GPLv3 exists. I remember the point being discussed and explained at tedious length around the time that was going on. So it seems a bit odd to have this long thread with some people arguing that a 'covenant not to sue' and a 'grant of rights to use a patent' are the same thing, when it seems a fairly well-established principle, accepted on all sides, that they're not.
(I echo Sam's disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice).
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either of the above. Please cite exactly which statement in the Community Promise you take issue with.
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
- ajax
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either of the above. Please cite exactly which statement in the Community Promise you take issue with.
Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you."
So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent lawsuit against MS for something unrelated, MS could turn around and revoke the promise not to sue Red Hat for distributing a C#/CLI implementation, crippling the product that Red Hat now relies on. So I doubt that RMS's concerns are much assuaged by the Community Promise. But I'm just guessing. With similar reasoning it probably cripples the OIN's ability to sue back as well.
J.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Underwoodjonathan.underwood@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either of the above. Please cite exactly which statement in the Community Promise you take issue with.
Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you."
So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent lawsuit against MS for something *unrelated*,
" against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification" I don't see why Red Hat would ever sue MS because of a C# / CLI patent.
Anything unrelated _IS_ unrelated.
Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Underwoodjonathan.underwood@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either of the above. Please cite exactly which statement in the Community Promise you take issue with.
Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you."
So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent lawsuit against MS for something *unrelated*,
" against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification" I don't see why Red Hat would ever sue MS because of a C# / CLI patent.
Anything unrelated _IS_ unrelated.
Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI patents. And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification. Maybe that's less of a problem for Red Hat because they don't like patents anyway and are not likely holding any XPS related patents, but it could be a problem for the OIN.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Julian Aloofijulian.fedoralists@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Underwoodjonathan.underwood@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
I am unable to read the Community Promise in any way that implies either of the above. Please cite exactly which statement in the Community Promise you take issue with.
Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you."
So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent lawsuit against MS for something *unrelated*,
" against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification" I don't see why Red Hat would ever sue MS because of a C# / CLI patent.
Anything unrelated _IS_ unrelated.
Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI patents. And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification. Maybe that's less of a problem for Red Hat because they don't like patents anyway and are not likely holding any XPS related patents, but it could be a problem for the OIN.
Yeah got this after reading Ajax's post.
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:06 +0200, Julian Aloofi wrote:
Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI patents. And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification. Maybe that's less of a problem for Red Hat because they don't like patents anyway and are not likely holding any XPS related patents, but it could be a problem for the OIN.
The relevant sentence to the above argument is:
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you."
This may be ambiguously worded. "any Covered Implementation" might mean the one(s) corresponding to the Covered Specification you're bringing suit against, or it might mean any Covered Implementation of yours at all.
The FAQ on the same page seems to indicate that the "corresponding" interpretation is intended:
"As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft's implementation of the _same_ [emphasis mine] Covered Specification. This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice."
But I'd definitely ask a lawyer for the real answer, and probably ask Microsoft to clarify the language if I were to rely on it.
- ajax
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:27 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you."
So, say a few years have passed and C# and the CLI is now a very key component of the stack, and Red Hat (for example) filed a patent lawsuit against MS for something unrelated, MS could turn around and revoke the promise not to sue Red Hat for distributing a C#/CLI implementation, crippling the product that Red Hat now relies on.
So there's two things wrong here. The first one is the "turn around" statement. The very first sentence starts with "Microsoft irrevocably promises". Any assurance made by the Community Promise is forever.
The second is the retaliation model. In the language of the Promise: "If you [sue for patent] against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification [...]". A Covered Specification is one that they're covering with this promise.
So, if Frobnitz Inc. distributed Mono, and then filed suit against Microsoft for infringing one of Frobnitz' patents in the Microsoft C# implementation, they would lose the right to distribute Mono [1]. However, if Frobnitz distributes Mono, and then files suit against Microsoft for a rendering technique patent used in Internet Explorer, they would still be allowed to distribute Mono [2].
In other words, it's a MAD agreement. You're not even agreeing that any patents they may hold that read on the Covered Spec are _valid_. You're simply agreeing that neither of you will assert any patent claims against the other, for the scope of the Covered Specs, iff you chose to use/make/sell/distribute/etc an implementation of one of the Covered specs.
Now this still might not be something you want to agree to. For example, if you hold patents that you think already read on MS's C# implementation, you might not want to lose the ability to exercise them. The question may also be made irrelevant by some third-party patent claim that you think would read on a Covered Spec.
Finally, there is the detail that the Promise only extends to what they call "Microsoft Necessary Claims", which are patents necessary to implement any required portion of the spec. There's some wiggle room in the word "necessary"; you might be able to implement a given feature some other way, in which case the patent would presumably not be covered. There's also no assurance over patents involved for optional functionality.
(Not a lawyer. Not even a Microsoft fan.)
[1] - Specifically, they would lose any rights given to them by the Community Promise. They might still have the right to distribute through some other legal mechanism.
[2] - Again, they would only still retain the right to distribute to the extent that they are not infringing some other legal agreement between them and Microsoft.
- ajax
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Frank Murphyfrankly3d@gmail.com wrote:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00014.html
OK, so lets move on before this ends into a flamewar ;)
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Adam Jacksonajax@redhat.com wrote: [snip]
So, if Frobnitz Inc. distributed Mono, and then filed suit against Microsoft for infringing one of Frobnitz' patents in the Microsoft C# implementation, they would lose the right to distribute Mono [1].
[snip]
In other words, it's a MAD agreement. You're not even agreeing that any
Sadly most MAD agreements are also uni-lateral disarmament agreements. They are only really mutual when the participants are true peers and otherwise magnify existing power imbalances between the parties.
Try this alternative scenario: Over time Frobnitz amasses a large portfolio of patents which it places in trust to help defend its free software business. Frobnitz scrupulously avoids encumbered technoligy without irrevocable free software compatible licenses, but it does rely heavily on technology available under terms like the ones under discussion. Later Microsoft initiates spurious patent litigation against Frobnitz which will ultimately fail but cost frobnitz millions in the process (perhaps as part of an attempted takeover). Normally Frobnitz would use its defensive portfolio to discourage this sort of attack, but unfortunately this option has been eliminated because any patent litigation would result in the revocation of permission for several pieces of technology which it is openly and publicly practicing, depends on for compatibility, etc.
If Frobnitz doesn't think the MAD-covered patents are valid or applicable and that it could quickly and cheaply fight them, then it doesn't matter much, but in that case it didn't really need the MAD grant at all. If they are valid then frobnitz would be better off if they retained the flexibility of
So to sometimes these 'MAD' terms are just 'AD', nothing much mutual about them.
Of course, if you aren't the sort that would keep a patent stockpile for defense, the distinction is moot. But, it's still naive to look at that kind of 'MAD' grant as a cure-all.
-greg [speaking for no one but himself]
On 07/07/2009 04:24 AM, drago01 wrote:
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.as...
Were there any announcements about their libraries? This sounds like clarification about which parts of .NET they *don't* plan to sue people over. It would have been easy enough to add more to this announcement.
With being tied up with ECMA and the various well-publicized efforts to get RAND licenses on them, these aren't the parts most people were worried about.
"I promise not to beat you up on any week day that's a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday."
Call me paranoid, but to me this says Wednesday is Win.Forms. I'd be happy to be proven wrong by a subsequent press release - then Fedora [project,users] only need worry about whether Microsoft should be setting technical direction.
-Bill
Bill McGonigle wrote:
With being tied up with ECMA and the various well-publicized efforts to get RAND licenses on them, these aren't the parts most people were worried about.
But the thing is, RAND does not necessarily mean royalty-free, let alone compatible with Free Software licenses (no royalty-based patent license is, and even royalty-free ones can have problematic restrictions). RAND just means they won't charge you more just because you like Fedora and hate M$, but it doesn't preclude them from charging a fee from every licensor (which is inherently incompatible with Free Software: while Free Software is about freedom, not cost, having to pay a patent holder for a license is NOT considered Free).
Kevin Kofler
On 07/07/2009 07:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
RAND does not necessarily mean royalty-free
Oh, I agree. The trick is nobody knows what those RAND terms are. Free, not free, something-we-never-dreamed-of, etc. Various folks (e.g. OSNews) have been attempting to get Microsoft to present them with a RAND license offer to clear this up.
So, the legal theory is that since ECMA requires RAND license terms, and the spec is a published ECMA spec, and various people have been trying to get a RAND license offer for a while, that if Microsoft drags you before a magistrate charging that you didn't get a license, that "licenses were not available and therefore implicitly not required" would convince him that the prosecution is malicious and get the case tossed out on its ear.
Whether the argument holds any water or not, I have no idea, it's just what I've heard from defenders.
-Bill
-
Adam Jackson -
Adam Williamson -
Bill McGonigle -
Bill Nottingham -
Dodji Seketeli -
drago01 -
Fabian Deutsch -
Frank Murphy -
Gregory Maxwell -
Jesse Keating -
Jon Stanley -
Jonathan Underwood -
Julian Aloofi -
Kevin Kofler -
Matej Cepl -
Matthew Woehlke -
Michael Cronenworth -
Neal Gompa -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra -
Sam Varshavchik -
Seth Vidal -
Simo Sorce -
wieseltux23