Untitled
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mjeffer Jun 28, 2009 11:57 PM EDT |
I'm not a free software purist, and usually don't agree much with RMS. I just like to use the best programs, free or not, that I can find. It just happens that for me at this moment that it's Linux as my OS. However this is actually one of the better arguments I've seen on the mono issue. He's taking a realistic and practical approach (not something I usually think of with him). Now, while I personally have no opinion on the whole mono issue he makes a lot of sense here. I think other people could be a lot more persuasive if they didn't take the "eradicate mono" approach but use his in saying it's better to develop in other languages for native apps, but still develop mono to get .net apps to run in Linux. |
| bigg Jun 29, 2009 7:26 AM EDT |
His entire argument rests on the existence of patents that could shut down the entire mono project. If anyone knows of a detailed analysis by someone qualified to actually do such analysis, that can explain the potential patent problems, I'd appreciate a link. Otherwise we're in the camp that we shouldn't really use a graphical interface either, because Microsoft also uses a graphical interface. So many words written about Mono in article after article, so very little information. |
| tracyanne Jun 29, 2009 8:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:So many words written about Mono in article after article, so very little information. nail head hit. |
| Libervis Jun 29, 2009 12:57 PM EDT |
Yep, if the whole argument against Mono rests at the existence of software patents and consequential *potential* for legal trouble, we should effectively dismantle Linux based operating systems. No software is completely safe from patents as RMS himself argued before. It's just silly. |
| hkwint Jun 29, 2009 3:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:No software is completely safe from patents True, though some free software projects are more likely to 'infringe' on certain patents and the patentholders of those starting actual litigation, than other projects. Some are more 'risky' than others. Like bigg said, there's no good risk analysis however, so there are only assumptions. Last time I asked MS (WagEdd) about the patents, they told even for them it was 'too much work' to find out which MS-patents applied to 'Linux' and which not. No analysis being available seems to be their business model. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 29, 2009 6:35 PM EDT |
I think MS has a pretty good idea about what patents may be infringed by Linux. How else can you quote a number of 199 patents? You cannot quote a number as specific as that and not know the exact patent numbers for all of them. And they didn't think it was too much work when suing TomTom. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 29, 2009 7:39 PM EDT |
@sander They could quote a totally made up number. I wouldn't put it past them. But it is somewhat unlikely. They probably have an internal list, and 199 or whatever is probably the largest number of patents they think that some open source somewhere which might be possible to run on Linux might possibly have the slightest appearance of infringing on. Microsoft won't release the patent numbers because they don't want anyone to be able to do anything to mitigate the situation by working to get the patents in question invalidated or finding work-arounds. I'm sure most if not all of those patents are either bogus (too obvious or having prior art issues) or otherwise indefensible. If they really had a snowball's chance in hades of making a generalized case against Linux that would stick or otherwise cause more trouble for Linux they probably would have done it already. Obviously they think that continuing to make unsubstantiated claims to spread FUD is more profitable for them than trying to actually press a case they'd probably lose. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 29, 2009 10:07 PM EDT |
Has the number of patents that Linux infringes dropped to only 199? Earlier I remembered the number as 238, however, that too may be in error because this article states the then current number from MS was 228, having dropped from 235. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070514/013229.shtml I may have simply mixed the figures coming up with my own bogus count. YBT |
| softwarejanitor Jun 29, 2009 10:20 PM EDT |
The fact that the number of patents MS is claiming seems to fluctuate does tend to lend creedence to the supposition that they may have just pulled a number from a dark stinky place. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!