Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek)
eWeek
looks at licensing problems with the Mono project's
open-source versions of Avalon and Indigo.
"The project administrator, Rodrigo Mazzilli, announced the project's launch on June 3 on the main Mono mailing list.
In this note, Mazzilli said, "MonoIndigo will be a free implementation of Longhorn's communication stack [code-named Indigo] on top of Mono."
"MonoIndigo will require Mono 2.0." This update of Mono isn't due out until 2006.
Nevertheless, "I've also started developing some straightforward things of Indigo, like its most common attributes and classes. We plan to first implement the default BasicProfileHttpBinding, which conforms to WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 [basically HTTP-SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol)]." Thus, BasicProfileHttpBinding is the .Net equivalent to one of Web Services' fundamental protocols.
A few weeks later, Microsoft told The Register that "developers planning to clone Indigo or Avalon will have to first engage in talks on licensing the company's Intellectual Property.""
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 23, 2005 18:26 UTC (Thu) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] Well, we all knew it would happen...
Does it matter Posted Jun 23, 2005 19:21 UTC (Thu) by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223) [Link] But are there any implications? As I understand it (and assuming that MS can make those claims stick):
- Core .NET is still OK
I'm aware that Miguel has always argued that the avalability, or lack thereof, of any specific library/assembly doesn't affect the usefulness of Mono. And it wouldn't affect the guy who spoke on using Mono at linux.conf.au who was going the other way (write technical demo at home on Linux, then run on Windows at work with GTK# installed)
I feel like this is just a bit of a <yawn/> moment really.
It's Dead, Jim. Posted Jun 23, 2005 23:08 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Miguel has always argued that the avalability, or lack thereof, of any specific library/assembly doesn't affect the usefulness of Mono.Oddly enough, he's right, both ways. Mono is not useful no matter what sort of baggage they pile on it. That horse won't run.
It's Dead, Jim. Posted Jun 24, 2005 0:45 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] It's a shame to see a LWN subscriber trolling.
Troll? Posted Jun 24, 2005 8:30 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Dude, ncm is not a troll just because he/she just doesn't think Mono is useful. Post an informed rebuttal if you disagree. That might enlighten all of us. Crying "troll" won't.
Troll? Posted Jun 24, 2005 11:09 UTC (Fri) by irios (guest, #19838) [Link] He IS trolling because he is making unreasoned assertions on the uselessness of Mono, and whether another person posts an informed rebuttal or not does not change that.
Lighten up please. Posted Jun 27, 2005 10:25 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] We're talking about a snarky three sentence comment in an informal discussion. Would it have been better if ncm had articulated a supporting argument? Certainly. But you can't expect every post to come with a ten page academic paper attached. You especially can't expect this only of comments with which you disagree. Some people think Mono is useless. They might be mistaken, but you will neither convince them nor improve the quality of the discussion by calling them names. A polite reply pointing out reasons Mono is useful would have done both. Please, let's leave puerile pastimes like Troll Patrol to Slashdot.
Does it matter - yes, in terms of perceptions Posted Jun 24, 2005 1:14 UTC (Fri) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] Sure, if you read carefully, you can decide whether you really need this or not, and whether Mono is still useful to you as it stands.
But what are most people going to see? They're going to have their fears confirmed that MS was going to whack Mono sooner or later. If it gets played up in the press, this story will hurt Mono not so much because of the technology being there or not, but because of people's fears about the project's vulnerability to the whims of MS.
Maybe it could also be a wakeup call for Mono.. Posted Jun 24, 2005 1:42 UTC (Fri) by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709) [Link] ...not to just clone every API that Microsoft releases. Certainly it has appeal that you can run applications written for Windows "natively" under Linux. I firmly believe that a managed language environment such a JVM or that that mono provides is far better than C/C++. I found that Mono integrates very well with existing C libraries which makes it better suited for environments where not portability is the key, but operation system integration while retaining most of the advantages of a managed language. Thus I would care if Microsoft legally attacked the use of the same byte code/programming language. This would be reasonably hard given the ECMA standard and their not acting up so far. As far as I am concerned, they might even ditch the standard libraries, they suck at so many places... Naturally that really hurts existing applications.
Has already happened ;) Posted Jun 24, 2005 1:48 UTC (Fri) by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709) [Link] I just clicked on the MonoIndigo link and saw that they already responded in a way I very much like: They renamed the project to Amber and do not want to clone the API anymore. Instead they want to provide similar functionality in a library that runs in Mono and the original .Net environment. It would be cool, if they succeeded in creating something sexy which is more popular than Indigo -- even on Windows. But there's of course a tiny bit of wishful thinking ;)
Has already happened ;) Posted Jun 24, 2005 3:07 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] do not want to clone the API anymore. Instead they want to provide similar functionality in a library that runs in Mono and the original .Net environment.And thus breaking compatibility with the Microsoft libraries...
Breaking Compatability Posted Jun 24, 2005 4:20 UTC (Fri) by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709) [Link] Yes, obviously, and I outlined above that I do not care.
Has already happened ;) Posted Jun 25, 2005 0:33 UTC (Sat) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] Except if they provide a compatibility layer for Microsoft libraries, something that allows to code for the compatibility layer and use Microsoft libraries + layer or mono lib underneath :)
With a transition tool to ease migration. Not sure how technically this is feasible, but that would be fun, turning the problem the other way around.
Has already happened ;) Posted Jun 24, 2005 11:57 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "... Instead they want to provide similar functionality in a library that runs in Mono and the original .Net environment. "
Couldn't they just wrap the existing Linux stacks, opening the door for other OSes in Open Source arena to establish a solid atandard?.
The idea is instead of providing the same functionality of Windoze to OSS/linux space, provide the "superior" functionality of OSS/Linux to *old* Windoze environments which could be achieved by wraping and shell replacing those environments like in colinux ( http://wiki.colinux.org/cgi-bin ) and or in bb4win ( http://www.bb4win.org/news.php )...
It seems to me that.NET environment was not really conceived to be cloned, the managebility features of C# were security oriented first, and programm easyng second, like a bait, a carrot at the tip of a poll hanging in front of your eyes. It was brilliant and has agglutinant power some how. But its modularity ensures that MS will always be a step ahead if they want too.
C# core is OK, but for one thing C# is not good for writing OSes and other close to hardware stuff, or even common server programms, even if there is a CLI CPU architecture, condemned to be "inferior", for sure, in the same sense that the JAVA CPU was.
I belive MS wanted all, not only the programms and programmers on their side(commercial and "freeware"), but also CPU architectures and IO expansion buses and protocols on their side also(hardware industry).
I belive they still want all, thought is evident that transforming X-box into a prevasive computational architecture will not do the bid, and CLI will not jump them on the CPU industry.
Pursuing MS path try to clone them will only prove to be a titanic adventure condemned to failure, but also promove fragmentation on OSS part, because the trend unfortunatly still is for everyone to go a separeted path.
Belive MS wil gain control of mono, or they will never allow it to copy enough to be a competitor. MS bid is that the Avalon/.NET will be a totally different environment than Win32/Windows. .NET modularity will provide easying up compatibility to kernel and to shell/GUI. I can see Novell enthusiasm , Avalon, Indigo on top of linux! on a pure WebServices architecture... but OSS dont really need that, because if it proves to be a not very good path, MS gets in trouble has it has been, but much smaller cloning contenders like Novell can implode!... it only needs that applications will run with a consistent look and feeling, thats all.
IMO the best path for cross pollination is to go with basic kernel cloning on top of a emulation engine like QEMU http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/qemu-tech.html
Mono is free Posted Jul 11, 2005 14:39 UTC (Mon) by axiom255 (guest, #30920) [Link] With or without avalon and indigo, mono is still /free software/. I'msure that microsoft would try to assert their intellectual property rights even if indigo was cloned using java.
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 24, 2005 1:32 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] That is of course is if M$ Corp actually do own avalon and indigo and they have not just stolen them and claimed them as there own work as usual .just like almost to a "T" they have with every thing look at dos winBloZe the ms mouse to name the 3 easy ones i remember from when i worked in the computer industry before i got out (door entry systems are much less hassle)..((even the digital video ones )) ;;:-).
Pete .
It HAS to be said...
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 24, 2005 5:01 UTC (Fri) by frankie (subscriber, #13593) [Link] The big news _now_ would be an open Java. If SUN would do that, bye bye .NET. I hope SUN will not wait yet to much before understanding that. That could be the last chance to be not marginalized.
Open Source Java? Already done. Posted Jun 24, 2005 9:43 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] Open Source Software Java? Already done for many purposes. Red Hat Fedora Core 4 ships with gcj (Java compiler), GNU Classpath (Core libraries), and OpenOffice 2 and Eclipse running on them. There's still work to do, but the train has already left the station.The real problem now is that many people don't realize how far OSS/FS Java has gotten. I talked to many of the key developers at FISL, and was amazed at (1) how much has been accomplished and (2) how hard it is to learn that information. I tried to help the key developers understand what the rest of us wanted to know, and capture that; you can get a hint of that in my FISL travelogue, and I expect that SouJava will release documents soon that explain the real situation.
Open Source Java? Already done. Posted Jun 24, 2005 12:33 UTC (Fri) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Yes, indeed. Thank you for posting that. Although I've not had the pleasure of chatting in person with Dalibor Topic and Mark Wielaard, as you have, they both did drop in on an OO.o 2.0 / Java thread on my local LUG mailing list, to reassure us that things have been improving rapidly with Classpath/gcj/gij/Kaffe/mauve. My understanding is that (aside from the invaluable work of those coders and others) major credit is owed to Red Hat, Inc. for support of this initiative. Rick Moen
Open Source Java? Already done. Posted Jun 25, 2005 0:39 UTC (Sat) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] Each time I try to run or build one of my programs on top of classpath, I've had failures. Latest I tried was I think Continuus. It doesn't pass the unit tests. So it's way much better than a couple of years ago, but it's still far from being usable for any application developers don't spend time making sure the free java has been fixed to run on them.
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 24, 2005 5:08 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] So, call their bluff. Engage in the "talks" about their "Intellectual Property" and make all of the information public. Then we'll actually know if they are just BSing or not.
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 24, 2005 16:52 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] That doesn't work; you need to sign NDAs just to get in the room with them.
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 30, 2005 7:58 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] Then they are just emitting BS!
Microsoft usual fear-mongering. Posted Jun 24, 2005 5:20 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] This is just Microsoft usual fear-mongering.
There is ample legal precedent saying that API are not copyrightable, MS will get in antitrust trouble by claiming it is (especially in the EU), and mono-backer Novell is not shy to engage in legal battle with MS.
Microsoft usual fear-mongering. Posted Jun 24, 2005 8:36 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thanks, I thought nobody was going to say it! Regardless of all the "I told you so"'s in the world, what Microsoft is doing is probably illegal, definitely immoral and deeply unfair. Mono is only looking for interoperability with some .NET interfaces, and should therefore have our support if they decide to go ahead.As Stallman might say, it's our freedom that is in the firing line once again: freedom to write software that provides certain services; freedom to write an alternative implementation to a library when the current one does not fit our needs; freedom to choose software provider for an API. First it's .NET, then it's WS-I, until you find it's POSIX.
Microsoft usual fear-mongering. Posted Jun 24, 2005 10:09 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link] > ... what Microsoft is doing is probably illegal, definitely immoral and> deeply unfair.
And, sadly, they have the clout to get away with it.
The ineffective sanctions resulting from the last monopoly conviction showed that MS is too big for the DoJ to punish.
Microsoft usual fear-mongering. Posted Jun 24, 2005 20:42 UTC (Fri) by musicon (subscriber, #4739) [Link] >The ineffective sanctions resulting from the last monopoly conviction > showed that MS is too big for the DoJ to punish.It has nothing (or very little) to do with MS being "too big" — simply timing. Did you forget about the abrupt about-face the DoJ did almost immediately after the presidential change? If we had less business-friendly politicians, I suspect that MS would by now be much like the Bells back in the 80s.
Microsoft usual fear-mongering. Posted Jun 26, 2005 17:39 UTC (Sun) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] Perhaps MS knew that they just had to wait it out? If that were the case they would use delaying tactics to draw it out until there was a change of government.
Microsoft usual fear-mongering. Posted Jun 24, 2005 10:11 UTC (Fri) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] what Microsoft is doing is probably illegal, definitely immoral and deeply unfair.In other words, business as ussual.
Microsoft usual fear-mongering. Posted Jun 26, 2005 19:41 UTC (Sun) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > API are not copyrightableBut the 'inventions' required to implement the APIs are *patentable*. They didn't say explicitly 'copyright', just 'Intellectual Property', which (as RMS keeps pointing out) is a blanket term which is very easy to misinterpret. You can't get in antitrust trouble when your monopoly is explicitly granted by legislation.
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 24, 2005 7:25 UTC (Fri) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link] Golly, I'm so glad Microsoft managers are now willing to reverse this type of embedded corporate culture, that has been groomed from the beginning, by hiring Daniel Robbins to "educate" them about working with the OSS groundswell instead of vainly working against it. I'd hate to think that the very executives who make these decisions would talk out of both sides of their mouths! I'm shocked, I say, SHOCKED by this behavior after they wanted so badly to learn... (sigh). ;)
A roadblock but also a non-event Posted Jun 24, 2005 10:19 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] It was only a matter of time before Microsoft started roadblocking the Mono project's compatibility goals in a significant way, but to me this is a non-event. First, .Net itself has become a non-event for Windows and the greater IT community. Added to which those people who are doing the most interesting coding with Mono appear to be doing Gtk# coding, which is entirely distinct from the issue of compatibility with a Microsoft stack. Do Gtk# coders, who constitute the bulk of the Mono community, really care about supporting further Microsoft standards?
A roadblock but also a non-event Posted Jun 24, 2005 12:32 UTC (Fri) by whitemice (guest, #3748) [Link] >It was only a matter of time before Microsoft started roadblocking the>Mono project's compatibility goals in a significant way, but to me this >is a non-event.
Agreee, this is a non-event.
>First, .Net itself has become a non-event for Windows and the greater IT >community.
I certainly don't agree with this; a great deal of client side .NET coding is taking place.
>Added to which those people who are doing the most interesting coding
Yep.
>which is entirely distinct from the issue of compatibility with a
Yep.
>Do Gtk# coders, who constitute the bulk of the Mono community, really
To a point, core stuff, access to web services and what not. But this pretty much already works. C#/.NET is a great environment. Anyone who says it is "useless" should come see the running code. It is *FAR* less messy than Java (with its Jakata, Xerces, Xalan and what-not with version mania and insane class paths - sometimes when I'm in Java-land I think, "My Gawd, this is worse than Perl") and offers a very solid core of services (you don't need to add anything to work with XML, SOAP, etc...).
But some of the MIcrosoft specific stuff? Nah, I can do without it. I'm going to code to Gtk# on the client so it can run on LINUX, WIN2000, WINXP, etc... which even Avalon and whatever will never do. (Will they back-port to 2000? Even if they do, it will be a hack and poorly supported). And GTK is a *VERY* nice toolkit to work with. I hadn't done any client-side programming in 5+ years having been in the web-server-zone and I was able to knock together nice GUI apps within a day.
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 24, 2005 10:41 UTC (Fri) by landley (subscriber, #6789) [Link] What exactly is it they're demanding a license _for_?
1) Reverse engineering isn't a copyright issue, it's a fresh implementation of the underlying ideas (which aren't copyrightable).
2) They're calling it by a different name, so it's not trademark.
3) I'm unaware of the mono developers ever being stupid enough to sign a contract with Microsoft.
4) This is all from public documentation and testing against publicly available binaries: not a trade secret issue.
5) That leaves patents. If Microsoft is going to make a patent attack, they should say so. "Hear ye hear ye, Microsoft is now invoking patents against open source development projects." (And if they're going to actually try to enforce anything rather than just make vague threats, they need to list the actual patent numbers.)
The big trick SCO always had was insisting upon a license for unspecified "intellectual property". Now Microsoft's doing something similar. "I own property in the US. You're currently standing on property in the US. Pay me rent."
There are five distinct types of IP that have historically been applied to software: Copyright, trademark, contract, trade secret, and patent. You can have more than one apply to the same piece of code, but the "nine women don't take one month to have a baby" effect definitely applies when you try to claim that even though none of them specifically apply to this instance, between the lot of them you must have something. You either have a claim or you don't have a claim. Not having five different claims doesn't help you in some nebulous cumulative way...
If this is a patent attack, spotlight it. Anything else is smoke and mirrors here...
Rob
Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) Posted Jun 24, 2005 12:46 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Tought C# has very appealling features, .NET was always like a big rocket moving in slow motion. Belive MS never wanted to completely bar the possibility of compliance or cloning, they just wanted restrictions.
So there probabily they dont have to have a traditional fight, they dont have to. It will be much better for them if any programm from Mono could run on .NET providing they have control to the point Mono would never surpass.NET, fragmenting and embrassing somehow OSS that way, and having an income point also...
... in short *DRM certification*...
DMCA for sure will put people on US at inprisonment peryl, and will constrain the rest of the world trough a certification programm. The only problem to MS is that it will probabily shed many of the shareware/freeware people, oppening a little windown for OSS growth.
Now i belive it is only a warning!
gotta love mmarq! Posted Jun 26, 2005 19:47 UTC (Sun) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] "inprisonment peryl" -- it's like reading 16th-century poetry :-)
Blurry licensing Posted Jun 25, 2005 5:32 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] What exactly is it they're demanding a license _for_?Amazing, but that's how businesses often work. Quite often I have read news like "Company X licenses Technology T from Company Y", but I could not tell what they were exactly paying for. Going through the body of the news article with a mental list similar to your excellent dissection of "Intellectual Property" would yield no results at all. No copyrights, no trademarks, no contracts (yet), no trade secrets, and often no (sensible) patents; so that left some unspecified "technology" claims. In my mind, Company X was just buying the right not to be sued, which is sad and disgusting. The outcome would be uncertain, but what is for sure is a big waste of money for both parties. Well, I think that is what they are demanding a license for.
What about DotGNU? Posted Jun 24, 2005 11:37 UTC (Fri) by linuxuser1 (subscriber, #25114) [Link] So, how does http://www.dotgnu.org fit into this? They are supposed to be making a .net competitor, but I never hear much about them, how well it is working, etc. Does anybody know? Thanks for any comments...
|
|||||||||||