Stallman warns about C# and Mono dependence [LWN.net]

Stallman warns about C# and Mono dependence

Posted Jul 3, 2009 15:08 UTC (Fri) by Nelson (subscriber, #21712)
In reply to: Stallman warns about C# and Mono dependence by malor
Parent article: Stallman warns about C# and Mono dependence

I call BS. That's an argument against doing any development or running any software. Anything you install on your machine is just as likely to infringe an unknown mystery patent as Mono is.

Simply reading a patent doesn't constitute knowingly violating a patent either, especially if the development has already been done. That's just more FUD. If you know a technology is patented and build it anyways, that's the knowing violation.

Either there are patents that cover the language, and thus likely other programming languages or there aren't. Either their are patents for compiling C# byte codes in to machine code or not, and they very well could affect other compilers like the newer javascript compilers, ruby 1.9, java, etc... Either there are patents that cover specific API implementations (again, this could affect all sorts of other projects, regardless of implementation technology) or there aren't. Either there are patents that cover the interpretation of .NET/CLR byte codes or there are not, and why wouldn't these patents potentially affect other interpreters?

If you simply don't like MS and think any of their technology is a bad idea, then that's a fine argument but that has nothing to do with these unnamed, unnumbered patents that people are "afraid" to reveal for fear of damaging the project they are already fighting against.. That's just plain and pure FUD and as bad as anything MS has ever done.

(Log in to post comments)

Stallman warns about C# and Mono dependence

Posted Jul 4, 2009 6:48 UTC (Sat) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link]

I don't give a flying f*ck about the Mono project. If it dies tomorrow, I won't cry. If it lives until Doomsday, I won't particularly care either.

But I DO care about the Mono developers, because they're trying, in essence, to do me an indirect favor. I'm hoping not to accept it, but I know they mean well.

Simply being AWARE of a patent puts you on the hook for triple damages in patent infringement suits, so if I actually did do the research and specifically stated the patents in question, I'd be tripling whatever risk they're running. And I'm sure that's the thought process behind what you guys term as 'FUD'. They're trying to protect you against the broken patent system, not shining flashlights under their faces and making scary noises.

As far as whether or not Microsoft will choose to exercise their patent weapons against any particular program, nobody can tell you. However, I can be pretty darn sure that joining yourself at the hip with Microsoft, copying an existing project, is much more likely to fall afoul of patents, and it will be harder for developers to argue ignorance. This may also be true of Samba, since it's also a reimplementation of a fully Microsoft-owned specification.

Of all the open source projects that exist, it strikes me that those are two of the most likely to run afoul of patent problems from Microsoft.

There's a difference between swimming in the open ocean, hoping you don't accidentally drink any sewage, and swimming downriver from a treatment plant.

Stallman warns about C# and Mono dependence

Posted Jul 9, 2009 18:56 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

> Either there are patents that cover the language, and thus likely other
programming languages or there aren't.

The coverage isn't a boolean, but a semi-random floating point value with
a pretty large fuzz-factor that cannot be pre-determined.

As far as I've seen (I've got no legal background), the value depends on
whether a relevant patent is only pending or actually granted, how many
and how overlapping patents there are[1], where in the world
they're granted, is there (potential) prior art[2] etc.

[1] If you're in a large company, also whether that owns/cross-licenses
any of them.

[2] I.e. how valid the patent is. Because of the cost of invalidation, I
think this is rarely a consideration though.

Stallman warns about C# and Mono dependence

Posted Jul 10, 2009 12:40 UTC (Fri) by Nelson (subscriber, #21712) [Link]

First, I apologize to others if I've appeared hostile, I didn't want to make it sound that way.

The coverage isn't a boolean, but a semi-random floating point value with a pretty large fuzz-factor that cannot be pre-determined.

This is true but the decisions of judges and courts is kind of boolean and it more often than not includes some wisdom. MS has since made a promise to projects and ECMA, which isn't entirely different than IBM's patent pledge. You can hire lawyers without starting litigation to make the determination on the validity. Mono is in a unique position in that it does have Novell backing it. It is in their best interest, as well as the whole Mono projects best interest to know the patents they supposedly violate and to actively seek ways to avoid violation, either by different implementation or by MS giving patent immunity. Logically, I'd argue that intentionally attempting to not know the violations is just as bad if not worse than knowing the alleged violations and making efforts to avoid them. It's not that common for a triple damages award.

So the Linux kernel contains VFAT and there has been actual litigation for it. What is everyone doing about that? You all know it now too, have you removed Linux? Do you sleep better not loading or building the VFAT module? Is simply not loading the module sufficient? If stuff like that is valid, then why couldn't there be very similar actions for mono?

For the record, the patent is mentioned here: http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing here is they actual text: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030028685'.PGNR.&OS=DN/20030028685&RS=DN/20030028685

Would it make any difference if the Mono project had a written agreement with MS regarding patent immunity? I don't like MS but I don't see what they've done that is hostile towards this project, it looks to me like they are only trying to allow it to exist, peacefully.