“GNU software pre-installed on an OEM machine remains GNU software, whether you personally like the distribution or not.”

GPLv3 patent protection notwithstanding (not all GPL licensed Free Software is v3 or even v2+), are you absolutely sure about that?

What is there to prevent Microsoft from revoking its “covenants”?

Then there’s this:

[quote]
It only covers ‘direct’ recipients from Novell
[/quote]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454

Neither the GPL status of Moonlight, nor the RAND protection seems to have made the slightest bit of difference in this case, which is that Moonlight is essentially undistributable (outside of Novell’s distribution).

Then, in the same article there’s this:

[quote]
it is not limited just to Novell as Mono is
[/quote]

And this from another site:

[quote]
I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world.

Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true.
[/quote]

http://commandline.org.uk/linux/2007/aug/5/be-careful-who-you-kiss/

Both of these seem to suggest that this RAND simply doesn’t even apply to anyone but Novell customers, and that Mono is a patent risk.

There’s even arguments to suggest that RAND is, in and of itself, worthless:

[quote]
But there is a more insidious aspect. RAND patent licensing conditions are a tool to ban Free Software, which is entirely incompatible with RAND licensing conditions.
[/quote]

http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-54546/reasonable-and-not-non-discriminatory

In this era of manipulative Intellectual Monopolies, I really don’t think it is merely sufficient to claim that “the GPL covers it” any more.

“I worry that we might eventually start to see pre-installed “Linux” distros on OEM machines that are more like Windows than GNU/Linux, both in terms of license restrictions and restrictive technology.”

This is precisely what the GPL, even v2, yes, even the LGPL protect you from. You worry without reason.

“Microsoft would be very much interested in two things with Novell: polluting/diluting the Linux brand and message (Microsoft could also have a dent in the Linux market).”

This was said in 2006, just before the deal with Microsoft got signed.

Ref: DRM

Yes, at the end of the day C# is just a programming language, and Mono is just another (subset) implementation of the .NET framework (patent encumbered or otherwise), but Mono brings more than just a language to GNU/Linux. It also potentially brings the Windows development paradigm; Windows developers; and supporting Windows technology.

I worry that we might eventually start to see pre-installed “Linux” distros on OEM machines that are more like Windows than GNU/Linux, both in terms of license restrictions and restrictive technology.

How long before we see OEMs implement restrictions similar to Windows “Protected Media Path” and “WGA”? How long before we find certain OEM distros prevent ripping DVDs and CDs?

We’re already (soon) seeing OEM’s shipping “Free” Software encumbered by “officially licensed” codecs, in the form of Fluendo on Ubuntu Netbook Remix.

What next?

Now certainly such measures could be implemented using any programming language, but Mono brings a certain unhealthy culture to Free Software that might threaten that Freedom (well apart from the contentious patent issue). And by “unhealthy” I mean less respect for Freedom, and more respect for Intellectual Monopolies (the Windows mindset).

And even there, patents can be used in and of themselves to coerce certain technical limitations.

Once we give the Intellectual Monopolists an inch, they’ll grab a mile, then keep grabbing. Patent encumbered Windows-oriented technologies like Mono only encourage and accelerate that behaviour.

IMHO.

LOL! Good link.

Here’s another one for the bookmarks:

[quote]
Microsoft claims the settlement vindicates its argument that Internet Explorer is a generic term and cannot be trademarked.
[/quote]

Good to know that I can fork Firefox and just call it “Internet Explorer”.

Gee, thanks Microsoft.

And, in the U.S., there is some argument as to whether these spurious software and method patents are going to hold up to scrutiny when challenged.

(Link is so precious because it has MS’ attorney arguing against software patentability)

@ holter: I think of reactionary development not just in purely technical terms . I think also of things like DRM, OOXML, XPS, XAML etc. Some are tied to the framework/P/L.

But about ‘reactionary devolopment’: That is a thing we have to worry about with all abstract and scripting languages – also with java and python. All the worries you describe in your mono article just as well hit java and python. At least the Mono-development ide (forgot the name) is reportedly good for creative coding, no?

Thanks.

“So, does Mono have any non-free code in it, or proprietary blob or anything like that?”

According to the Mono Project, they promise due diligence in ensuring no such violations (with non ECMA RAND covered code) occur:

[quote]
Mono’s strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.
[/quote]

My concern is not so much that non ECMA RAND covered .NET might slip into Mono, but more that the RAND itself is a meaningless promise granted by a corporation with a proven anti-FOSS agenda.

A RAND covenant is not a patent grant, it is just a “promise”. How far do you trust Microsoft’s “promises”? Think about who these people are, are what their goals are.

“My take is, according to statements in the past about patents by Microsoft, event the frickin Linux Kernel (which most of us here are using in some flavor or other) apparently has a potential MS patent infringement issue (42 of them, they say).”

Well if Ballmer’s FUD is actually to be believed, then by all means lets get rid of that crud from the kernel. It’s not the only such issue with the kernel BTW; see linux-libre for more information.

“As has been said by many before, it is difficult to write any software that isn’t these days with all the trivial patents that are erroneously granted.”

Oh yes, and Stallman fully recognises that too, but this particular case is not so much about the patent, as the patent holder.

The entire premise of the RAND is trust, and I simply do not trust Microsoft. Period.

Do you?

And even if I “trusted” them per se, I still wouldn’t want such a morally reprehensible company’s technology in Free Software, since I wouldn’t want such a company to benefit from our adoption of it. Given the litany of immoral (and even illegal) behaviour fully documented against Microsoft (here and elsewhere), they do not deserve our consideration, or indeed anything at all, beyond chapter 11 bankruptcy and imprisonment.

“Basically, the ‘contamination’ is here and it’s pervasive. That IP Innovations suit is still pending against Red Hat and I presume Novell, and will affect a shitload of us using “Multiple Workspaces”.”

Yes, and that’s just one attack vector, from a Microsoft shell company (ex-Softies). Why any Free Software user would voluntarily invite such attack vectors into GNU/Linux, I cannot possibly imagine, especially when it can only benefit the self-announced enemy of Free Software.

“Software Patents are invalid”

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately the law does not (in America at least, and I believe in certain other countries too now). Also, thanks to the relentless lobbying of Intellectual Monopolists, and certain clandestine global “deals” like the secret ACTA proposal, there may soon be no safe place left anywhere in the world, to escape the greed and malice of the Intellectual Monopolists. You and I may disagree with the law, but how do we retain our liberty in a dystopian future, when such laws are firmly set against us?

“that is the problem. Getting everyone to understand, that is the solution.”

Unfortunately those who most need to understand, are those who already understand too well, but simply don’t care. It is those who make law, ostensibly by the will of the people, but actually by the will of malevolent and greedy Intellectual Monopolists, who would need to “understand”, but all such people understand is the soft touch of dollar bills greasing their palms. Unless this corrupt power can be ripped from such corporations and their political lackeys, common sense and the will of the people will never prevail.

GNU/Linux has the lead in several important areas. It has an edge because of control, owing to its strengths; playing with Mono is allowing FOSS to return to reactionary development a la Stallman’s early daze (mimicking UNIX).

I also don’t udnerstand how Roy can at the same time yell against ‘unfree’ software and then seems to think Linux-distros with support for unfree codecs like MPEG, WMV and Flash are something good.

“/not answering rants”

Can’t or won’t?

I think I’m entitled to rant, seeing as you attempted to marginalise me as some kind of loony dictator, for doing nothing more sinister than advocating Free Software.

And yet apparently you see nothing very sinister about Intellectual Monopolists like Microsoft.

“The point remains, you are standing pretty alone”

Again you attempt to marginalise me as a fringe fanatic.

Even if that were true, and you have absolutely no way of quantifying your claim, then so be it. I have repeatedly stated that I have zero interest in popularity or market share, I only care about Freedom.

“with your interpretation that Mono and the GPL are somehow incompatible”

That is a lie, I have never made such a claim.

“or even that Mono somehow lessens your ‘freedom’.”

Mono is Free Software (GPL) that contains “IP” from a company with a vicious and proven anti-FOSS agenda (“Linux is a cancer”; “Linux infringes 235 Microsoft patents”; “every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability”; “Red Hat customers owe us money”). I do not want technology from such a company on my systems. Period.

I cannot say with any certainty exactly what Microsoft’s intentions are (re: “covenants”, “promises”, “cross licensing”, etc.), but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that those intentions are probably not good.

In light of this, I am further concerned that others who use Free Software may also be in danger, if they are exposed to Microsoft’s “IP”, and I advocate avoiding that software at all costs.

When I discover that a supposedly Free Software distribution vendor is actually distributing such software, I am naturally inclined to complain about it, and campaign for them to reconsider the possible consequences of such actions.

But again, even assuming that Canonical were to listen to my complaints, the worst “loss” you (as a fan of Microsoft’s Intellectual Monopoly) would “suffer”, would be the mild inconvenience of having to acquire this poisonous software from an alternative source (i.e. upstream). Apparently this inconvenience is too much for you to bear, so you advocate encumbering all Free Software users’ GNU/Linux experiences with Microsoft’s Poisonware, just to satisfy your own laziness.

“This is also part of freedom; we disagree about what free software is”

Well unless you disagree with the GPL exactly as it is written, I don’t see how you could “disagree” with my understanding of Free Software.

“and we all can live by our own interpretation of free software.”

There is only one “interpretation”, and that is the wording of the license as written.

“People like you”

Like me?

Another attempt at marginalisation. Let me return the compliment.

People like you should just switch (back) to Windows and be done with it, since you are obviously so in love with the slavery of proprietary or encumbered software that you would not only gleefully surrender your own (and everyone else’s) liberty to use it, but you would even spend your time condemning Free Software advocacy as “tyranny”, whilst painting those who use such software as fringe fanatics.

So please, just go back to Windows, and “enjoy” your slavery.

“can always use Gnusense, Gubuntu”

That’s “gNewSense” and “Gobuntu”.

How you can feel qualified to dismiss these distributions in such an out-of-hand fashion, when you don’t even know what they’re called, I have no idea.

And as for Gobuntu, I’m afraid Ubuntu users no longer have that choice, since Canonical have dumped that distribution due to a lack of commitment from the vendor to the promised “rigorous approach” to the principles of Freedom.

“or whatever you deem ‘free’ enough.”

“Free enough” is, not being obligated to those who wish to exploit that Freedom and destroy it.

“The majority of users”

Again, another unquantifiable claim.

At best, you could try to claim that not caring about Freedom is a typical Ubuntu user’s trait, that Ubuntu is at position “x” in the Distrowatch charts, and that therefore “y” percentage of Free Software users don’t actually care about the Freedom of that Free Software.

However that overlooks the probability that such users are recent converts to GNU/Linux, know and understand nothing about the principles of Free Software, know and understand little about Microsoft’s vicious political agenda against Free Software, and therefore are not really in a position to comment one way or another, until such times as they become better informed.

I suggest that you are such a person. I further contend that if most of the other users you allude to were more aware of the dangers, that they would in fact “care”.

There is little I can do about your bigotry, but hopefully there may be something I can do about your ignorance, and that of other (new) GNU/Linux users (mainly Ubuntu users, from what I can tell).

“who, like me, do NOT agree with you”

You presume to know what every other Free Software user in the world believes or does not believe?

How arrogant.

“The freedom is there, in the freedom of choice between Gnusense and Ubuntu.”

That’s “gNewSense“.

And what about protecting the Freedom of those too ignorant to know the dangers?

What about protecting the Freedom of those who simply do not wish to even receive Microsoft’s Poisonware … at all … not just “uninstall it”, but to not have any part in it, ever?

A gNewSense user still has the Freedom to taint his own system with non-Free or encumbered software, if that is what he wishes, but Ubuntu users have no choice but to accept such software, even those hapless noobs who don’t know any better.

Who’s going to look out for their better interests? Who is going to protect their Freedom?

“Asking big distributions to go along with your minority-interpretation of the software freedom means asking to limit freedom of choice.”

Again, another unquantifiable assumption (“minority-interpretation”), that attempts to marginalise me as a fringe fanatic, whilst conveniently ignoring your own fanaticism for Microsoft’s Poisonware.

And once again, you associate Freedom with “limiting”. Freedom is not an imposition (to anyone except those who seek to take it away from you), it is your fundamental right.

My take is, according to statements in the past about patents by Microsoft, event the frickin Linux Kernel (which most of us here are using in some flavor or other) apparently has a potential MS patent infringement issue (42 of them, they say).

As has been said by many before, it is difficult to write any software that isn’t these days with all the trivial patents that are erroneously granted.

Basically, the ‘contamination’ is here and it’s pervasive. That IP Innovations suit is still pending against Red Hat and I presume Novell, and will affect a shitload of us using “Multiple Workspaces”.

Software Patents are invalid, that is the problem. Getting everyone to understand, that is the solution.

I certainly wouldn’t want to use a distro that complies with you guys’ concept of ‘free’.