Comments

• Jo Shields

  2008-11-21 13:27:27

  I'd love to hear how you reached your conclusions about my motivations - and employment - you guys.
  
  No really, it fascinates me where this kind of thing is sourced from.
  
  If people like neighborlee can make up random things, and you'll believe it implicitly... coupled with your admission elsewhere that you're far too busy to actually fact-check anything... well, it goes a long way towards explaining this site's content
  
  Have you considered, for one second, actually *ASKING* those you make accusations about? Or, as happened with Cj, would you rather kick them out of your immediate vicinity to help you project your own made-up reality?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 14:25:25

  But it's true that you and CJ have vested interests in Mono.

• AlexH

  2008-11-21 14:39:16

  @Roy: you say any member of the Mono community has a vested interest. Thus, you attempt to neatly split people into "anti-mono" and "vested interests", which is an obvious false dichotomy.
  
  For now, the free software community disagrees with you, despite your agitating against Mono in Fedora et al.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 14:43:51

  This is not true. A lot of people agree with us, including a legal expertise that's in Groklaw.

• AlexH

  2008-11-21 14:54:49

  I didn't say people didn't agree with you. What I'm against is you automatically labelling people in the Mono community.
  
  There are plenty of people who've seen exactly the same stuff you have, and have come to a completely different conclusion about Mono. No distro thinks Mono is a legal threat, so Groklaw's "legal expertise" is all well and good, but they're not the ones making the decisions.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 15:04:08

  I don't label people anything unless they consistently make considerable attempts to put Mono _by default_ in GNU/Linux distributions that many people (and companies) use. Most people are indifferent or unaware of this debate.

• Jo Shields

  2008-11-21 15:29:55

  What is my "vested interest", oh all-knowing Roy?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 15:32:36

  Mostly financial gain from maximal inclusion of Mono.
  
  Mostly personal gain from maximal inclusion of Mono.
  
  Note: comment corrected at Jo's request.

• Jo Shields

  2008-11-21 15:49:32

  Please explain how I gain financially from inclusion of Mono in Ubuntu

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 16:24:41

  I believe you develop in Mono. You want people's PCs to have the runtime environment.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 16:26:53

  From http://www.mono-project.com/index.php?title=Mono_Documentation_Improvement_Project&action=creativecommons
  
  

  <rdf:RDF>

  −

  <cc:Work rdf:about="http://www.mono-project.com/Mono_Documentation_Improvement_Project">

  <dc:title>Mono Documentation Improvement Project</dc:title>

  <dc:publisher rdf:resource="http://www.mono-project.com/Mono:About"/>

  <dc:language>en</dc:language>

  <dc:type>Text</dc:type>

  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>

  −

  <dc:identifier>

  http://www.mono-project.com/Mono_Documentation_Improvement_Project

  </dc:identifier>

  <dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>

  <dc:creator>Jo Shields</dc:creator>

  <dc:contributor>Valentin Sawadski</dc:contributor>

  <dc:contributor>Eric Butler</dc:contributor>

  <dc:rights rdf:resource="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html"/>

  <cc:license rdf:resource="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html"/>

  </cc:Work>

  −

  <cc:License rdf:about="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">

  <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks"/>

  <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction"/>

  <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution"/>

  <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"/>

  <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike"/>

  <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/SourceCode"/>

  </cc:License>

  </rdf:RDF>

• AlexH

  2008-11-21 16:33:54

  Looks like financial benefits to me.... ^_^

• Jo Shields

  2008-11-21 16:34:46

  Explain, SPECIFICALLY, how I gain financially from end-user desktop PCs having Mono installed on them. And explain how fixing a broken Wiki page is proof of this.
  
  We have a word in this country for written baseless accusations. It's called libel.
  
  Specifically BACK YOUR CLAIM.
  
  How do I gain financially from my work on Mono in Ubuntu?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 16:35:47

  Jo is obviously involved in promoting Mono; not only in their site but also in Debian, Ubuntu, and who know where else.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 16:46:48

  @Jo Shields:
  
  That's benefit... like a farmer benefits from a rainy season, lawyers benefits from too many patents, and arms companies benefit from war.
  
  I see you also here:
  
  http://www.mono-project.com/Other_Downloads
  
  In Ubuntu forums you speak of development with Mono, Without Mono, your opportunities seem narrower and that's just the point I was trying to make. You have vested interests. Opportunities can translate into gain that's sometimes financial (e.g. job offer from Novell).

• Jo Shields

  2008-11-21 16:51:16

  So your claim that I gain financially from work on Mono in Ubuntu is because you think I'm looking for employment with Novell.
  
  Is that it?
  
  My "vested interest" is an effort to get employed by your supposed Evil Empire?

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 16:57:53

  Let's just assume, for a minute, that Jo Shields works for a company that writes .NET applications (I have no idea if he does or not) and they want to target Linux users.
  
  If those Linux users buy his software, what is stopping Jo from embedding Mono in his product(s)? He doesn't need to care if the user's machine has Mono or not.
  
  Besides which, if the users want to run his software, if they need to install Mono to do so, they will. If they are willing to buy his products, then it stands to reason that they are not against Mono (if they were against Mono, they wouldn't be interested in purchasing his products, right?).
  
  So he gains no financial benefits by packaging Mono for Ubuntu.

• AlexH

  2008-11-21 17:03:05

  @Dan: it's not worth trying to play Roy's game; hypotheticals quickly become "fact".
  
  This is exactly what I said before. Roy labels anyone in a free software community he doesn't like as being "biased", but the only "vested interest" they have is that they use / develop the software.
  
  The argument goes like this: "Emacs is evil!" "No, it's not." "Yes it is, and you're biased for saying it's not". "I'm not biased." "Yes you are, you promote it. Stop defending the company that writes it.". etc. Substitute in some other app., wash, rinse, repeat.
  
  Pathetic, anti-free software FUD.

• Josh Bell

  2008-11-21 17:12:05

  @ Roy: Nice doublespeak. First you accuse Jo of gaining financially without fact, then you back down from that statement by saying that "opportunities can translate into gain that's sometimes financial". You have no facts about Jo, you don't know what he does or where he works. Again you see things black and white. You are either with me or against me, there is no other ground with you.

• Cor

  2008-11-21 17:18:05

  It's appaling how I see wild claims made against a man who develops free software. You, Mr Schestowitz, write that Jo Shields makes money from Mono - how?!?!? Where?!?!?
  
  You make it sound like he is being paid a dollar for every Mono-installation on a desktop PC, and you certainly don't create that impression by accident.
  
  You are bad-mouthing people that you don't like on purpose, and this casts a shadow on your own character. For me, it's you who comes out looking bad from this whole argument.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 17:19:40

  Cor: he's been doing that for years.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 17:40:01

  Dan, were you talking on Jo's behalf or yourself?
  
  You both appear to be coding in .NET (I don't know about Jo though), so you want Mono in GNU/Linux regardless of the consequences to many.
  
  It sure seems like the regular hecklers are very busy today. What are you so afraid of?

• Cor

  2008-11-21 17:48:59

  ...this is just an unbelievably stupid thing to say. Do you have no shame?

• AlexH

  2008-11-21 17:58:42

  "regular hecklers" - nice way to attempt to write off people's arguments. We don't need any facts, or logic - they disagree, therefore they're hecklers and wrong.
  
  BN-newspeak at its best.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 18:01:44

  You make your point and I respect that. It's possible that you still have vested interests (some of you seem to post not far from SUSE). That's fair enough.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 18:17:07

  I "appear to be coding in .NET"??? Since when? I'm not a developer and nothing my company sells is based on Mono or .NET (nor is anything internally, afaik).
  
  It seems to me that whenever you are proven to be a liar, you lash out with yet another lie in a last-ditch effort to make the other party seem dishonest, when the only one being dishonest is you.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 18:19:43

  So now by your own admission, you are unsure if Jo codes in .NET, and we know for a fact that I do not. Yet you claim that we code in .NET in an effort to prove that we have something to gain from Mono being shipped on Linux distros?
  
  I fail to follow your logic.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 18:29:12

  http://www.mono-project.com/Other_Downloads links to Jo's site and he spoke about Mono development before. Whether he does this as a daytime job (Mono/.NET) we do not know. An answer would help. As for you, Dan, you've always dodged full disclosure, IIRC.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 18:30:36

  From Jo's site:
  
  http://directhex.mfgames.com/hardy.html
  
  "The primary purpose of badgerports is to provide recent versions of the Mono framework, and associated packages such as F-Spot, Banshee, and Monodevelop. Suggestions for other packages to include are welcome, but don't be offended if I decline for whatever reason."
  
  [...]
  
  "badgerports is maintained by Jo Shields, and hosted by Moonfire Games. Package compilation is provided by the Launchpad PPA system."

• twitter

  2008-11-21 18:45:06

  Hmmm, before this I was unaware of Jo Shield's existence. I'd like to think promoters of Mono have financial motivation. Besides the port of legacy applications, I'm not sure why anyone would want to use M$'s inferior and patent encumbered technology. Jo, can you explain your tireless promotion in terms normal people can understand?

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 18:55:22

  @twitter: On neutral territory, I might be inclined to do so. This is a million miles from that.
  
  @Roy: Have you ever considered that the reason so many people claim that your site is a haven for lies, half-truths, and absence of fact is that you make random shit up with no evidence or basis, purposefully misquote and distort in an effort to make people believe your point of view, and will make up *anything* if you think it helps your cause? Has it ever even crossed your mind that your credibility might be linked to your continual and relentless lies and attacks against the free software community?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 18:57:03

  jo,
  
  You're doing everything but answer my question.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 19:11:32

  Google "burden of proof". I think even with your proven-non-existent research skills, you could just about manage that.
  
  YOU started making up things about ME. That's the way round it went. I am under no obligations to give your "oh, well, you tell me YOUR side" questions anything more than contempt.
  
  YOU claim to know ME. You've said more than once that you know what I do. Here is your proclamation: "They need Mono.. they do it for a living and the poison the most-used distro". Prove it. You have never made any attempt to contact me yet featured me twice on your front page as an enemy of freedom. Only because I know what a liar one of your "completely impartial readers" is have I even found those comments.
  
  If you had even the *SLIGHTEST* interest in the truth, you would make an effort to find it. Asking me to tell you things on YOUR blog in YOUR coments after YOU make up lies about me is not how this stuff works.
  
  Sort it out. You are harming your message more than you know.

• twitter

  2008-11-21 19:15:43

  No problem, Jo, I'll follow a link to some place you consider neutral, soothing or otherwise more appropriate for your explanation. Your insults for Roy do more to discredit you than Roy.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 19:25:31

  Roy lies about me. That makes him a liar. I'm sorry reality offends you.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 19:30:04

  I've already shown your role in Mono. You have not addressed my question. Are you not benefiting from Mono at all? Are you just an arbitrary Ubuntu user?

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 19:42:31

  My job has no reliance or dependence upon Mono. I made a decision several years into the job to spend time developing an in-house tool on Mono, on a purely technical basis, following the complete failure of a Perl-based attempt (and no interest in hiring more staff to work with a C implementation). Precisely the reason Ximian started funding Mono development in the first place - to offer a technically capable, cross-platform development environment to *NIX developers. I could have used any language or framework, and picked Mono based on technical superiority and fast turnaround on development time.
  
  My employers do not distribute this tool (which is extremely useful, though not essential, to performing my day-to-day roles) to any third parties, and do not make any direct or indirect benefit from availability of Mono on Ubuntu (other than it being my personal choice of distribution, and therefore the distribution I most want to be doing development work on). My links with Ubuntu are absolutely, 101% based on my desire to help promote and improve quality Free Software in my distribution of choice for the last 3-4 years.
  
  Now, go on, twist that into some admission of guilt.

• Chris

  2008-11-21 19:43:57

  Twitter, I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to have a serious discussion with you about anything remotely involving Microsoft.
  
  For anyone who doesn€´t understand what I mean, I suggest you read this: http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377
  
  Yes, that€´s the same guy. Isn€´t he a lovely fellow?

• stevetheFLY

  2008-11-21 19:46:17

  lol
  
  And BTW
  
  Roy said: "You’re doing everything but answer my question."
  
  Hehe, I think Roy gives an accurate description of his own behavior here...
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 19:53:13

  Jo, it's no "guilt", it's disclosure, and it very well supports what I've been saying all alone.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 19:56:25

  "Jo, it’s no “guilt”, it’s disclosure, and it very well supports what I’ve been saying all alone. "
  
  Which is?
  
  Tell me how, specifically, what I've typed (which is not exactly a well-kept secret, and would have been said months ago HAD YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME DIRECTLY) prove your various "He's trying to get a job at Novell" or "He's a C# developer" statements?

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 19:57:59

  Or that I'm "poisoning the most popular", that one too.
  
  Show me the link.
  
  I know how much of your "proof" is based on inferring links that aren't there. I'm calling you out on it. Show, in a plain & simple to understand way, why you feel vindicated.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:01:48

  Tell me how, specifically, what I’ve typed (which is not exactly a well-kept secret, and would have been said months ago HAD YOU ACTUALLY ASKED ME DIRECTLY) prove your various “He’s trying to get a job at Novell” or “He’s a C# developer” statements?

  
  
  You develop in C#. Correct?
  
  I did not write “He’s trying to get a job at Novell”. Don't mislead the readers. I wrote: "Opportunities can translate into gain that’s sometimes financial (e.g. job offer from Novell)."

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:05:41

  Or that I’m “poisoning the most popular”, that one too.
  
  Show me the link.
  
  I know how much of your “proof” is based on inferring links that aren’t there. I’m calling you out on it. Show, in a plain & simple to understand way, why you feel vindicated.

  
  
  Here if your profile in Ubuntu Forums (with links to posts):
  
  http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=176650
  
  People can see that you extol the virtues of Mono and antagonise people who complain about Mono for perfectly valid reasons. It seems to be one of your main activities in the forums.
  
  There is more than just that and people can judge for themselves.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 20:08:13

  If I opt to develop, which is not my job and not something I do for a hobby frequently these days, then I opt to use C#
  
  Trying to paint me as being paid for being a C# developer won't get you anywhere, no matter how much you try to assert reality
  
  As for your second paragraph, what kind of semantics bullshit is that? "Oh, I never said you were trying to get a job at Novell, I said you were trying to get financial gain like a job at Novell, TOTALLY different", what a fucking joke.
  
  I'm not taking fucking lessons on this from someone proud to proclaim experience with 8 different Microsoft operating systems in an effort to get a job
  
  GIVE BACKING TO YOUR LIBELOUS STATEMENTS HERE AND ELSEWHERE THAT I GAIN FINANCIAL REIMBURSEMENT FROM CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS MONO ON UBUNTU

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:12:32

  The problem is a lot more trivial. I prefer potaeto [sic], you prefer pottatto, but the problem with pottatto is that it's legally dangerous (poisonous) to the codebase we both share and you plant it in my garden (or defend those who do).

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 20:16:35

  And potatoes are associated to libel... how?

• AlexH

  2008-11-21 20:18:15

  @Roy: you said flat-out there was financial gain for Jo from promoting Mono.
  
  It's not hard to withdraw that remark unless you have something to substantiate it.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:18:56

  No, I was talking about programming languages. You didn't answer my question about C# BTW.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 20:21:47

  Yes, I did. Perhaps you didn't understand it?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:22:28

  @Alex: Yes, I agree. Replace "financial" with "personal" (where personal comes in many forms, potentially financial but not in a direct way). That's life.
  
  I make no financial gain from this site, but one could argue that I benefit from it at a personal capacity. The same can be said about Jo and Mono.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:24:09

  @Jo, my bad. I read it too quickly and sloppily. Please refrain from using vulgar words because it leads me to skimping like I do in USENET. Insults are not pleasant to read.

• AlexH

  2008-11-21 20:24:21

  @Roy: except you haven't shown any benefit.
  
  All you've done is smear Jo because you don't have a better argument. "You're biased because you get some benefit that I don't know about".

• Josh Bell

  2008-11-21 20:24:30

  Roy,
  
  Again you doublespeak. You are the one who said Jo was in it for financial gain, you are the one who put up he was looking to get a job @ Novell, and you are the one who spreads lies about people who disagree with you.
  
  You should either withdraw the remark and apologize, or state your evidence. Looking at his profile shows nothing

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 20:25:30

  Ah, so your idea of stepping back from libelous statements is on comment number 51 of your web page?
  
  What will tomorrow's IRC logs yield - "I hear he eats babies" on IRC, followed by "I meant tacos" in comment 67?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:27:01

  I'll add a correction to my comment.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 20:28:03

  "Insults are not pleasant to read. "
  
  No, they aren't. I've made your frontpage twice - once as stupid, once as... I have no idea what people were supposed to be inferring in the second one. That I'm an evil graphics API?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:31:09

  DirectX is evil indeed. The reasons for its inception too were malevolent.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 20:47:29

  So, reading this again, and your altered proclamations about my motives... am I meant to apologize for contributing towards a free software project I use? You know that's how Free Software works, right?
  
  Oh, and @twitter, "before this I was unaware of Jo Shield’s existence" - you've commented on articles on my homepage, so your reality appears to be in error

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 20:52:21

  Jo,
  
  It's a difficult situation. There's always some witch like Phelps trying to feed you a rotten apple. That's why we need to debate these things and work out solutions.
  
  How much do you know about Microsoft's armament around patent trolls?

• Chris

  2008-11-21 21:28:25

  [quote]Oh, and @twitter, “before this I was unaware of Jo Shield’s existence” - you’ve commented on articles on my homepage, so your reality appears to be in error [/quote]
  
  Do you really expect poor twitter to remember what he posted where under what nym? I guess it is understandable that this would overstrain the poor poor twitter.
  
  For anyone who doesn€´t understand what I mean, I suggest you read this: http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377
  
  Yes, that€´s the same guy. Isn€´t he a lovely fellow?

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 21:44:13

  Nothing you don't know - or at least, I haven't read anything significantly different from you, though I've tended to draw my own conclusions which undoubtedly differ.
  
  As for debate, debate is good - but not when resorting to demagogy.
  
  What kind of "solution" do you propose, and to what specific "problem"?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 21:50:23

  I'm trying to get Novell and Microsoft to speak out about their coverage of Mono (under the patent agreement). Myself and other mailed them and received no response.
  
  Prior to the 2006 deal I advocated Mono.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 21:52:11

  I think he thinks that the persecution of all Novell and Mono developers would make the world a better place. Basically, Roy wants to be world dictator - anyone who disagrees with him should be hung or burned at the stake after being smeared by Roy's lies.
  
  If your view doesn't fit with Roy's warped understanding of his black & white world (where black and white changes daily to suit his agenda), then you are evil and should be punished.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 21:55:45

  Why should they talk to you, when you post ten times a day about how willfully evil each and every person with any tangential relationship to either company is?
  
  Why shouldn't they disregard you as a kook of the Westboro Baptist Church variety?

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 21:56:25

  Roy: if you advocated Mono prior to 2006, then you must have agreed there is a good reason to have it and that it is in fact Free Software.
  
  The only thing that has changed since 2006 wrt Mono & patents is that Novell customers get to feel safer from patent attacks from Microsoft that were never likely to happen anyway.
  
  Non-Novell users using Mono are no less safe now than they were in 2006. So if you felt it was safe enough to advocate back in 2006, then you have no reason to feel it is any less safe now.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 22:08:42

  Microsoft soon made it clear that it wanted to play with intellectual monopolies, as opposed to technical merits.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 22:11:15

  Wait, they didn't make that clear until *after* 2006?
  
  Were you living under a rock before then?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 22:16:45

  Microsoft was rattling no saber and intellectual monopolies were off the table.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 22:17:26

  No, to be fair, I see Roy's point in this instance. I reject taking it to absolute extremes as has been done, but there is merit to the idea that acknowledging "this product is protected from patent litigation" can be construed as saying "other products have increased risk of patent litigation"
  
  I think the wrong party tends to be focused on in that deal, though

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 22:26:02

  Do you have access to people who can shed light on this and provide answers? Uncertainty only serves them better.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 22:29:15

  No, of course not. I only know one guy at MS, via a PC hardware forum, and he has no direct links with anyone in licensing or .NET

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 22:31:38

  Let's gather evidence before we cause irreversible damage (no, it's not just Mono).
  
  From what I'm told privately, Red Hat seems to be revisiting the Mono issue. Fedora already flag Moonlight as "forbidden" item, but it probably goes further.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 22:34:56

  Let’s gather evidence before we cause irreversible damage (no, it’s not just Mono).

  
  
  Why, what a novel concept!
  
  Why didn't you do this from day 1 instead of FUDing people, projects and companies without first doing so?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 22:51:24

  You obviously have not read this site for 2 years.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 23:00:51

  If you had been doing research for the last 2 years, why would you have to /start/ doing research now? :-)
  
  Fact is you /haven't/ been doing any research, you've been basing your opinions on comments by anonymous posters on web forums and speculation by journalists who have very little understanding of the actual facts themselves.
  
  You then misconstrue even what the journalists state and twist words to suit your agenda of badmouthing Mono and Moonlight and the developers of such projects and anyone who uses said products.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 23:02:36

  What about the SFLC? Won't you value their legal analysis?

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 23:17:49

  I don't doubt there is legal risk to Mono and Moonlight.
  
  Just like there is legal risk to nearly every free (and proprietary) software project out there.
  
  That doesn't stop me from using Free Software just like it doesn't stop you or many many other users from using Linux and other free software products.
  
  Nor does it stop people from using any software product.
  
  I also do not badmouth projects nor developers of projects that I decide not to use nor try to smear them nor paint them as devils.
  
  My point is that just because some legal group out there said that there is risk in using Mono doesn't mean I'm going to get sued for using it, nor does it mean I have to attack the company or developers producing the product, nor do I have to badmouth the product itself.
  
  If I think it likely I'll get sued for using a piece of software, I may decide not to use it - but I won't badmouth anyone over it.
  
  Of course, I haven't found a single piece of software yet that I've been afraid to use out of fear of patent attacks. It's just a little too far-fetched.
  
  I do, however, avoid pirating music and videos because: 1. stealing is wrong - as much as I dislike the MPAA and record companies, it's only fair that the actors, artists, etc get paid. 2. the likelyhood of getting sued seems high enough not to risk it - I'm always reading about some poor college student getting sued for pirating music.
  
  In the case of software... I don't recall ever reading about an end-user getting sued over patent infringement in a product they are using, but did not develop.
  
  I also cannot recall ever hearing of a company getting sued for using a product that infringes a patent that the company itself did not implement.
  
  So... odds of me getting sued for using a Mono application? Next to 0. Odds of anyone getting sued for using a Mono app? Next to 0.
  
  Odds of Novell getting sued for patent infringement over Mono? Well, considering that Novell likely own a plethora of patents on things like software update, directory services, and application server software... I'd have to say next to 0.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 23:26:59

  To be clear in the last paragraph, I meant Novell getting sued over patent infringement over Mono by Microsoft.
  
  Patent trolls and any other company that might hold patents that Mono may infringe are a separate issue and would have to be analyzed individually.
  
  Patent trolls, however, generally want to settle out of court and for a pretty small amount of money (compared to what it'd cost to pay a lawyer for more than a day or two), so I doubt Novell is terribly worried about patent trolls.
  
  Why do you think Microsoft haven't sued anyone over the 235 patents they claimed FLOSS infringed?
  
  Because if they sued, they'd be destroyed by companies counter suing.
  
  You are 100% correct when you point out that Microsoft is just throwing their patent weight around, but not many are fooled by it or take it as any real threat. It's just a bunch of hot air.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 23:27:29

  Just a few quick points:
  
  1. There's no "pirating" here. Piracy is a terrible physical crime and also a propaganda term that must not be used to demoniacally describe sharers (or copiers) of music/video, which is not "stealing" (nobody loses anything).
  
  2. It's not you who's at risk with Mono. It's vendors like Red Hat, whom you don't want to pass costs down to you (like SLED/S).

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 23:28:40

  I think Dan has covered my key sentiments on the topic. in his 6:17pm (timezone?) comment
  
  For the record then, perhaps you could consider e-mailing me directly (general 'you're too chicken to be here' statements on your private IRC channel REALLY don't count) for clarification or comment? before running anything libelous about me? Be a sweetie? Thanks. It might even help your credibility if your "debate" was demonstrably more than just mud-flinging?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 23:29:00

  Dan O'Brian,
  
  re: second comment (beat me to it), Microsoft may have already sued GNU/Linux several times. It doesn't do this directly.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 23:30:24

  Jo, Meeks mailed me some times before, so I no longer mention his name, but I am still likely to discuss the technical side of things.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-21 23:38:04

  You have no doubt pirated many of the images you use on your site.
  
  Have you gotten permission to use Novell's Mono or Moonlight logos on your site? I doubt it.
  
  What about the Linux penguin which was created by a Novell employee (Larry Ewing)? I highly doubt it.
  
  Taking something which is not yours is stealing. Digital or not, it is stealing. Claiming that music artists lose nothing if you illegaly copy music off a friend is incorrect. They lose money in the sense that they do not get money rightly owed to them.
  
  You don't even give attribution to the illustrations.
  
  as far as Red Hat getting sued, I find that unlikely. If Microsoft had any intention of doing so, they would have done it by now.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 23:43:54

  The images I use are from Stock Xchng (royalty free) and other sources that make it legal. Regarding trademarks, see this.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-21 23:54:30

  Out of interest, ever played a DVD or MP3 on Linux?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-21 23:56:34

  Just MP3s. But I rip my CDs as Ogg Vorbis. I get my codecs with Kaffeine/Amarok.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 00:00:27

  But you HAVE willfully violated Fraunhofer IIS and Thompson (and more) patents in order to play those MP3s, yes? The jealously guarded MP3 patents that lead to mind-blowing action such as Sisvel's swat teams descending on trade shows?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-22 00:15:28

  Yes, but few large distributors that I know of put MP3 in there by default. Remember that it's the big vendors that are potential targets for Philips proxies like Sisvel (OpenMoko is only harassed because it's small).
  
  Keep an eye on a post I'll publish in 5 minutes. It's related to the bundling of Mono by default.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 00:35:11

  Sure, most distros don't have MP3 by default. That's because it's actively enforced, and therefore an active risk. Equally, there are plenty of known-patented things which ARE in by default in some distros, where those patents have never shown signs of being actively enforced (take NTFS support as an example). When things are shown to be an active risk, they disappear
  
  Everyone from Friedman to Stallman is pretty clear on the fact that pretty much any line of code these days can infringe a patent - from Page Down to progress bars to double clicks
  
  It's that active enforcement which, in the case of most distributions, is the trigger. Fedora is often viewed as over-sensitive by users left with largely useless media capabilities (unless your entire collection is already Theora/Vorbis, of course)
  
  You simply cannot write software in today's market without violating someone's bogus patents. The question is how much real-world impact that has. In the case of hawks like Sisvel, a lot. In the case of companies who are sued by patent trolls significantly more than they sue others, Microsoft are simply not a high risk
  
  As has been pointed out to you an infinite number of times, if Microsoft wanted to (and had the ability to do so), they could already start using their big list of patents supposedly violated in just the kernel, and go lawsuit-happy. But I really don't see the business advantage for them to do so. In the end, that's the key - MS are a business, and without a compelling business reason for things, they won't waste their resources on it. Suing a distro for patent infringement would do them more harm than good - for a patent troll, there's no harm to be done, since their business models are purely litigation-based
  
  Every big software company has a fat [software] patent portfolio these days, including angels like Red Hat or IBM. Deploying a nuclear arsenal is a dumb move

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-22 01:27:18

  There's a deficiency in this argument about patents because:
  
  

  1. Mono, unlike some other things, represents a clear-to-see large-scale copy, which may be needed to seem convincing in court, especially after re Bilski
  2. It's possible to remove offending packages or code, whereas it is hard to remove a dependency (many applications depend on Mono)
  3. Never forget the importance of the patenter
  4. NTFS makes itself a necessity for access to some data. Think about FAT and EU, even Samba

• twitter

  2008-11-22 02:20:33

  Jo, mono offends me. This may be because I'm not into "cross platform" development that relies on M$ tools and really have no use for Windows. GTK/Tkl was supposed to be cross platform and free, but C and shell scripting have always gotten my work done. Mostly mono offends because I believe what Roy has uncovered about patent issues around it. Groklaw looked into it and this boils it down easily. Roy's quoting of Novell and M$ executives confirms the problem. It's not like MP3, parts of which free distributions in the US can not distribute, it's like a specific copy of M$ crap that M$ can legitimately claim to own as much as any software deserves to be owned.
  
  Now, you have also been offensive. You have admitted to working hard at pushing mono as a default instal in all distributions. I'm happy that mono and C# do nice things for you and your company as they are. This shows that you don't need it by default and your efforts are simply obnoxious. Your language about Baptist Churches and kooks reinforces this.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-22 02:32:43

  It's worth adding this much older criticism from Seth.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-22 04:40:43

  Out of all of the GNOME developers, he's the only one who criticized it... and that was years and years ago? And he criticized it back when you said it was fine.
  
  I'm sorry, but that's not proof that Mono is dangerous - that's just 1 guy of community of many (who see nothing wrong with Mono) who is ranting about "omgz, M$ is evul"
  
  Maybe, had he bothered to do any research, he would have concluded something else. Maybe that's even why he no longer criticizes Mono. Maybe he got a clue.

• G. Michaels

  2008-11-22 09:31:56

  twitter, you already fell into the usual foot-in-mouth routine with that petty "I don't know who you are" claim, followed by proof of your posts on Jo's blog, and no one here is impressed one bit over what "insults" you, considering you are not and have never been a developer or anything that even resembles that.
  
  So why don't you go back to your corner and let the grown ups talk. These half-assed "I must defend Roy" posts are just embarrassing.
  
  Carry on gentlemen.
  
  Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 10:26:23

  "Now, you have also been offensive. You have admitted to working hard at pushing mono as a default instal in all distributions."
  
  Where?
  
  "Your language about Baptist Churches and kooks reinforces this. "
  
  WBC is not a church, it's a dangerous cult. One which proclaims "thank God for 9/11" and pickets the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. Try Google.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-22 14:36:52

  Haha, twitter is trying to shoot the messenger. I thought Roy and his boys didn't shoot messengers? ;-)
  
  I guess they've just been caught in more hypocrisy.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-22 14:51:18

  What do you want from /me/? Stop trying to discredit people by association.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 15:20:53

  "Stop trying to discredit people by association. "
  
  http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/tomdynia/Ironymeter.jpg

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-22 15:24:19

  Inter-personal association, not affiliation with a company.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 15:53:27

  What's the difference, where Free Software is concerned?
  
  Would, say, talking to Keith Packard on an Xorg channel not count as a relationship with Intel in your book? Or Java packager teams - are they not guilty of "affiliation with" Sun?

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 15:54:21

  And whatever happened to Friday's IRC logs? Decided to stop publishing libel, and keep it as ephemeral slander?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-22 15:56:04

  Would, say, talking to Keith Packard on an Xorg channel not count as a relationship with Intel in your book? Or Java packager teams - are they not guilty of “affiliation with” Sun?

  
  
  Their words should be treated with that in mind. The company they work for represents financial interests. That's why I tend to also check where publications and analysts get their revenue from.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-22 15:57:23

  And whatever happened to Friday’s IRC logs? Decided to stop publishing libel, and keep it as ephemeral slander?

  
  
  I went to sleep at 4AM and went to the gym this morning, so my day started at 1PM. I'll catch up later, thanks for asking.

• twitter

  2008-11-22 16:18:48

  Jo, Roy said
  
  

  I don’t label people anything unless they consistently make considerable attempts to put Mono _by default_ in GNU/Linux distributions that many people

  
  
  You did not deny that was true. Instead you asked him to prove there was some kind of motivation for your doing so. A reasonable person would infer that you actively seek to make mono a default install. A normal person would deny the charge instead of insulting and attempting to undermine the person making it.
  
  You may quibble about my use of the word "all" but "any" is just as offensive to me. No one should be using mono for anything but legacy software porting and that's not something needed by default. The inclusion of mono is a risk to any distribution that uses it and no distribution should suffer M$ interference like that.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-22 16:32:16

  Ubuntu was already shipping Mono by default, afaict Jo has simply been trying to keep the packages up to date.
  
  Besides, if his 1-person-less-than-1-post-per-day-average attempts to get Mono into Ubuntu by default have foiled the combined efforts of yourself, Roy, Slated and Neighborlee's full-scale 100's-of-posts-per-day-average anti-Mono FUD slinging efforts with an attempt at *removing* Mono from Ubuntu, then that clearly indicates that you guys are an epic fail.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 16:33:05

  @Roy "That’s why I tend to also check where publications and analysts get their revenue from."
  
  And when in doubt, make it up? Really, it's not as if it's hard to find my CV, for example, if you wanted actual reality on which to base your attacks on me.
  
  @twitter "No one should be using mono for anything but legacy software porting"
  
  Why is it YOUR call on that front? Mono was not designed with that in mind - DotGNU Portable.NET was. Mono was designed to significantly reduce development time and effort within Ximian, by no longer needing to mess about debugging things like C.
  
  In the case of Ubuntu, which is the distribution I contribute towards, there are two incontrovertible truths: * Mark Shuttleworth, as published on this very site, has no specific fears regarding Mono, and believes that you can't live your life fearful of potential problems. * The Desktop Team make decisions on the applications on which to base the Ubuntu Desktop, and make decisions based purely on suitability for a given task - if a Mono app does not pass the test, then it is not used (as was the case with moving from Beagle to Tracker), and vice versa as well
  
  Ubuntu does not ship Mono by default for the sake of it being Mono - they ship Tomboy and F-Spot by default, plus supporting libraries (which includes the Mono JIT and some libs). If there were compelling apps requiring Java or Haskell or Brainfuck or whatever, then those dependencies would be pulled in too.
  
  I have no interest in pushing a Mono-based solution when it's an inferior choice - only technical superiority interests me, which is the main reason I run an Ubuntu desktop in the first place. And, like Shuttleworth, I don't see Mono as any more at-risk than many other components of my desktop system

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 16:37:21

  "Ubuntu was already shipping Mono by default, afaict Jo has simply been trying to keep the packages up to date"
  
  Mono has shipped in Ubuntu since 5.10 (i.e. over 3 years ago). I know it was in the default Dapper (6.06) version - I don't remember whether it was in by default on Breezy. I certainly didn't start paying attention to it until well after I started using Ubuntu

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-22 16:39:16

  Before Twitter attacks Jo for use of the word 'Brainfuck', I'd like to point out that 'Brainfuck' is an actual programming language. I know Roy and Twitter are too far clueless to realize this without spelling it out for them.
  
  B-r-a-i-n-f-u-c-k

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 16:46:01

  And, for the record, I took a look at some CLI compilers for it lately
  
  The best seemed to be a Python (regular, not Iron) wrapper around the 'ilasm' CIL compiler.
  
  The idea of writing an ASP.NET web service in that kind of language amuses me greatly

• twitter

  2008-11-22 16:50:20

  Ubuntu is not a good example for Red Hat and others to follow. Shuttleworth and Ubuntu are in South Africa and outside of insane US laws. They can ship DeCSS and other free software without fear. If they want to keep shipping in the US, however, they should be very careful of mono and mono based dependencies.
  
  The call is not mine, of course, I only want people to be aware of the facts of M$'s licensing and plans which are well documented thanks to Roy and others. You should consider those facts when making a decision, they are long term impediments to whatever technological superiority you see. You would do better to dump the Windows software in your "mixed environment" that has pulled you into mono in the first place.

• jo Shields

  2008-11-22 16:56:50

  "Shuttleworth and Ubuntu are in South Africa and outside of insane US laws."
  
  Canonical is registered in the UK, actually. And subject to UK law.
  
  "They can ship DeCSS and other free software without fear."
  
  1) DeCSS is not in any Ubuntu repositories, full stop. It's available on one third-party repo.
  
  2) Make your mind up. If DeCSS is Free Software, then so is Mono, by your own logic. If Mono is not "Free" because of the Novell/MS customer patent protection scheme, then DeCSS is not Free either because of the MPEG-LA's patent claims against it
  
  "You would do better to dump the Windows software in your “mixed environment” that has pulled you into mono in the first place. "
  
  I have never written a line of C# on, or for, Windows. I've TESTED on Windows - ensuring cross-platform execution an excellent way to ensure that your software is well written (e.g. not using any platform-specific hooks). But Windows, like Mac OS, is purely a curio for me where CLI is concerned. I had moved to GNU/Linux as my primary desktop platform years before taking an interest in Mono (which, again, my record shows)

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-22 17:21:41

  I wonder if neighborlee (see irc logs) is aware that gmail is not F/OSS software? For someone who bashes free software developers for writing free software that isn't "free enough" for him, I find it strange that he uses proprietary software.
  
  Oh, wait, I forgot - he and the other flag-carrying BoycottNovellers are hypocrites.
  
  So much for him being "holier than thou".

• twitter

  2008-11-23 00:38:22

  Mono may be free software, Jo, but it's still a M$ designed trap. Roy and I have provided links to a former Gnome developer's opinion and Groklaw. Why do you keep going in circles to avoid discussing the real implications of mono use? The case is specific and an honest discussion would be as well.
  
  The fact is that this discussion has been much less than honest. My analysis of this conversation will be published in the logs of today's IRC conversation. Enjoy.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-11-23 01:00:14

  Twitter: there are probably 200 GNOME developers who feel Mono isn't a problem at all, what difference does it make if only 1 GNOME developer /thought/ otherwise over 3 years ago?
  
  Can you even confirm he still feels the same way?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-11-23 01:11:00

  How typical of you to portray situations like this as "one man against the entire world".