Microsoft's Empty "Community Promise" (Mono) is a Sham
Homer
Misdirection is a curious thing, and in the hands of Microsoft
"evangelists" (such as Miguel de Icaza), it's positively dangerous.
Apparently, Microsoft's Pet Monkey, de Icaza, is slavering [1] over the
Vole's recent announcement [2] that they "will be applying the Community
Promise [3] to the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specs".
That's nice.
So now the pro-MONOpolists have three things to cheer about:
1. Poisoning Free Software with Microsoft's IP (and paradigm)
2. The ECMA RAND /price/ guarantee
3. Microsoft's misleading "covenant"
Let's look at these in more detail.
First, if we naively assume there are in fact zero "IP" risks involved
in implementing C#/CLI, that still leaves the question of why should the
Free Software community help spread Microsoft's standards, regardless of
how "safe" any of those standards might be?
After all, Microsoft is the self-declared enemy of Free Software, they
think it's "a cancer", and that GNU/Linux is "Microsoft's number one
competitor". Their criminal and unethical behaviour /alone/, over the
last three decades, should be sufficient reason to not want to help
them, but given the very obvious conflicts of interest here, I'd say
it's patently obvious there must be a catch. Microsoft is not the sort
of company that helps its competitors ... ever, not unless it can work
some nefarious angle (embrace, extend, and extinguish).
Historically, and still to this day (OOXML), Microsoft uses it's
proprietary, reinvented "standards" to try to squash all competition, by
tying those "standards" to software that's bundled with nearly /all/
PCs, by OEMs, under financial coercion [4] [5].
Bear in mind that this devious "standards" tactic is the key weapon
Microsoft uses to protect its monopoly.
Is this something we should be /helping/ them with?
The second point, and I'll make it brief since there's very little to
discuss about it, is that the ECMA RAND is /only/ a guarantee of fair
/price/ (parity). It has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft's
rights to sue you for patent violation. A classic misdirection used by
the pro-MONOpolists.
The final, and most pertinent point, is that Microsoft's so-called
"Community Promise" is just another misdirection, because its "truths"
are incomplete, in some cases questionable, and in yet other cases
wholly irrelevant (essentially non sequitur).
Here's a simple analysis:
The "covenant" (and the RAND) do /not/ apply to large portions of .NET
(e.g. ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Winforms). This is significant because it
means .NET programs which utilise these components will not be (legally)
interoperable with systems running Mono. This means there will be great
disparity between C# programs on Windows and their ports on GNU/Linux,
and this fact will be abused by Microsoft to promote Windows as the
"better" system. It will also have the effect of attracting Mono
developers over to Windows, who may subsequently abandon GNU/Linux. It
may even represent an actual "IP" risk, if de Icaza and friends are not
entirely vigilant (or possibly if they're complicit with Microsoft's
anti-Free Software agenda. At this point, anything's possible).
The "covenant" conveniently ignores these essential details.
Microsoft also makes a big deal out of its claim that this "covenant" is
"legally binding". Well, is it? Not really. It's not legally binding in
the sense that an actual patent /grant/ is, since that is an explicit
/contract/ with a named party. It /may become/ legally binding ... if
used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually /need/ to
be tested in court /first/. If you were, for example, Red Hat, would
/you/ want to be the guinea pig? Oh how the Vole would /love/ the
opportunity to squash /that/ piggy.
In fact, it's debatable whether they'd even be covered by this
"covenant" at /all/, since (in Microsoft's own words) "The CP applies
only if the implementation conforms fully to required portions of the
specification. Partial implementations are not covered" ... and "The
Community Promise applies to all *existing* versions of the
specifications". So this raises the questions what is covered, and
exactly how feasible is it to implement this "full specification" under
Mono (or DotGNU, or any other unlicensed implementation)? Even more
importantly, what /will not/ be covered in the future, as and when the
specifications change?
Oh yes, Microsoft also make a big deal about their claim that these
rights are "irrevocable", but they fail to clarify that these
"irrevocable rights" only apply to the standard as it stands /today/.
And we all know how Microsoft loves to "extend" things, don't we?
So in summary, Microsoft's "promise" is worthless, irrelevant, and
entirely misleading. I'm sure it'll bring a brief moment of euphoria to
the pro-MONOpolists, who will now believe they have a new argument to
support their aspirations to poison Free Software with Microsoft's
toxin, but in the long term it amounts to nothing. Nothing but trouble,
at least.
References:
[1]<http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html>
[2]<http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx>
[3]<http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx>
[4]<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090619161307529>
[5]http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
01:18:32 up 40 days, 5:16, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Hans. Lister
> So in summary, Microsoft's "promise" is worthless, irrelevant, and
> entirely misleading. I'm sure it'll bring a brief moment of euphoria to
> the pro-MONOpolists, who will now believe they have a new argument to
> support their aspirations to poison Free Software with Microsoft's
> toxin, but in the long term it amounts to nothing. Nothing but trouble,
> at least.
Nurse Ratchet!!
Medication please!
Ezekiel
"Hans. Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1nnieue4xptnd$.xdymivwwc63x.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that the FSF legal community needs to weigh in on this. I'm much
more likely to believe their opinion of what Microsoft announced then what
some raving nut (companies should give away their technology for free) has
to say.
Erik Funkenbusch
> First, if we naively assume there are in fact zero "IP" risks involved
> in implementing C#/CLI, that still leaves the question of why should the
> Free Software community help spread Microsoft's standards, regardless of
> how "safe" any of those standards might be?
Because it's good technology. Do you really think good technology should
be banished simply because you don't like it's inventor? Talk about
cutting off your head to spite your toenail.
All you're doing is spreading FUD. Pure and simple.
> The second point, and I'll make it brief since there's very little to
> discuss about it, is that the ECMA RAND is /only/ a guarantee of fair
> /price/ (parity). It has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft's
> rights to sue you for patent violation. A classic misdirection used by
> the pro-MONOpolists.
ECMA's RAND policy is no longer relevant. The CP circumvents it.
> The final, and most pertinent point, is that Microsoft's so-called
> "Community Promise" is just another misdirection, because its "truths"
> are incomplete, in some cases questionable, and in yet other cases
> wholly irrelevant (essentially non sequitur).
Coming from someone with absolutely zero credentials to make those claims.
> Here's a simple analysis:
"simple" as in "simple jack".
> The "covenant" (and the RAND) do /not/ apply to large portions of .NET
> (e.g. ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Winforms).
That's irrelevant, because it's not important to the issue of Mono
applications written for Mono.
> This is significant because it
> means .NET programs which utilise these components will not be (legally)
> interoperable with systems running Mono.
You say that matter of factly, but it's anything but fact. It's possible
an app may not be legally interoperable, but this is not really known for
sure one way or the other. Your assurance that it won't be is an
exageration of the reality.
Having said that, it still makes no difference. Mono Apps written to
C#/CLI that don't use those portions of Mono (as in, every Gnome app
written in Mono so far) doesn't use those libraries.
You keep harping on this, because it's the only thing you *can* harp on.
> This means there will be great
> disparity between C# programs on Windows and their ports on GNU/Linux,
Many consider GTK# to be far better than Winforms, especially on
non-windows platforms.
Do you really have so little confidence in Open Source's ability to write
better code than Microsoft?
> and this fact will be abused by Microsoft to promote Windows as the
> "better" system. It will also have the effect of attracting Mono
> developers over to Windows, who may subsequently abandon GNU/Linux. It
> may even represent an actual "IP" risk, if de Icaza and friends are not
> entirely vigilant (or possibly if they're complicit with Microsoft's
> anti-Free Software agenda. At this point, anything's possible).
No, it's not. Miguel has been very pro-active in keeping the ECMA/ISO
stuff seperated from the .NET stuff. They've been doing this for years.
He's now taking an even bigger step in making them completely seperate
projects.
You're being awfully disingenuous here, and your insults are not very
subtle.
> The "covenant" conveniently ignores these essential details.
No, it doesn't, because it doesn't matter. Microsoft is providing a very
specific set of rights here.
> Microsoft also makes a big deal out of its claim that this "covenant" is
> "legally binding". Well, is it? Not really.
Yes, really. You're not a lawyer. You don't even have a cursory knowledge
of law. If you did, you'd know that promisary estoppel is completely and
100% legally binding.
> It's not legally binding in
> the sense that an actual patent /grant/ is
Yes, it is. Why don't you look up promisary estoppel before you open your
trap about it again?
> since that is an explicit
> /contract/ with a named party. It /may become/ legally binding ... if
> used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually /need/ to
> be tested in court /first/. If you were, for example, Red Hat, would
> /you/ want to be the guinea pig? Oh how the Vole would /love/ the
> opportunity to squash /that/ piggy.
Oh, gee.. funny how the "it's not tested in court" arguments come out.. The
GPL has never been tested in court either. Every single case has been
settled out of court, or adjudicated on some other point of law having
nothing to do with the GPL.
> In fact, it's debatable whether they'd even be covered by this
> "covenant" at /all/, since (in Microsoft's own words) "The CP applies
> only if the implementation conforms fully to required portions of the
> specification. Partial implementations are not covered" ... and "The
> Community Promise applies to all *existing* versions of the
> specifications". So this raises the questions what is covered, and
> exactly how feasible is it to implement this "full specification" under
> Mono (or DotGNU, or any other unlicensed implementation)? Even more
> importantly, what /will not/ be covered in the future, as and when the
> specifications change?
Mono completely implements the ECMA standard. 100%. Of course you'd
rather speculate on things you know nothing about, though.
> Oh yes, Microsoft also make a big deal about their claim that these
> rights are "irrevocable", but they fail to clarify that these
> "irrevocable rights" only apply to the standard as it stands /today/.
> And we all know how Microsoft loves to "extend" things, don't we?
Gee, then you should be completely upset about ODF then. The Sun patent
pledge only covers ODF version 1.0, and it only covers versions of the
standard Sun has actively been involved with the development.
Why is it you don't seem to care about that?
> So in summary, Microsoft's "promise" is worthless, irrelevant, and
> entirely misleading.
No, in Summary you don't understand what you're critizing, don't understand
law, and want to think you're an expert.. but surprise, you're an
ignoramus.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> Microsoft also makes a big deal out of its claim that this "covenant" is
> "legally binding". Well, is it? Not really. It's not legally binding in
> the sense that an actual patent /grant/ is, since that is an explicit
> /contract/ with a named party. It /may become/ legally binding ... if
> used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually /need/ to
> be tested in court /first/. If you were, for example, Red Hat, would
> /you/ want to be the guinea pig? Oh how the Vole would /love/ the
> opportunity to squash /that/ piggy.
Wrong. It's legally binding because it *is* a contract. It's got an
offer, acceptance by action, and a substitute for consideration. There
is no question that it is enforceable.
--
--Tim Smith
Mart van de Wege
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:18:55 +0100, Homer wrote:
<snip>
>> The final, and most pertinent point, is that Microsoft's so-called
>> "Community Promise" is just another misdirection, because its "truths"
>> are incomplete, in some cases questionable, and in yet other cases
>> wholly irrelevant (essentially non sequitur).
>
> Coming from someone with absolutely zero credentials to make those claims.
Erik, arguing credentials?
On *this* particular subject? *Who* was it that kept defending the
non-existance of this Community Presence?
Why don't you fuck off, you hypocrite?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
7
> ...or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Look at the Wookie.
>
> Misdirection is a curious thing, and in the hands of Microsoft
> "evangelists" (such as Miguel de Icaza), it's positively dangerous.
After all, if micoshaft is genuine about their committment,
they can GPL their product and never worry about having
to go back on their own marketing promises.
Micoshaft marketing plops holding gun to head is not
a manageable risk. They will pull the trigger to convert
their advantage to money under pressure / provocation.
WayneB
legally binding promise.
It's never been tested in court.
So fuck off leech. If you don't like it, why don't you man up and
build something better?
On Jul 8, 6:06 am, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Homer wrote:
> > ...or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Look at the Wookie.
>
> > Misdirection is a curious thing, and in the hands of Microsoft
> > "evangelists" (such as Miguel de Icaza), it's positively dangerous.
>
> After all, if micoshaft is genuine about their committment,
> they can GPL their product and never worry about having
> to go back on their own marketing promises.
>
> Micoshaft marketing plops holding gun to head is not
> a manageable risk. They will pull the trigger to convert
> their advantage to money under pressure / provocation.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Apparently, Microsoft's Pet Monkey, de Icaza, is slavering [1] over the
> > Vole's recent announcement [2] that they "will be applying theCommunity
> >Promise[3] to the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specs".
>
> > That's nice.
>
> > So now the pro-MONOpolists have three things to cheer about:
>
> > 1. Poisoning Free Software with Microsoft's IP (and paradigm)
> > 2. The ECMA RAND /price/ guarantee
> > 3. Microsoft's misleading "covenant"
>
> > Let's look at these in more detail.
>
> > First, if we naively assume there are in fact zero "IP" risks involved
> > in implementing C#/CLI, that still leaves the question of why should the
> > Free Softwarecommunityhelp spread Microsoft's standards, regardless of
> > how "safe" any of those standards might be?
>
> > After all, Microsoft is the self-declared enemy of Free Software, they
> > think it's "a cancer", and that GNU/Linux is "Microsoft's number one
> > competitor". Their criminal and unethical behaviour /alone/, over the
> > last three decades, should be sufficient reason to not want to help
> > them, but given the very obvious conflicts of interest here, I'd say
> > it's patently obvious there must be a catch. Microsoft is not the sort
> > of company that helps its competitors ... ever, not unless it can work
> > some nefarious angle (embrace, extend, and extinguish).
>
> > Historically, and still to this day (OOXML), Microsoft uses it's
> > proprietary, reinvented "standards" to try to squash all competition, by
> > tying those "standards" to software that's bundled with nearly /all/
> > PCs, by OEMs, under financial coercion [4] [5].
>
> > Bear in mind that this devious "standards" tactic is the key weapon
> > Microsoft uses to protect its monopoly.
>
> > Is this something we should be /helping/ them with?
>
> > The second point, and I'll make it brief since there's very little to
> > discuss about it, is that the ECMA RAND is /only/ a guarantee of fair
> > /price/ (parity). It has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft's
> > rights to sue you for patent violation. A classic misdirection used by
> > the pro-MONOpolists.
>
> > The final, and most pertinent point, is that Microsoft's so-called
> > "CommunityPromise" is just another misdirection, because its "truths"
> >CommunityPromiseapplies to all *existing* versions of the