Considering what happened with the Microsoft JVM (yes, one existed) and how Sun slammed them with patent infringements I would:
- Be more concerned about Java
- Have more trust in Microsoft because they know what thats like.

Not-withstanding the fact that it is a ECMA standard, and that Microsoft published the legally binding community promise.

Mono FTW. IMHO Linux – Juvenile = Mono. It is the one part of Linux I can actually bring myself to use, because I am guaranteed that someone who doesnt go rampant spreading FUD wrote the lines of code behind the compiler. And by all means he probably didnt have acne either.

Yes I think MS is the only *significantly powerful, adequately motivated and historically confirmed* patent threat in the world. Would you argue they aren’t in a unique position?

Not significantly so. In the general case, people sue MS for patent infringement, not the reverse. Software patent attacks in history (e.g. against Java or AJAX) have come from independent third parties like Kodak or Eolas

Yes I think MS won’t change their practices *because* not doing so harms their business

In 2009 and beyond, Microsoft CANNOT rely on the business practices of 1999, because their customers by and large won’t stand for it. They’re losing market segments fast – mobile, fr’example, and a large part of what attracts people in the segments they’re losing is the degree of flexibility and Freedom which Linux or other Free technologies offer them.

In order to compete, they need to adapt, as ANY business knows. Nintendo don’t still exclusively make playing cards, GE do more than just light bulbs. Adapt or die – and as much as it might pain some within the corporation, some degree of change is required for Microsoft’s continued survival.

Yes I think anyone who actually matters in MS is in line with Ballmer’s ideas, the rest don’t make a difference.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Ballmer’s “cancer” statements came in 2001, and Microsoft’s first release of something under a FSF-Free license (CPL) came in 2004. I’m not sure I’d agree with the assertion that small difference is no difference.

But no, I don’t think *anyone* who won’t attack Mono developers is based in malice or bribery. Actually that last one was a straw man and didn’t deserve to be answered and I like how you phrased it “attack Mono developers” real cute.

I, personally, have been called a cockroach, accused of spreading cancer, and had my CV pored over and summed up as “office boy”, by assorted anti-Mono folks. Now tell me that’s classy.

If MS is so much interested in getting .NET into FOSS and if they really really really really really will never use the patent against distros then Why. Don’t. They. Release. The. FUCKING. License?

And the long-form birth certificate too?

Since you aren’t happy with their previous effort, how about YOU pen a replacement, post it up on the intertubes, and contact parties (such as de Icaza) who can put it in front of the movers and shakers?

The same apologists that preach how MS is so good for Open Source because Novell got more out of the deal are also the first to insist those are two completely unrelated deals when anyone starts joining the dots.

The Oasis promise was from Sun, not ORACLE, and I was not pleased, but even now, I trust MS main competitors to safekeep ODF relatively enough, while the patents last. The real question being what ORACLE is going to do to MySQL, for instance.

To dispel your accusations, or most probably confirm them.

Yes I think MS is the only *significantly powerful, adequately motivated and historically confirmed* patent threat in the world. Would you argue they aren’t in a unique position?
Yes I think MS won’t change their practices *because* not doing so harms their business
Yes I think anyone who actually matters in MS is in line with Ballmer’s ideas, the rest don’t make a difference.
But no, I don’t think *anyone* who won’t attack Mono developers is based in malice or bribery. Actually that last one was a straw man and didn’t deserve to be answered and I like how you phrased it “attack Mono developers” real cute.

Alas, I didn’t get a clear statement on who you are accusing of lying, I guess I’ll have to search the entire Internet to see who you are talking about, not. Actually since RMS has done much more than you ever will for the future of the free desktop I think he’s got a clue what’s going. I dunno about Boycott Novell, I focus more on the groups I mentioned, but what is this lie that the site spread and why do you know it is a lie? And what of the attempt from MS to sell patents away from its promises? You never address the matter directly but insist that MS wouldn’t do anything against Open Source ever.

Time will tell, the irony being that how likely you are of being “proven right” is inversely proportional to how deep .NET gets into FOSS, so for the logevity of your favorite platform I hope it doesn’t spread too much.

An to think that this would get resolved with a license so easily, but why demand legal reassurance from a convicted monopolist that totally loves us when you can ask *everyone else* to block out the sun with a finger?

If MS is so much interested in getting .NET into FOSS and if they really really really really really will never use the patent against distros then Why. Don’t. They. Release. The. FUCKING. License?

@directhex, thank you, I’ll be sure to print that MS page, however as I was afraid that link does not provide any license, it’s just the “promise not to sue” for patents MS owns, what happens if the patents are sold to patent trolls like MS tried to do recently (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Why-Did-Microsoft-Sell-Off-22-LinuxRelated-Patents-618335/) it seems MS as a very easy an legal way out of its promises, a license would fix that overnight.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php – almost identical wording from Sun on ODF’s “promise not to sue”. So either you weren’t aware that this is pretty normal wording, or your argument is simply that Oracle is a super-duper trustworthy company.

In fact I found an FSF article stating just that so it’s not like I’m the only one worry exactly that (http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono in “Moving the Goalposts”).

It would be lovely if the above link didn’t contain factual errors and gross misunderstanding of the technology – or made even the slightest effort to actually address the issues they “raise”. Or if they could not have the double standard with other “promise not to sue” patent promises from people they actually aren’t digging up dirt on.

I can’t believe you didn’t know about the $40 million dollar agreement between Novel and MS! It can be found *anywhere* in the tubes, here take some links:
http://www.novell.com/news/press/novell_outlines_details_of_agreement_with_microsoft
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-paying-Novell-308-million-for-Linux-pact/2100-1014_3-6133361.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell#Agreement_with_Microsoft

I didn’t pay much attention to the paper figures – the only actual transfer of money was from Microsoft to Novell, for an order of magnitude more than your quoted figure.

Oh, and let’s not ignore the number of low-level patents held by Novell on core eCommerce stuff. The whole patent deal was as much a question for Microsoft as for Novell.

You constantly repeat that this is just an stunt show for PR from Novell, and also that patent infringing code can be re-written trivially if necessary. My case is that that Novell legal and development teams didn’t find it so trivial.

You think the entire thing was only about Mono? There’s an awful lot more of SLE than just Mono, y’know.

That’s why RMS is not arguing that .NET should not be implemented (see DotGNU) or that existing C# apps are evil, just that we shouldn’t use C# for new apps and replace existing one if possible,

By “replace” you mean “lobby to have all C# apps and libs purged from gNewSense’s optional repositories” which is what RMS has been up to. There’s a bit of a difference between those.

my answer to your question, why is mono a controversy now when it is so old? Personally it just recently became an issue for me because the motion to move Banshee into the default installation.

The default install already contains F-Spot and Tomboy, and the Ubuntu technical board have made their feelings on Mono clear – as has Shuttleworth independently (to summarize: “We’ll react to real patent threats, not imaginary ones”). They’ve been in the default install since 2006. Until the Ubuntu Technical Board’s policy is changed, or a *genuine* threat regarding Mono appears, or better non-Mono apps materialize, then the status quo remains.

I don’t want you to say I’m misinterpreting you so let me clarify, it seems you said that “the fear is genuine but it is spread dishonestly”, dishonesty means lying, making false statements (even by silence) so what is the lie that we are spreading? That MS promises have too much weasel room? That MS has declared FOSS a competitor it has to outsmart? That MS has a long history of screwing up partners in legal technicalities? What is the false assumption we, or at least myself am spreading with it being true?

The assumption that Microsoft is the only patent threat in the world.

The assumption that Microsoft won’t change their practices where not doing so harms their business

The assumption that every single person at Microsoft Corp is cloned from Steve Ballmer’s DNA template.

And the assumption that the actions of anyone who won’t attack Mono developers is based in malice or bribery.

There’s your starting point.

Also you mention some sources lie, can I get a clear statement of which sources these are? Is the FSF lying? Groklaw? the EFF?

General case? Anyone who has ever considered Boycott Novell to be a credible source, anyone who’s ever cited it, or anyone who has ever read it and thought “oh, of course”. Corrupt knowledge is infectious, you’d be surprised – I realised just how dangerous the site was when I found one of my assumptions regarding the Novell/MS deal was false but heavily cited – and traceable back to that site as its source.