Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Frisby, Adam
Glad they did this, clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono.

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:opensim-users-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Opensource Obscure
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 July 2009 10:00 AM
> To: Opensim users
> Subject: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono
> legal concerns
>
>
> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> especially from free-software advocates.
>
> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-
> promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
>
> bye
> Opensource Obscure
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Ethan Gardener
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> especially from free-software advocates.
>
> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars

Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.

--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Kyle Hamilton
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
>> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
>> especially from free-software advocates.
>>
>> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
>> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
>> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
>
> Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.


I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):

The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
England's.

(Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)

This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.

Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

 -Kyle H
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Ethan Gardener
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)

>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*

--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

lamont cranston
Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it does.
  Fact is not FUD.
You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.

I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the public.
What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?


On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)

>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*

--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________



--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Ethan Gardener
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:03:33 -0400
lamont cranston <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter
> intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on
> Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it
> does.
>   Fact is not FUD.
> You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.
>
> I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is
> so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the
> public.
> What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?

Perhaps trying to gain face after wrangling money out of tht GPS maker for FAT filesystem use. Just my guess.

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
> > Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > > > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> > > >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> > > >> especially from free-software advocates.
> > > >>
> > > >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> > > >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> > > >>
> > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> > > >
> > > > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break
> > it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of
> > a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth
> > breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses
> > are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> > > legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
> > >
> > > The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> > > promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> > > rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> > > them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> > > the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> > > they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> > > way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> > > England's.
> >
> > Really good to know, thanks. :)
> >
> > >
> > > (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> > > promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> > > you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
> > >
> > > This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> > > go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> > > have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> > > that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> > > license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
> > >
> > > Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.
> >
> > Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*
> >
> > --
> > Ethan Grammatikidis
> >
> > Those who are slower at parsing information must
> > necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-users mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
> >
>
>
>
> --
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")
>


--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Frisby, Adam
In reply to this post by lamont cranston

Oh lord.

 

The point is quite simple –

Mono is based on the EMCA 334/335 and ISO/IEC23270:2006 standards, those standards allow components within them to be patent, provided they are licensable under ‘RAND’ terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory). The shadow hanging over Mono was that Microsoft could charge a “reasonable” sum for whatever components within that may be patented/[able].

 

By putting EMCA 334/335 into the community pledge means Microsoft has waived the right to collect those terms (in whole.), the exceptions are components of C# which are not in the ECMA standards, these are – ASP.NET (* - although there is a Microsoft implementation in under the MSPL I believe, which voids the threat there[?]), ADO.NET (used for database access to MSSQL, etc), WinForms[?] and some components of the Microsoft.* namespace.

 

Because of this – Mono have started separating their packages, so you can get a ‘clean’ version, and a ‘potentially has issues’ version (ie the version with ASP, ADO, etc). The good news is, OpenSim will run on the ‘clean’ version – the only exception to this will be the MSSQL adapter which relies on ADO.net – however given that anyone using that adapter will also be very likely using .NET, I don’t believe that is a problem.

 

Ubuntu already ships a separated distribution of Mono which allows you to only optionally install the bits that aren’t covered by the patent pledge.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2009 11:04 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it does.
  Fact is not FUD.
You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.

I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the public.
What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)


>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*


--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

lamont cranston
Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26224/1090/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html

De Icaza announced that Mono will be split in half. "In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions," he explains, "One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others."
 
After all the talk that Mono was "harmless",  why the sudden awareness of the risk?
 

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh lord.

 

The point is quite simple –

Mono is based on the EMCA 334/335 and ISO/IEC23270:2006 standards, those standards allow components within them to be patent, provided they are licensable under ‘RAND’ terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory). The shadow hanging over Mono was that Microsoft could charge a “reasonable” sum for whatever components within that may be patented/[able].

 

By putting EMCA 334/335 into the community pledge means Microsoft has waived the right to collect those terms (in whole.), the exceptions are components of C# which are not in the ECMA standards, these are – ASP.NET (* - although there is a Microsoft implementation in under the MSPL I believe, which voids the threat there[?]), ADO.NET (used for database access to MSSQL, etc), WinForms[?] and some components of the Microsoft.* namespace.

 

Because of this – Mono have started separating their packages, so you can get a ‘clean’ version, and a ‘potentially has issues’ version (ie the version with ASP, ADO, etc). The good news is, OpenSim will run on the ‘clean’ version – the only exception to this will be the MSSQL adapter which relies on ADO.net – however given that anyone using that adapter will also be very likely using .NET, I don’t believe that is a problem.

 

Ubuntu already ships a separated distribution of Mono which allows you to only optionally install the bits that aren’t covered by the patent pledge.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2009 11:04 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it does.
  Fact is not FUD.
You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.

I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the public.
What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)


>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*


--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Frisby, Adam

It is harmless.

 

The point is to divide it into “completely paranoid” and “fully functional” distributions. Microsoft’s not going to sue Novell while they are both doing highly profitable consulting together on Linux/Windows integration; and suing something 5-10 years after it starts and you were aware of it, after releasing the original for free (see Rotor); tends to result in the case getting nixed on estoppel.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2009 6:50 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing


http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26224/1090/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html

De Icaza announced that Mono will be split in half. "In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions," he explains, "One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others."
 
After all the talk that Mono was "harmless",  why the sudden awareness of the risk?
 

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh lord.

 

The point is quite simple –

Mono is based on the EMCA 334/335 and ISO/IEC23270:2006 standards, those standards allow components within them to be patent, provided they are licensable under ‘RAND’ terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory). The shadow hanging over Mono was that Microsoft could charge a “reasonable” sum for whatever components within that may be patented/[able].

 

By putting EMCA 334/335 into the community pledge means Microsoft has waived the right to collect those terms (in whole.), the exceptions are components of C# which are not in the ECMA standards, these are – ASP.NET (* - although there is a Microsoft implementation in under the MSPL I believe, which voids the threat there[?]), ADO.NET (used for database access to MSSQL, etc), WinForms[?] and some components of the Microsoft.* namespace.

 

Because of this – Mono have started separating their packages, so you can get a ‘clean’ version, and a ‘potentially has issues’ version (ie the version with ASP, ADO, etc). The good news is, OpenSim will run on the ‘clean’ version – the only exception to this will be the MSSQL adapter which relies on ADO.net – however given that anyone using that adapter will also be very likely using .NET, I don’t believe that is a problem.

 

Ubuntu already ships a separated distribution of Mono which allows you to only optionally install the bits that aren’t covered by the patent pledge.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2009 11:04 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it does.
  Fact is not FUD.
You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.

I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the public.
What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)


>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*


--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

lamont cranston

"
The point is to divide it into “fully functional, with crippled mono” and “legally dubious” distributions.

There, fixed it for you.


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

It is harmless.

 

The point is to divide it into “completely paranoid” and “fully functional” distributions. Microsoft’s not going to sue Novell while they are both doing highly profitable consulting together on Linux/Windows integration; and suing something 5-10 years after it starts and you were aware of it, after releasing the original for free (see Rotor); tends to result in the case getting nixed on estoppel.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2009 6:50 PM


To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing


http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26224/1090/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html

De Icaza announced that Mono will be split in half. "In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions," he explains, "One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others."
 
After all the talk that Mono was "harmless",  why the sudden awareness of the risk?
 

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh lord.

 

The point is quite simple –

Mono is based on the EMCA 334/335 and ISO/IEC23270:2006 standards, those standards allow components within them to be patent, provided they are licensable under ‘RAND’ terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory). The shadow hanging over Mono was that Microsoft could charge a “reasonable” sum for whatever components within that may be patented/[able].

 

By putting EMCA 334/335 into the community pledge means Microsoft has waived the right to collect those terms (in whole.), the exceptions are components of C# which are not in the ECMA standards, these are – ASP.NET (* - although there is a Microsoft implementation in under the MSPL I believe, which voids the threat there[?]), ADO.NET (used for database access to MSSQL, etc), WinForms[?] and some components of the Microsoft.* namespace.

 

Because of this – Mono have started separating their packages, so you can get a ‘clean’ version, and a ‘potentially has issues’ version (ie the version with ASP, ADO, etc). The good news is, OpenSim will run on the ‘clean’ version – the only exception to this will be the MSSQL adapter which relies on ADO.net – however given that anyone using that adapter will also be very likely using .NET, I don’t believe that is a problem.

 

Ubuntu already ships a separated distribution of Mono which allows you to only optionally install the bits that aren’t covered by the patent pledge.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2009 11:04 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it does.
  Fact is not FUD.
You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.

I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the public.
What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)


>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*


--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Frisby, Adam

Sure, if you want to define missing ADO.NET & ASP as crippled – Mono is quite functional without those two components (they aren’t part of any standard). I would wager and say at least 70-80% of Mono-compatible software will run without adjustment if either of those are missing (perhaps higher)

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2009 4:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 


"The point is to divide it into “fully functional, with crippled mono” and “legally dubious” distributions.


There, fixed it for you.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

It is harmless.

 

The point is to divide it into “completely paranoid” and “fully functional” distributions. Microsoft’s not going to sue Novell while they are both doing highly profitable consulting together on Linux/Windows integration; and suing something 5-10 years after it starts and you were aware of it, after releasing the original for free (see Rotor); tends to result in the case getting nixed on estoppel.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2009 6:50 PM


To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing


http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26224/1090/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html

De Icaza announced that Mono will be split in half. "In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions," he explains, "One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others."
 
After all the talk that Mono was "harmless",  why the sudden awareness of the risk?
 

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh lord.

 

The point is quite simple –

Mono is based on the EMCA 334/335 and ISO/IEC23270:2006 standards, those standards allow components within them to be patent, provided they are licensable under ‘RAND’ terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory). The shadow hanging over Mono was that Microsoft could charge a “reasonable” sum for whatever components within that may be patented/[able].

 

By putting EMCA 334/335 into the community pledge means Microsoft has waived the right to collect those terms (in whole.), the exceptions are components of C# which are not in the ECMA standards, these are – ASP.NET (* - although there is a Microsoft implementation in under the MSPL I believe, which voids the threat there[?]), ADO.NET (used for database access to MSSQL, etc), WinForms[?] and some components of the Microsoft.* namespace.

 

Because of this – Mono have started separating their packages, so you can get a ‘clean’ version, and a ‘potentially has issues’ version (ie the version with ASP, ADO, etc). The good news is, OpenSim will run on the ‘clean’ version – the only exception to this will be the MSSQL adapter which relies on ADO.net – however given that anyone using that adapter will also be very likely using .NET, I don’t believe that is a problem.

 

Ubuntu already ships a separated distribution of Mono which allows you to only optionally install the bits that aren’t covered by the patent pledge.

 

Adam

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2009 11:04 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

 

Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it does.
  Fact is not FUD.
You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.

I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the public.
What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)


>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*


--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users




--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users