Comments on: Why I disagree with RMS concerning Mono http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/ Dave Neary's view of the world Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:17:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Georg Smith http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2345 Georg Smith Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:20:33 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2345 Look before you leap, talk privately to judges and measure your likelihood of success first. Then get some rich backers and away you go. Fingers crossed:-) G S Look before you leap, talk privately to judges and measure your likelihood of success first. Then get some rich backers and away you go. Fingers crossed:-)

G S

]]> By: Why I agree with RMS concerning Mono | ][ stefano maffulli http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2323 Why I agree with RMS concerning Mono | ][ stefano maffulli Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:54:48 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2323 [...] on. I’ve read and agree with most of the poins made by the Ubuntu Technical Board and Dave Neary. In other circumstances I would have agreed with him also on this one: I fundamentally disagree [...] [...] on. I’ve read and agree with most of the poins made by the Ubuntu Technical Board and Dave Neary. In other circumstances I would have agreed with him also on this one: I fundamentally disagree [...]

]]> By: Forza Mono « MadBob http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2223 Forza Mono « MadBob Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:52:27 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2223 [...] sue implicazioni legali con Microsoft, prima si e’ vista una (del resto forse legittima) carrellata di commenti contrari, ma subito dopo molti hanno sentito il bisogno di sbeffeggiare la sua persona, [...] [...] sue implicazioni legali con Microsoft, prima si e’ vista una (del resto forse legittima) carrellata di commenti contrari, ma subito dopo molti hanno sentito il bisogno di sbeffeggiare la sua persona, [...]

]]> By: Safe as Milk » Blog Archive » Gran Canaria wrap-up 1 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2187 Safe as Milk » Blog Archive » Gran Canaria wrap-up 1 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:05:29 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2187 [...] even at the conference. The meme seems to be speaking more to Richard’s Mono comments (my opinion here) rather than the Emacs virgins segment, but it’s sufficiently ambiguous that I can’t [...] [...] even at the conference. The meme seems to be speaking more to Richard’s Mono comments (my opinion here) rather than the Emacs virgins segment, but it’s sufficiently ambiguous that I can’t [...]

]]> By: Another Angle on Personal Attacks from Mono | Boycott Novell http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2186 Another Angle on Personal Attacks from Mono | Boycott Novell Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:56:19 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2186 [...] more polite response to Stallman does exist and it addresses technical issues alone (i.e. no character assassinations, which usually [...] [...] more polite response to Stallman does exist and it addresses technical issues alone (i.e. no character assassinations, which usually [...]

]]> By: Sinhalen FOSS » Blog Archive » Podcast Episode 27: මයික්‍රොසොෆ්ට් උබුන්ටු. http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2184 Sinhalen FOSS » Blog Archive » Podcast Episode 27: මයික්‍රොසොෆ්ට් උබුන්ටු. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:23:21 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2184 [...] Gnome official blog disagreeing RMS [...] [...] Gnome official blog disagreeing RMS [...]

]]> By: Sam Varghese http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2183 Sam Varghese Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:16:08 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2183 Neary If you can't see the point I made, then you are more obtuse than I first thought. Do you know for a fact that Fedora includes F-Spot in the default install? Have you seen it firsthand? Did you read the Fedora announcement carefully? if not, go back and read it. The use of weak humour to try and cover the fact that you really have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticising what I wrote, is the refuge of someone who is devoid of any kind of integrity. When something is correct, have the grace to do so. Neary

If you can’t see the point I made, then you are more obtuse than I first thought.

Do you know for a fact that Fedora includes F-Spot in the default install? Have you seen it firsthand?

Did you read the Fedora announcement carefully? if not, go back and read it.

The use of weak humour to try and cover the fact that you really have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticising what I wrote, is the refuge of someone who is devoid of any kind of integrity.

When something is correct, have the grace to do so.

]]> By: Dave Neary http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2182 Dave Neary Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:51:05 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2182 @Texrat: I don't believe that the patent system is evil, I believe that it has, put simply, become unpractical. And thus needs to be changed. It is kind of like a mailing list which starts out very high quality, and at some stage you start getting spam. First not that much, but as time goes by you get more & more. What do you do? You create a new mailing list & close down the old one, and you try to have better spam protection. The idea of the patent system is not bad, but its spam filter is not sufficiently developped, and thus there are many bad patents. The main problem with the patent system is that resolving a patent conflict is very costly, so people try to avoid at all cost patent conflict. So we need to either: ensure that there are no (or fewer) bad patents, reduce the cost and shift the burden of proof for patent infringement cases, and identify classes of things which are not patentable, in the interests of the public, and re-examine the patent system in light of its original goals. Don't forget that the patent system was founded to allow knowledge to spread by having people reveal otherwise private information in exchange for a limited monopoly. That limited monopoly is now 28 years, which is a long long time for IT. And software patents don't actually share any knowledge, they're written to obscure the knowledge and be as broad as possible. So we should work to reduce the limited protection provided to patent holder, and ensure that patent holders provide sufficient information for anyone to implement the patentable algorithm. For a computer invention, that would imply publishing source code. @Texrat: I don’t believe that the patent system is evil, I believe that it has, put simply, become unpractical. And thus needs to be changed. It is kind of like a mailing list which starts out very high quality, and at some stage you start getting spam. First not that much, but as time goes by you get more & more. What do you do? You create a new mailing list & close down the old one, and you try to have better spam protection. The idea of the patent system is not bad, but its spam filter is not sufficiently developped, and thus there are many bad patents. The main problem with the patent system is that resolving a patent conflict is very costly, so people try to avoid at all cost patent conflict. So we need to either: ensure that there are no (or fewer) bad patents, reduce the cost and shift the burden of proof for patent infringement cases, and identify classes of things which are not patentable, in the interests of the public, and re-examine the patent system in light of its original goals.

Don’t forget that the patent system was founded to allow knowledge to spread by having people reveal otherwise private information in exchange for a limited monopoly. That limited monopoly is now 28 years, which is a long long time for IT. And software patents don’t actually share any knowledge, they’re written to obscure the knowledge and be as broad as possible. So we should work to reduce the limited protection provided to patent holder, and ensure that patent holders provide sufficient information for anyone to implement the patentable algorithm. For a computer invention, that would imply publishing source code.

]]> By: Texrat http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2181 Texrat Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:13:08 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2181 IMO patents are a necessary evil and not to blame here per se-- rather, it is the increasingly burdensome law wrapped around the concept. I agree current law should be challenged (should we start a fund?) but disagree with anyone stating unequivocably that the patent concept needs to be scrapped. It just needs to be rationalized. Along those lines, IMO far too many software patents actually violate the typical patent gauntlet and should be invalidated outright. And business process patents? Idiotic. IMO patents are a necessary evil and not to blame here per se– rather, it is the increasingly burdensome law wrapped around the concept.

I agree current law should be challenged (should we start a fund?) but disagree with anyone stating unequivocably that the patent concept needs to be scrapped. It just needs to be rationalized. Along those lines, IMO far too many software patents actually violate the typical patent gauntlet and should be invalidated outright. And business process patents? Idiotic.

]]> By: PL Hayes http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-rms-concerning-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-2180 PL Hayes Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:33:55 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/?p=942#comment-2180 ““GNOME 3.0 may have more Mono apps“. And indeed it may. It may also have more alien technology¹, we’re not sure yet.” Common Lisp? Really? Now that /would/ be a change for the better ;-) On a - slightly - more serious note... Frank Fox, James B. and others are right: the problems and potential problems caused by software patents range from the highly visible but more or less inconsequential to the insidious but profoundly consequential. It seems to me that the Mono issue is a case of the latter. The (world class) IP/business strategists at Microsoft and elsewhere truly believe that you and I are using their property gratis and without their permission. They've said publicly that they want 'respect' for their 'intellectual property'² and the way patent economics works, large portfolio holders do actually aim to maximise revenue and control but in such a way as to minimise overt conflict and litigation.³ Unless and until economic (and ethical) literacy and sanity are restored to patent system policy and practice, I think they should be given as little concrete 'justification' for and opportunity to act upon their beliefs and business strategies as possible. ¹ http://lispers.org/ ² http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=265 -- highly ironic of course given that in an area like software, it's not unreasonable to regard (a large proportion of) the patents themselves as 'IP theft'. ³ http://anticipatethis.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/review-burning-the-ships-intellectual-property-and-the-transformation-of-microsoft/ http://wiki.ffii.org/Rahnasto03En "I'm not running a litigation shop, I'm running a licensing shop." -- Marshall Phelps. ““GNOME 3.0 may have more Mono apps“. And indeed it may. It may also have more alien technology¹, we’re not sure yet.”

Common Lisp? Really? Now that /would/ be a change for the better ;-)

On a – slightly – more serious note… Frank Fox, James B. and others are right: the problems and potential problems caused by software patents range from the highly visible but more or less inconsequential to the insidious but profoundly consequential. It seems to me that the Mono issue is a case of the latter. The (world class) IP/business strategists at Microsoft and elsewhere truly believe that you and I are using their property gratis and without their permission. They’ve said publicly that they want ‘respect’ for their ‘intellectual property’² and the way patent economics works, large portfolio holders do actually aim to maximise revenue and control but in such a way as to minimise overt conflict and litigation.³ Unless and until economic (and ethical) literacy and sanity are restored to patent system policy and practice, I think they should be given as little concrete ‘justification’ for and opportunity to act upon their beliefs and business strategies as possible.

¹ http://lispers.org/

² http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=265 — highly ironic of course given that in an area like software, it’s not unreasonable to regard (a large proportion of) the patents themselves as ‘IP theft’.

³ http://anticipatethis.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/review-burning-the-ships-intellectual-property-and-the-transformation-of-microsoft/
http://wiki.ffii.org/Rahnasto03En
“I’m not running a litigation shop, I’m running a licensing shop.” — Marshall Phelps.

]]>