Flash Advertise
| Mono: Shielding the facts |
| 摘自: www.itwire.com 被阅读次数: 1104 |
由 yangyi 于 2009-07-03 22:29:44 提供 |
Should FOSS users be concerned about the software they use, in case it opens them up to copyright, trademark or patent claims? Or should such concerns be left exclusively to developers? One would think that in the case of FOSS, the user is as much a player as the developer. After all, when Richard Matthew Stallman kicked off the whole free software movement in the 1980s, he had the user at the centre of his movement. But if one were to believe Jo Shields, a Mono advocate, the user should merely shut his or her mouth and just use whatever is created. In what one can only term breathtaking arrogance, Shields had this to say in an essay advocating the use of Mono: "... the vast majority of the anti-Mono crowd are not developers or packagers - they are back-seat drivers. They make proclamations about how other developers (who are surrendering their time to developer Free Software) should instead use the framework of THEIR choice, not the developer's. This is another reason why anti-Mono arguments are given so little respect - the sheer cheek, the PRESUMPTION that they somehow are in a position to make demands of other developers, is galling. Free Software is a meritocracy - those who do things earn respect. Until the anti-Mono crowd actually make a contribution to Free Software, they will continue to be treated as cranks - and their questions left unanswered." (Before I go any further, for the uninitiated, Mono is an attempt by Novell vice-president Miguel de Icaza to create an open source clone of Microsoft's .NET development environment.) So, according to Shields, users, who by their very utilisation of FOSS serve as a testing ground for the efforts of FOSS creators, should button their lips and just use any software that is provided with a GNU/Linux distribution. Those who publicise the work and efforts of FOSS people - why, they should just shut the hell up as well. Developers are gods who should be left to their own devices. If they choose to use tools that are likely to get you into patent problems down the line - just STFU. The quote above is from a guest essay which was published on Linux Today. Like many others who go in to bat for Mono, there's a lot of intellectual dishonesty in Shields' arguments. There are half-truths scattered all over the place. Some of the half-truths were pointed out by posters who reacted to the essay. For example, Shields tries to belittle C as being a standard from a convicted monopolist, AT&T; he tries to equate this to Mono which implements a standard from Microsoft, also a convicted monopolist. In other words, what's to pick between two convicted monopolists? Neither is superior, right? But what he neglects to mention is that AT&T was convicted of monopoly practices with regard to its telephone network, not anything to do with software or C. Microsoft, as we all know, was convicted about its software. Shields makes a claim that Mono is hundreds of times faster than Python - but offers no benchmarks to back up this incredible claim. He makes no mention of the fact that Microsoft first tried to corrupt the Java standard and then, and then only, came up with C#. a language similar to Java. And, above all, he avoids mentioning the fact that .NET is wholly Microsoft technology and therefore the chances that it holds patents on the same is much higher than in the case of any other technology on which it claims to have patents. Shields makes reference to an iTWire article I wrote which outlined my efforts to obtain details about the much-touted royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory licence which Mono advocates say one can obtain in order to freely use the technology without fear of being stung. He did not offer any counter-arguments to what was written but rather tried, in one fell swoop, to use an adjective like curlish to dismiss it out of hand. This, of course, does not hide the fact that whenever one gets to specifics about this kind of licence, both de Icaza and Microsoft sing from the same hymnsheet - one that obscures the truth. Shields now appears to have joined the chorus. A few more non-arguments from Shields' essay: Mono is not the result of any deals between Novell and Microsoft (used to argue that Mono is not a threat). This does not make Mono kosher. It is cloning a Microsoft technology which is bound to use patented methods. Unless and until there is a clear statement about licensing - an open, official statement - this kind of blather from Mono apologists is mere verbiage. Mono is covered by the OIN. This has no value at all. The OIN or Open Invention Network says clearly: "Patents owned by Open Invention Network are available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System." The patents that are in Mono are not owned by OIN. Hence this kind of statement is mere fluff. Regardless of whether or not any specific patent licenses over ECMA 334 and 335 cover Mono's implementation of those standards, if indeed such agreements are available (iTWire's curlish "attempt" to secure such an arrangement aside), the fact that statements have been made in public supporting the idea of royalty-free licensing essentially reduces the financial impact of such infringement to zero. Rubbish. Public statements have no standing in a court of law. Specific legal agreements do. Mono cannot be "disabled" via an incompatible change to Microsoft.NET, for two reasons. Rubbish. Microsoft has repeatedly changed its standards in the past - the company waits until there is sufficient critical mass to ensure that people have to follow its standards, no matter where it leads. We've seen this time and time again. Fool me once... Absence of "patent protection" is not the same thing as "patent violation". This is mere semantics. If you use patents from Microsoft without licensing them, believe me they will be at your front door in the morning to collect. The layering of escape routes is extensive in Mono, especially Mono in Debian/Ubuntu. Rather than get bogged down by using Mono and then trying to escape from a bottomless put, the best escape route is not to use Mono at all. Many of those who advertise themselves as anti-Mono are, quite frankly, frightening. There are lunatics in every camp, irrational idiots aplenty. This is not the monopoly of any camp. It does not make Mono advocates any more angelic than their detractors. Original link: http://www.itwire.com/content/vi... |
