Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> writes:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:50:56 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> writes:
> >
> >> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET
> > […]
> >
> > It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
> > (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
> > “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
> > entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to
> > restrict the freedom of software recipients.
[…]
> Let's reword your concern slightly:
No, let's not. You've made a straw man to which I refuse to be held
accountable.
In particular, you're ignoring the distinction I'm drawing: that the
Mono developers knowingly implement techniques covered by software idea
patents that the patent holder demonstrates every intention of wielding
against Mono recipients.
The “community promise” from Microsoft is not binding; if they actually
meant it, they'd grant everyone a binding license, not a promise.
Microsoft have also shown no compunction in the past against using a
front entity to sue Microsoft's rivals, keeping their own hands somewhat
cleaner.
The “community promise” does nothing useful against a transfer of the
patent monopolies to another entitiy. A grant to the community of a full
license in those patents would, since then it wouldn't matter who holds
the patents or who had promised what.
> Perhaps every piece of software should be labeled May Infringe
> Patents.
Perhaps it should, but that's irrelevant here. Mono is *known* to
implement patent-restricted techniques, and the entity holding those
patents has merely made very carefully-worded statements that in no way
diminish the force of those patents against Mono.
<URL:http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono>
> Right. So why single out Mono? Python likely violates "countless" such
> patents, so obviously we can't take the idea of Python being free
> seriously either.
Which entity holds patents on techniques implemented in the work, and on
which specific techniques? For Python, the answer is unknown, so there's
no reasonable way to avoid the threat.
For C# and .NET, the answer *is* known, yet the developers of Mono
choose not to avoid the known threat. So we must avoid it for ourselves,
by avoiding Mono and C#.
That's the difference, and that's why Mono in particular is to be
avoided.
> Look, patent threats are real, but we don't gain anything by
> exaggerating the threat
Agreed. Which is why I focus my attention on works where there are known
patent threats to be avoided.
> and we *especially* don't gain anything by treating one patent holder
> as the Devil Incarnate while ignoring threats from others.
You paint a pretty picture, but it's nothing to do with my position.
--
\ “I knew things were changing when my Fraternity Brothers threw |
`\ a guy out of the house for mocking me because I'm gay.” |
_o__) —postsecret.com, 2010-01-19 |
Ben Finney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
