Depending on what LINQ is being used for, even if it’s inserted into the EMCA standard and Microsoft extends its patent grant, that may not be enough to protect against Microsoft patents.

Recall that LINQ is intended for querying databases, and that Microsoft almost certainly has patents on its use for this purpose. Since any such patents will not be required to implement LINQ itself (which is just syntactic sugar), they won’t be covered by the patent grant. So any software using LINQ for database queries or data returned from a database query (which is probably the main use for it) would still be at risk of a patent lawsuit.

Incidentally, it’s also possible that similar issues affect Gtk#.

saulgoode :

My point is, if he gets the things which are trivially verifiable wrong, why is he a safe source for the rest of it?

Your entire claim is wrong. Richard Stallman has not stated that Tomboy depends upon non-ECMA components. The statement should properly be attributed to Peter Brown.
So I’m wondering, does this mean that you:
1) did no research as to who made the claims, which is disconcerting
2) did the research, but chose to lie, which is disconcerting
3) did the research, but don’t understand that Peter Brown and
Richard Stallman aren’t the same person, which is disconcerting

Option number 1. I made the foolish assumption that Van Sanden had a shred of credibility.

My point is, if he gets the things which are trivially verifiable wrong, why is he a safe source for the rest of it?

Your entire claim is wrong. Richard Stallman has not stated that Tomboy depends upon non-ECMA components. The statement should properly be attributed to Peter Brown.

So I’m wondering, does this mean that you:

1) did no research as to who made the claims, which is disconcerting
2) did the research, but chose to lie, which is disconcerting
3) did the research, but don’t understand that Peter Brown and
Richard Stallman aren’t the same person, which is disconcerting

Jo Shields :
You’re looking for http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/node/160#comment-1931 I suppose.

I’m looking for the source of the text you are quoting in that response. Where did Richard Stallman make that statement? It does not appear in the ITWire article as Guy Van Sanden suggests.

My point is, if he gets the things which are trivially verifiable wrong, why is he a safe source for the rest of it?

Because single (or even multiple) errors do not automatically invalidate everything a person says. You have made incorrect assertions. I have made incorrect assertions. Everyone makes mistakes or gets their facts wrong, or makes a sloppy argument. It is not a game of “gotcha” where a single (or even a few) errors destroys a man’s credibility.

There’s not much more to say than that. The man made a mistake, but
I do not think that he has demonstrated maliciousness, or a continuing pattern of misleading arguments and disinformation. It starts to look petty to nit-pick on what (at this point) look to be honest mistakes.

Anyway, I will withhold further arguing over Stallman’s intent until we see his next statement. I sincerely hope he has all his facts in line, because I think we can all agree his words will be under intense scrutiny.

I think a suggestion of improvements would be interesting and positive criticism is something I have already suggested the FSF should provide. in reality, though, I’m not sure how well it would be taken. I might take up the gauntlet there.

Postus scriptus vomitus
I would love to take up the “difference between Stallman and Icaza” opening at length, but let me say that if Stallman is being duplicitous and spreading disinformation, then that is more similarity than difference.

Jason :

It doesn’t concern you in the slightest that the self-proclaimed leader of the Free world is making highly specific proclamations which are trivially verifiable as false?

Come on, Jo – I just said “it pains me”. Anytime you have someone on “your side” that gets something wrong, it is a concern.
However, I think Stallman’s larger point – that is growing reliance on mono is a mistake – still holds. If you choose to interpret his message as solely applying to Tomboy, or solely about a packaging change in Debian, then that is your privilege. I think there is a broader message here – one which Stallman has fumbled – but is nonetheless valid.

My point is, if he gets the things which are trivially verifiable wrong, why is he a safe source for the rest of it?

A fumbled “broader message” is more harmful than no message at all. If Stallman wants to say that the CP has no worth, and that Mono has zero patent safety, he should say so. If he thinks that apps using non-ECMA portions should be avoided, but the rest is protected, he should say so. If he thinks the problem is the mere concept of association with Microsoft (i.e. NIH), he should say so. As it stands, what we have is falsehoods (attacks on Tomboy’s non-existent deps) and unhelpful doomsaying (not good enough, but no hints as to how to improve matters)

To an extent, that’s the difference between Stallman and Icaza. If Stallman wanted to do more than fill people with fear, then he could actually suggest improvements. Getting things flat-out wrong and/or preaching about doom with no evidence is something to expect from Roy, not someone who supposedly leads the Free Software movement.

saulgoode :

> It doesn’t concern you in the slightest that the self-proclaimed
> leader of the Free world is making highly specific proclamations
> which are trivially verifiable as false?
Has Mr Stallman proclaimed something somewhere such that a list of Banshee dependencies serves as a refutation? Link, please?

You’re looking for http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/node/160#comment-1931 I suppose.

Dan Serban :

“If you think renaming it to Panda.Web would make it safe, then it can be done for apps like F-Spot/Banshee”.
Will a judge looking at a patent infringement case care about what you call a library or what code is inside?

That’s the question, though, isn’t it? What makes System.Data risky? Why isn’t it “just” a normal database access library?

It doesn’t concern you in the slightest that the self-proclaimed leader of the Free world is making highly specific proclamations which are trivially verifiable as false?

Come on, Jo – I just said “it pains me”. Anytime you have someone on “your side” that gets something wrong, it is a concern.

However, I think Stallman’s larger point – that is growing reliance on mono is a mistake – still holds. If you choose to interpret his message as solely applying to Tomboy, or solely about a packaging change in Debian, then that is your privilege. I think there is a broader message here – one which Stallman has fumbled – but is nonetheless valid.

Has Mr Stallman proclaimed something somewhere such that a list of Banshee dependencies serves as a refutation? Link, please?