To call it open source, or free software, you need to stop relying on the promises at all. And stop considering the promises as a ‘feature’ of the software. And yes, this involves getting ready to get sued if necessary to keep the idea open source/free software.

I am saying , that you will have to choose between advertising it as open source or advertising it as legally reliable thanks to “XXX promise”. But you can’t have both of best worlds.

The idea within MS and certain Novell PR vice president that moonlight can only be legally distributed by Novell is much worse issue…

Robert Millan :

Right now, what I see is a plan for integrating Moonlight into those apps, which is precisely the opposite direction to what I’m describing.

I suspect the landscape on this question will change significantly once we see version 3 of the moonlight covenant (a third version is required to reflect SL3’s existence – and SL3 explicitly supports desktop usage). I’m fairly sure Microsoft have been made aware that their current Novell-centric paperwork is harming adoption, and harmed adoption means they can’t sell Expression to people who were looking at Creative Suite. Which means less money. Which, I’ve heard, is bad for business.

Thank you for pointing that out in the GPLv2, I already said I thought “the principles behind the GPL never changed”, and it is nice to see the textual support for that.

This is why I find those who are so opposed to GPLv3 confusing? What is the objection? Isn’t the GPL always trying to do the same thing?

I suspect that even a full GPLv3 release of Microsoft.NET with free muffins with every download will have lead to accusations of poisoned baked goods on certain sites.

Well, that would be interesting in many ways (including the free muffins!) but keep in mind that releasing code is not legally binding to those who release it. If I could choose, I would very much prefer if Microsoft distributed a huge bunch of FSF-copyrighted code (like a GNU/Linux distribution) instead.

THAT, really, is the problem – why would Miguel hold out for a “better” deal, when no deal would be good enough for peace?

Good question. But why discard the possibility that it is good enough? The FSF said it’s not, and has this page explaining why. It gives three reasons, titled:

– Incomplete Standards
– Figuring Out What’s Necessary
– Moving the Goalposts

But now imagine this scenario:

– Developers of Mono only make a stable release when they implement the complete API of a version of the standard.
– Developers of free applications based on Mono only use parts of Mono that are covered by the CP (plus any community-developed extensions like GTK#).
– Novell stops their “buy our protection” marketing campaign.

Wouldn’t the perception change?

Right now, what I see is a plan for integrating Moonlight into those apps, which is precisely the opposite direction to what I’m describing.

At the time of the GPLv2, software patents were not a consideration. Now they are.

Not at all! See section 7 of GPLv2:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

GPLv3 has the same aim as GPLv2, which is to find a compromise that allows preserving essential freedoms for everyone, using only those conditions deemed necessary to efficiently archieve that. Loopholes were found in these patent provisions, and exploited, and so version 3 includes different language with regard to patents, but it has the same goal.

Thanks for pointing out that article – that is a great example of what I was trying to express.

It only took me 6 years longer to articulate it!

Have a look at:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html

This is even from time before the Microsoft-Novell patent-protection agreement, and even before the GPLv3, it is not even an issue with Microsoft’s patents.

That is the reason why the GPLv2 included the section 7 and why GPLv3 included extra provisions for protection against de-facto proprietarization of GPL code through patents, and this shows software patents have been a long-time concern for the FSF and SLFC (and the Free Software community at large), and why we should oppose and fight the push from proprietary software companies and others with vested interests for the extension of this legal construct (software patents) to Europe and other areas of the world where they are not yet legal, as well as opose the pressures of those trying to make whole distributions dependent on software whose legal status respect patents is dubious.

ATM It is impossible to say if the patents covering the mono implementation of the .Net technology are safe or instead are working against the intention of the GPL and Free Software since Microsoft won’t disclose which Microsoft software patents which part mono potentially infringes.
Even accepting the inevitability in the short term of software patents being enforceable in the U.S., until these patents covering mono and its terms are disclosed (and disclosure to the public is the condition for the patent system providing a state-granted monopoly over an invention), and until Microsoft grants them under a licence or contract (not a promise, agreement or pact) that is fully GPLv3 compliant, we must be very wary of the status of this project with respect to Software Freedom.

Jason :

No, but then again I don’t think that rejecting Mono means everything from Novell must be rejected.
Very often – too often – mono defenders present two extremes and assert if you do or don’t do A, then you must do or don’t do B as well. This is simply not true.

I’m not sure why code which has been around for 4 years before the deal is singled out as worth rejecting as a result of that deal, when other “old code” or even “new code” is still embraced. That’s the double standard I see.

Honestly, I would wait. Why not? It’s been 6+ years now and better to get the job done right. As I say, we can work with Microsoft on our terms.

Ever seen the guy at a presentation? It should be a felony to give him caffeine. The first Moonlight alpha was knocked up in 3 weeks. I don’t think waiting is his style. But we’re all different, and all act in different ways.

I don’t necessarily think that those at Microsoft who can see the benefit to THEIR position (e.g. helping to sell more dev tools) are adverse to working, as you say, “on our terms”. Take the latest announcement of Microsoft’s new GPL’d kernel modules entering the gauntlet for inclusion in the mainline kernel as an example of “on our terms” engagement which, whilst unquestionably self-serving (as most businesses are), shows a willingness to interact in the appropriate way with a given group.

Perhaps the bigger problem is that Miguel’s the only one who made any serious effort to talk to the Beast about the ECMA334/335 issue? If the FSF had sent someone down from their ivory tower, perhaps we’d have a different arrangement in place. But this is all, of course, speculation. And the fact is, Miguel commands a LOT of respect within certain Microsoft divisions, which makes it easier for him to say “give us patent protection for these specs, please” than pretend journalists making pretend efforts to secure an equivalent.

But I can see your point – and I’m not asserting the CP will be used to lock-out other implementations, but I do not think it is unreasonable to point out that it could be used in that way.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out problems with the CP. I just wish the motives from those attacking it were rather more transparent. And, as I’ve said elsewhere, I suspect that even a full GPLv3 release of Microsoft.NET with free muffins with every download will have lead to accusations of poisoned baked goods on certain sites. THAT, really, is the problem – why would Miguel hold out for a “better” deal, when no deal would be good enough for peace?

Given that, honestly, I think it’s just a convenient excuse to attack Mono whilst still accepting things like, say, all their kernel work. I don’t know anyone who runs a “Novell-removed” kernel – do you?

No, but then again I don’t think that rejecting Mono means everything from Novell must be rejected.

Very often – too often – mono defenders present two extremes and assert if you do or don’t do A, then you must do or don’t do B as well. This is simply not true.

If you were Miguel [...] what would you do?

Honestly, I would wait. Why not? It’s been 6+ years now and better to get the job done right. As I say, we can work with Microsoft on our terms.

But I can see your point – and I’m not asserting the CP will be used to lock-out other implementations, but I do not think it is unreasonable to point out that it could be used in that way.