ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

[zlow]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

oh forgot this.

What license or licenses are you using for the Mono Project?

We use four open source licenses:

• The C# compiler is dual-licensed under the MIT/X11 license and the GNU General Public License (GPL).
• The tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
• The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0 (LGPL 2.0).
• The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license. ASP.NET MVC, the Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF), the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR), System.Data.Services.Client, parts of System.Numerics and ASP.NET AJAX client software are released by Microsoft under the open source Microsoft Permissive License, some of them are dual licensed also as Apache2

Mono is available to be licensed commercially if the LGPL/GPL/X11 combination is not suitable for you. Mono Tools for Visual Studio Ultimate Edition includes a commercial license to redistribute Mono under non-LGPL terms on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X PCs for products with volumes under 100,000 and revenues under $2M annually. If your organization intends to redistribute software which embeds or bundles Mono, but is unable to comply with the terms of GNU LGPL v2, the Ultimate Edition may be right for you.

For other licensing options, contact us.

Source: http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

[GreyGeek]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-334.htm

Standard ECMA-334
C# Language Specification

4th edition (June 2006)

This International Standard specifies the form and establishes the interpretation of programs written in the C# programming language.
It specifies:

* The representation of C# programs;
* The syntax and constraints of the C# language;
* The semantic rules for interpreting C# programs;
* The restrictions and limits imposed by a conforming implementation of C#.

This International Standard does not specify:

* The mechanism by which C# programs are transformed for use by a data-processing system;
* The mechanism by which C# applications are invoked for use by a data-processing system;
* The mechanism by which input data are transformed for use by a C# application;
* The mechanism by which output data are transformed after being produced by a C# application;
* The size or complexity of a program and its data that will exceed the capacity of any specific data-processing system or the capacity of a particular processor;
* All minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is capable of supporting a conforming implementation.

http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-335.htm

Standard ECMA-335
Common Language Infrastructure (CLI)

5th edition (December 2010)

This International Standard defines the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) in which applications written in multiple high-level languages can be executed in different system environments without the need to rewrite those applications to take into consideration the unique characteristics of those environments. This International Standard consists of the following parts:

* Partition I: Concepts and Architecture – Describes the overall architecture of the CLI, and provides the normative description of the Common Type System (CTS), the Virtual Execution System (VES), and the Common Language Specification (CLS). It also provides an informative description of the metadata.
* Partition II: Metadata Definition and Semantics – Provides the normative description of the metadata: its physical layout (as a file format), its logical contents (as a set of tables and their relationships), and its semantics (as seen from a hypothetical assembler, ilasm).
* Partition III: CIL Instruction Set – Describes the Common Intermediate Language (CIL) instruction set.
* Partition IV: Profiles and Libraries – Provides an overview of the CLI Libraries, and a specification of their factoring into Profiles and Libraries. A companion file, CLILibrary.xml, considered to be part of this Partition, but distributed in XML format, provides details of each class, value type, and interface in the CLI Libraries.
* Partition V: Debug Interchange Format– Describes a standard way to interchange debugging information between CLI producers and consumers.
* Partition VI: Annexes – Contains some sample programs written in CIL Assembly Language (ILAsm), information about a particular implementation of an assembler, a machine-readable description of the CIL instruction set which can be used to derive parts of the grammar used by this assembler as well as other tools that manipulate CIL, a set of guidelines used in the design of the libraries of Partition IV, and portability considerations.

What is NOT referenced or included in either of those standards: ASP, ADO, WinForms and some minor PATENTED software that de Icaza has added to Mono.

The Community Promise promises this:

Microsoft Community Promise
Published: September 12, 2007

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following:

This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you. To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification.

This promise by Microsoft is not an assurance that either (i) any of Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.

Below that promise is a list of "Covered Specifications" and "Partially Covered Specifications". In the Q & A are these questions:

Q: What is covered and what is not covered by the Community Promise?

A: The CP covers each individual specification designated on the public list posted at /interop/cp/. (Some specifications include special terms; these are noted.) The CP applies to anyone who is building software and or hardware to implement one or more of those specifications. The CP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specifications.

Q: How is the Community Promise (CP) different from the Open Specification Promise (OSP)?

A: The CP requires that implementations conform to all of required parts of the mandatory portions of the specification. Also, in specified cases (such as where the specifications have uses that exceed those needed to achieve the interoperability needs for which the release under the CP is being made), the CP may have special terms concerning what kinds of implementations are covered.

......
Q: What if I don’t implement the entire specification? Will I still get the protections under the CP?

A: The CP applies only if the implementation conforms fully to required portions of the specification. Partial implementations are not covered.

Based on the above, Mono, because it "goes beyond the scope" and includes MORE than just C# (334) and CLI (335), such as ASP, ADO, WinForms and other technology NOT included in the ECMA 334 &335 standards, and so does not "fully conform", comes under question as to whether it is covered or not by either the ECMA or the CP. To add to the doubt, "conformity" is determined only by Microsoft. I have yet to see a document from Microsoft that certifies Mono (C# and CLI) "CONFORMS" to the standards set forth in ECMA 334 and 335. With ASP, ADO and WinForms in Mono there is no way under the Sun that it could "CONFORM" to the ECMA.

[zlow]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

LOLOL

WOLF!! WOLF!! WOLF!! WOLF!! WOLF!! WOLF!! WOLF!!

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!

LOLOL

That's OK Chicken Little, when the sky is really falling I hope someone still believes you.

I get the distinct feeling that Fewt has created a joke with the intent that it will be one us.

Yes because he does nothing good for people, just the evils. All his source codes you can download and look at all eat BIOS and blow up the batteries! You are so funny when you PUDDI.

8)

[Ole Juul]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

Making fun of other people is definitely unacceptable. I personally would like to see this thread deleted. It reflects poorly on the whole forum and not just some participants.

[zlow]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

Making fun of other people is definitely unacceptable. I personally would like to see this thread deleted. It reflects poorly on the whole forum and not just some participants.

Oh no, it should stay as-is or the mods are no better than the person GreyGeek is so fond of trashing.

[dibl]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

No, I'm with Ole (and Claydoh) -- it's an interesting discussion, philosophically (wish I were smarter and could contribute something to it), and describes two very different views of the technical subject matter, but it's only tangentially related to *buntu (or more accurately to the future of *buntu), and doesn't really illuminate much from a Linux user's perspective. Certainly nothing about operating a current Linux system. It belongs here, where I'll continue to follow it, with interest.

[GreyGeek]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

Amazing...

Even when shown evidence of Microsoft's purpose for .NET (a.k.a Mono) on Linux:

Maintaining Gap vs. Linux
1. Keep network effect with Applications
- Migrate applications to.NET framework
* BUT Keep framework proprietary to Windows
* Patents required to implement clone
...

your response is to reply with mockery? Frankly, it's amateurish as best and does more damage to yourself than anything you think it might do to me.

Part of that "Gap" Microsoft is maintaining is that .NET on Windows will always contain more capabilities than Mono on Linux (or Apple), because Mono always has to play catch up and will be one or more versions behind .NET, unless Microsoft "leaks" current proprietary & patented .NET technology to de Icaza so he can include it. As good as he is, de Icaza is NOT good enough to create additions to Mono's API that would be compiler compatible with current or future versions of .NET, so a leak is the only way Mono could become current with .NET. Ergo, the "Gap" will remain because it has a purpose ... ".NET on Windows is better than Mono on Linux".

However, as my sig says:
"If Windows API becomes the default on Linux then what is the point of Linux?"

MONO is the Linux clone of the .NET API. Without the GTK# bindings Mono can NOT deliver graphical user interfaces on Linux, but GTK# does not deliver what ASP, ADO and WinForm does. Icaza, KNOWING that ASP, ADO and WinForm are patented Microsoft technologies, added them anyway. Twice in previous years de Icaza, when asked about them, said that they were "being removed". But, they never were. Without those technologies Mono, as a GUI RAD tool, is not as capable as GTK+ or Qt4 and, I would argue, even with them Mono does not rise to Qt4's technical level. But, with those technologies included, Mono does NOT conform to 334 & 335. Therefore, it is not covered by Microsoft's "Community Promise". With ASP, ADO and WinForm included Mono is a patent trap and fulfills Microsoft's third point, "Patents required to implement clone".

Have any of you read an official statement from a patent attorney stating that Mono does not violate any Microsoft patents? (It doesn't matter, and may not be true, that "all" software violates "some patent".) After Microsoft sues and a distro maker/vendor is setting in the witness box and Microsoft's attorney asks him why, when he knew those technologies were patented and NOT in 334 or 335, he continued to distribute them, what can the distro maker say? The small makers/vendors will be snuffed. Will the bigger ones "make a deal" and pay royalties to Microsoft or can they afford to pay for infringing and continue in business without Mono? What if Mono has become the heart and core of their distro, with all their major user apps (multimedia, word processing, graphics) being built using Mono?

IF I wanted to use Windows technology the best way to do that is to run Windows. But, besides abhorring Microsoft's business ethics and practices, I cannot trust their platform. It far too insecure and has too many back doors for Microsoft and its 3rd party "partners", to say nothing of those back doors which blackhats are constantly discovering. While most highly technical computer users can generally keep their Windows installation safe, or at least they think so, the vast majority of Windows users cannot. It is no accident that the attacks by Wikileaks supporters on various corporate interests, who have been forced by the US government to block donations to wikileaks, are mounted using large Windows bot farms. Those are the only kind of larege bot farms that exist. Joe and Sally Sixpack, even if they support Wikileaks are being exploited by opponents of wikileaks to help bring it down.

When circumstances force one to use Windows the best practice is to NEVER use it to do online banking or shopping, and NEVER keep personal information on it. If it is on your Windows box sooner or later it will be on the Internet.

[zlow]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

Amazing...

Indeed. You are so blinded by hatred that you refuse to believe that someone (or something) that once did something wrong is one day capable of modifying that behavior.

In your mind, using your logic, we should cut the hands off of all thieves because all thieves will just steal again.

Even when shown evidence of Microsoft's purpose for .NET (a.k.a Mono) on Linux:

Maintaining Gap vs. Linux
1. Keep network effect with Applications
- Migrate applications to.NET framework
* BUT Keep framework proprietary to Windows
* Patents required to implement clone
...

You do realize that this "evidence" is nearly 10 years old, and published long before Microsoft adopted a community friendly policy. Of course you do, but you will use it time and time again anyway to further your own agenda.

Your continued FUD makes you no better than Microsoft, friend.

your response is to reply with mockery? Frankly, it's amateurish as best and does more damage to yourself than anything you think it might do to me.

You claimed the sky is falling, of course I had fun with it. Your comment was foolish, and no different than mine other than the chosen wording.

Part of that "Gap" Microsoft is maintaining is that .NET on Windows will always contain more capabilities than Mono on Linux (or Apple), because Mono always has to play catch up and will be one or more versions behind .NET, unless Microsoft "leaks" current proprietary & patented .NET technology to de Icaza so he can include it. As good as he is, de Icaza is NOT good enough to create additions to Mono's API that would be compiler compatible with current or future versions of .NET, so a leak is the only way Mono could become current with .NET. Ergo, the "Gap" will remain because it has a purpose ... ".NET on Windows is better than Mono on Linux".

Lies, and half truths spun as a scare tactic. This drivel is taken from a nearly decade old court document published before a conviction, and before modification of the bad behavior.

Let it go.

However, as my sig says:
"If Windows API becomes the default on Linux then what is the point of Linux?"

Perhaps it will make Linux more useful. Would you decry GNU for making their APIs available to Windows?

Doubtful, you follow the path of the double standard.

MONO is the Linux clone of the .NET API. Without the GTK# bindings Mono can NOT deliver graphical user interfaces on Linux, but GTK# does not deliver what ASP, ADO and WinForm does. Icaza, KNOWING that ASP, ADO and WinForm are patented Microsoft technologies, added them anyway. Twice in previous years de Icaza, when asked about them, said that they were "being removed". But, they never were. Without those technologies Mono, as a GUI RAD tool, is not as capable as GTK+ or Qt4 and, I would argue, even with them Mono does not rise to Qt4's technical level. But, with those technologies included, Mono does NOT conform to 334 & 335. Therefore, it is not covered by Microsoft's "Community Promise". With ASP, ADO and WinForm included Mono is a patent trap and fulfills Microsoft's third point, "Patents required to implement clone".

Re-read the Mono FAQ and stop using out of date information in your argument, it doesn't help you. If Mono was such a patent trap, Microsoft would have killed it years ago. You are crying wolf, it helps no-one except yourself and other boycott novell bigots.

Have any of you read an official statement from a patent attorney stating that Mono does not violate any Microsoft patents? (It doesn't matter, and may not be true, that "all" software violates "some patent".) After Microsoft sues and a distro maker/vendor is setting in the witness box and Microsoft's attorney asks him why, when he knew those technologies were patented and NOT in 334 or 335, he continued to distribute them, what can the distro maker say? The small makers/vendors will be snuffed. Will the bigger ones "make a deal" and pay royalties to Microsoft or can they afford to pay for infringing and continue in business without Mono? What if Mono has become the heart and core of their distro, with all their major user apps (multimedia, word processing, graphics) being built using Mono?

The community promise was written by attorneys, so yes I most certainly have. "What if" this, "what if" that. If we lived in such a state of paranoia we would never leave our houses. What if we were hit by a car, what if I fell and broke my neck! Better stay inside where it's safe! OH NOES what if I fall on the stairs! Better just stay in bed!!!

IF I wanted to use Windows technology the best way to do that is to run Windows. But, besides abhorring Microsoft's business ethics and practices, I cannot trust their platform. It far too insecure and has too many back doors for Microsoft and its 3rd party "partners", to say nothing of those back doors which blackhats are constantly discovering. While most highly technical computer users can generally keep their Windows installation safe, or at least they think so, the vast majority of Windows users cannot. It is no accident that the attacks by Wikileaks supporters on various corporate interests, who have been forced by the US government to block donations to wikileaks, are mounted using large Windows bot farms. Those are the only kind of larege bot farms that exist. Joe and Sally Sixpack, even if they support Wikileaks are being exploited by opponents of wikileaks to help bring it down.

When circumstances force one to use Windows the best practice is to NEVER use it to do online banking or shopping, and NEVER keep personal information on it. If it is on your Windows box sooner or later it will be on the Internet.

[GreyGeek]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

......
You do realize that this "evidence" is nearly 10 years old,

Of course, but the age of it means nothing since Microsoft is still following it to the letter.

and published long before Microsoft adopted a community friendly policy. Of course you do, but you will use it time and time again anyway to further your own agenda.

Your continued FUD makes you no better than Microsoft, friend.

You seem to be under the misconception that the CP promises more than what it does. And by citing the CP it is obvious that you aren't even reading my responses. In Reply #16 I cited in full the text to the "Community Promise" AND some Q &A following to show you that the CP is only a promise not to sue as long as the .NET clone conforms to 334 & 335. NO promise is given NOT to sue if the clone contains other Microsoft technologies NOT shown in the list of "Covered Specifications" and "Partially Covered Specifications". As you will notice, the covered or partially covered specifications do NOT include the ASP, ADO or Winforms.

The rest of your arguments are spacious and spiked frequently with personal insults and attacks or implied hypocrisies, which seems to be your primary forte. So, this thread is at an end.

[zlow]

Re: ATTN GreyGeek - Your nemesis is in the news again!

......
You do realize that this "evidence" is nearly 10 years old,

Of course, but the age of it means nothing since Microsoft is still following it to the letter.

Ahh, speculation. I love it when you do this. You see, this is more proof that you are blinded by hatred.

Blinded by hatred, check.

and published long before Microsoft adopted a community friendly policy. Of course you do, but you will use it time and time again anyway to further your own agenda.

Your continued FUD makes you no better than Microsoft, friend.

You seem to be under the misconception that the CP promises more than what it does. And by citing the CP it is obvious that you aren't even reading my responses. In Reply #16 I cited in full the text to the "Community Promise" AND some Q &A following to show you that the CP is only a promise not to sue as long as the .NET clone conforms to 334 & 335. NO promise is given NOT to sue if the clone contains other Microsoft technologies NOT shown in the list of "Covered Specifications" and "Partially Covered Specifications". As you will notice, the covered or partially covered specifications do NOT include the ASP, ADO or Winforms.

The rest of your arguments are spacious and spiked frequently with personal insults and attacks or implied hypocrisies, which seems to be your primary forte. So, this thread is at an end.

I know exactly what the community promise "promises". Your "QA" is just analysis by other individuals that love to hate Microsoft (meaning that it is worthless).

The thread is at an end because you refuse to see past your hatred, you can blame me all you like, but nothing I have said here is untrue even if I did make it a little fun. Funny how now my replies are personal attacks, yet I bet in your mind none of yours are.

Double standards, check.

8)