Article View: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Article #177Re: "Why Mono is Currently An Unacceptable Risk"
From: Richard Corfield
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 05:55
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 05:55
63 lines
4337 bytes
4337 bytes
On 2004-05-23, Rolf Tollerud <rolftollerud@msn.com> wrote: > > How is it going with your home-grown Avalon/XAML? > XUL is currently fully functional thank you very much. XAML is still vapourware as far as I can see. Presumably it is being touted so much at the moment to take attention away from XUL - for fear of XUL gaining developer mindshare. XUL/XAML are both very good ideas. As is normal, Microsoft isn't the first to innovate here, though at least there is prior art to go around. Patents, copyrights and trademarks? Not sure if any such patents work over here. We don't have software patents as yet, and hopefuly never will. This is the biggest problem though, and not just C#. Patents exist in the USA for pretty well everything. I'd not be surprised if Hello World infringed at least one. Copyright protects the embodyment of the work. As long as Mono is a clean room implementation, it doesn't infringe the copyright. Too many people seem to be trying to make copyright give them more rights than it ever has. This applies to movies/music/the web as well. Surely I'm just as right to use adblock on a web site as I am legally entitled to tear a page out of a book for example, but I digress. Trademark is the use of a name. I don't believe Mono can ever be confused with .Net. They don't even sound the same or look the same. I think the early 2000s must be the half-decade of "Intellectual Property". Its a relatively new term, and a relatively new focus in the industry, and it basicly seems to mean "Whats ours is ours, and whats yours is ours too". So called Intellectual Property is expanding, at least in the public perception, at an alarming rate. Now, apparently, copyright gives rights owners the ability to control how their work is viewed (quote from the MPAA), yet it never used to. SCO claim that copyrights are like patents, and cover the basic ideas - no evidence of this in the past. Fair use is forgotten. This must be the decade of one of the biggest attempted land grabs going. It would be interesting to compare the information revolution with the industrial revolution. I remember from way back in school learning about conceptually similar struggles back then, with the corporates of the time trying to take far too much, and eventually not getting it. I wonder if there was as much cluelessness about industry on the part of the general public as there is about computing and ``IP'' now. I hope that history repeats itself and corporate power is weakened. Industry seems to have bigger lawyers and more ability to spread its message through the media than before, though I wasn't around at the time so can't really comment. Unfortunately, like the near slave workers of the early industrial revolution, we get to live through the turmoil first. - Richard (Standard disclaimer, I'm not a layer) -- _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<slrncbdl39.26t.rcnews2@cobalt.internal.littondale.dyndns.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mailReferences:
<c8jq2g$ueq$01$1@news.t-online.com> <2bfb3b97.0405210430.186b2302@posting.google.com> <c8lbr8$22m$02$2@news.t-online.com> <b27a8a1d9102b5db98a3f7505925a647@news.teranews.com> <0CCrc.562020$Ig.416546@pd7tw2no> <3%Crc.4957$Tn6.2048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <T3Erc.563054$Ig.264158@pd7tw2no> <c8pand$knk$01$1@news.t-online.com> <fvWrc.6026$Tn6.1617@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <a92d4909.0405230855.24b1a220@posting.google.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5d2346815118061c X-Google-Thread: fcfb9,8374fe9aea492f68 X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,b1b6e68081051ee X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,gidfcfb9,gid1025b4,public Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Richard Corfield <rcnews2@littondale.dyndns.org> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: "Why Mono is Currently An Unacceptable Risk" Date: 28 May 2004 05:55:53 GMT Lines: 63 Message-ID: <slrncbdl39.26t.rcnews2@cobalt.internal.littondale.dyndns.org> References: <c8jq2g$ueq$01$1@news.t-online.com> <2bfb3b97.0405210430.186b2302@posting.google.com> <c8lbr8$22m$02$2@news.t-online.com> <b27a8a1d9102b5db98a3f7505925a647@news.teranews.com> <0CCrc.562020$Ig.416546@pd7tw2no> <3%Crc.4957$Tn6.2048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <T3Erc.563054$Ig.264158@pd7tw2no> <c8pand$knk$01$1@news.t-online.com> <fvWrc.6026$Tn6.1617@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <a92d4909.0405230855.24b1a220@posting.google.com> X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de MCl0wJlnZHh6LJtSIlnPkQMWV6cyJBPK5G8k2JiyARf+6d1LcC User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)