Thanks to Groklaw, who pointed to the insightful legal paragraphs!
I didn't need to read the rest of Groklaw's story Shining Some Light on Microsoft's Moonlight Covenant, but only two paragraphs, and it was enough. Yes, I can understand legalese myself. But thanks go to PJ, for selecting the relevant legal text.
Here it is, with my emphasis:
«Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries, hereby covenants not to sue Downstream Recipients of Novell and its Subsidiaries for infringement under Necessary Claims of Microsoft on account of such Downstream Recipients’ use of Moonlight Implementations to the extent originally provided by Novell during the Term and, if applicable, the Extension or Post-Extension Period, but only to the extent such Moonlight Implementations are used to provide Plug-In Functionality. The foregoing covenants shall survive termination of the Agreement, but only as to specific copies of such Moonlight Implementations distributed during the Term, and if applicable, the Extension or Post-Extension Period.
“Downstream Recipient” means an entity or individual that uses for its intended purpose a Moonlight Implementation obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient. An entity or individual is not a Downstream Recipient when such entity or individual resells, licenses, supplies, distributes or otherwise makes available to third parties the Moonlight Implementation. For avoidance of doubt, an entity or individual cannot qualify both as a Downstream Recipient and an Intermediate Recipient for use of the same copy of a Moonlight Implementation."»
It stinks.
Simply put, it's like with the first Novell-Microsoft covenant, which only protected Novell's customers/users.
Here, with Moonshitlight, you are only protected under the following SIMULTANEOUS conditions (in plain English):
1. You only get the Moonlight binaries from Novell or openSUSE, or an authorized reseller acting as an "Intermediate Recipient". (You CANNOT be an "Intermediate Recipient" as long as you are the "Downstream Recipient"!)
2. You only use what you got "for the intended purpose", as a plug-in, period. This includes the lack of protection for the case where you would like to modify the sources and rebuild it! (It's beyond the "intended purpose".)
3. You only use a Moonlight copy obtained while Novell/openSUSE were still distributing it! (The "Extension or Post-Extension Period" are determining the EOL of this legal distribution.)
4. You don't distribute it, otherwise either you are an "Intermediate Recipient", hence you can't be protected because you're not a "Downstream Recipient" anymore, or the people you're distributing to are not protected, should you still be a "Downstream Recipient", but not a "Intermediate Recipient"!
This is a Microsoft-branded piece of shit.
Now, if there are still Linux users still loving Mono, and still believing they have anything in common with FREEDOM & Open Source, they're idiots like hell.
Proofs of MALA FIDE from Microsoft's part:
1. NOBODY interested in a good-faith patent protection would restrict the protection to the downstream recipients of a UNIQUE source — but this is what Microsoft is doing!
2. NOBODY interested in a good-faith patent protection would restrict the protection to the UNMODIFIED AND USED "AS INTENDED" ("for the intended purpose") for an OPEN-SOURCE project — but this is what Microsoft is doing!
3. NOBODY interested in a good-faith patent protection would restrict the protection in any ways. Simply imposing restrictions means WHATEVER FALLS OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IS SUBJECT TO FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT!
Yes, this is Microsoft. Yes, this covenant is ONLY and ONLY for the benefit of Novell's SLED and SLES, and for the benefit of openSUSE. This is for people to ONLY consider openSUSE as a "safe" Linux way to use Moonlight and Mono, and therefore to increase the penetration of SLED/SLES as "the" Linux for the Enterprise.
This is the abjection of the Microsoft-Novell fascist conspiracy.
Have a nice day.
15 comments> http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/heroes/default.mspx
Of course, they're plenty of Open Source Heroes at Microsoft! Where elsewhere? :-J
I always thought Mono sounded like a disease, looks like there is now proof!
Remember that this is patent protection. Software patent protection.
Few places are as backward as the US when it comes to software patents. They either don't exist or people have to genuinely invent something *new*. Stupid interface and syntax iterations just won't be given patents.
Once you look past all the legal mcschnizzle, you might see that C#, even the framework as a whole isn't such a bad thing. On idealistic levels, it's pretty advanced. Practically, it works quite well.
If you're going to get riled about anything, consider taking on software patents in general. They're the real trouble-makers here.
The problem is that in a couple of years, the www will be infested with site full of Silverlight... Just like Flash today...
I realise it now that I use swfdec... Sometimes I show up at a website, and I don't see anything but those grey arrow-logos, because the site is only made of Flash stuff...
Picture yourself in a SIlverlight www.
I think webmasters should be responsible enough not to use it...
>Béranger - Today at 20:08:23 GMT
>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/heroes/default.mspx
>
>Of course, they're plenty of Open Source Heroes at Microsoft! Where >elsewhere? :-J
I was expecting a dozen heroes at least. 11? Hey Ber, why don't you send them your Micro$oft "success" story and complete the dirty dozen.
(Ah! Bored at work!)
elmusafir
I think you've got it wrong.
Moonlight is created by the GNOME gods.
Naturally GNOME followers had to follow their gods?!
So ... naturally Mono and Moonlight is blessed and should be worshipped.
To hell to opensource ... ha ha ha ha ha !!
PS
lucky i've not toucched gnome and opensuse since suse 9.3
Support JavaFX!
Unfortunately RIA is the next big thing, rich content, plugins video etc etc... The only company that has shown any understanding of open source in any way shape or manor is Sun, and JavaFX is their solution to Silverlight and Flash.
Hopefully it will take off, the new Java plugin will be GPL open source and so is the JavaFX technology, as well as Java itself is now GPL open source. The only issue is the video codecs which will be available to JavaFX, but they will only be provided as a binary plugin.
JavaFX will be another crappy thing to bring the browser's CPU usage close to 100%.
Honestly, the whole shit started ~1996 or whenever some idiot perverted the original intended usage of a Web page -- static HTML *TEXT + images* -- to the whole Nintendo it is today!
I personally use the Web to *READ* (or to write web mails).
-- I don't need a web page to be a game.
-- I don't need a web page to be a video advertisement.
-- I don't need a web page to be a JavaScript crap.
-- I don't need Flash, Java plugins,
-- I don't need AJAX, I don't need any of those perversions.
I would support a world dictator to shutdown YouTube, DailyMotion and the like.
The Web is today a whole latrine, and tomorrow it will only be worse. I don't care what the name of the shit "à la mode" will be tomorrow.
"I don't need AJAX"
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Google Maps done in AJAX? I am getting to leave for Montreal for a few months, and I plan on using their extensive bike paths. So I started searching the web for maps. I eventually found the offical map, which is just a standard picture. After using Google Maps, a traditional online map just sucks. Clicking and dragging makes chainging the viewing area a breeze, and zooming couldn't be easier with the scroll wheel. Doing those same things is more cumbersome when you have to adjust the up/down scroll bar, then the left/right scroll bar, and then use the keyboard to zoom.
Well, yes. Still, there was life on Earth before that. Each and every technical progress has its downside.
"Each and every technical progress has its downside."
True, but in my mind AJAX has a minimal downside when compared to Flash, or any other closedsource internet "feature".
Just today, I want to listen to the radio at work. My computer does not have Flash (nor can I install it without being "administrator"), and it is hard to find an internet radio station that does not use Flash. I hate that crap.
> it is hard to find an internet radio station that does not use Flash
No, it is not!
I hope they still work:
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/03/10/19/25/59-new-jazz-bookmarks
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2007/08/16/10/57/30-radio-stations-i-might-listen-to
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2007/05/13/21/17/48-atlanta-blue-sky-is-broken-but-i
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=3k&article=344
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=3k&article=539
etc.
I just see on the Linux Mint Blog the Clem's response to a post which quoted your/this article:
"I must be an idiot then. On a more serious note, Beranger’s site is probably among the most opinionated Linux blogs on the Web. He’s smart and very lucid and he does it with style but he definitely has a taste for subjectivity and likes to dwelve into the religious war against the evil forces.. right? You’re talking about software patents here, something that doesn’t exist in most countries of the World. Also, Microsoft giving protection to Novell doesn’t mean they’ll attack everyone else. Also, the same could be said about free implementations of Flash, right? If not.. why? And free implementations of MP3 and Codecs in general. Actually the same could be said about OpenOffice and its ability to “implement” compatibility with MS OFfice formats. People are different, even when on the same side. You guys focus on the legalities and the ideology while we’ll focus on the technique and the tools itself. We’re all in this together but you can’t always ask us to think exactly like you do. From my point of view, if Flash didn’t work on Linux, a lot of people would still be running Windows. Tomorrow when 30% of the Web moves to that new Moonlight, we’ll be in trouble if we can’t interpret it. Of course we could say “the hell with that! Freedom is what matters!” but then that’s what the FSF would say and distributions like Gnewsense.. and although we have to admire them for that, this is not how we’re going to make the World move to Linux. I don’t even truly disagree with your ideology but we’re on two different agendas here, Linux Mint’s main purpose is to be as easy and comfortable as possible and to get to a position where it can represent a true alternative to Microsoft Windows. In that quest, there’s absolutely no doubt we need to support multimedia codecs, flash, moonlight, and all the things people want to use. We know who we are, and we’re certainly not in a position to tell people what not to use. You’re not going to make the World boycott Moonlight, you’re going to either support it or not, and that’s where you make the choice between usability and ideology, software and religion, Open Source and Free Software. We’re not a Free Software distribution, in that regard. Software comes first, ideology second."
some comments? What do you think of his answer?
Wow. Clem is very articulate, if I'm allowed to say this. And pragmatic, as it seems.
Here's my comment, you're free to pass it over:
<-- cut --------------------------
> You’re talking about software patents here, something that
> doesn’t exist in most countries of the World.
I personally decided to ignore patents when comes to situations where I *need* to listen some MP3 files, and I decided to ignore the Nazi DMCA when installing libdvdcss. This is however a different situation.
Using some piece of software "in confidentiality" and in private is one thing, and declaring some software as "Industry Standard" is a completely different matter! Mono and the derived technologies are supposed to become the next standard for developing software, and it will be a disaster if this is really going to happen.
A patent is obtained for enforcing it, for financial gain, and for FUD. For all of these reasons.
An organization truly dedicated to the development of the software, and detaining of some powerful technologies, would still feel the need to submit for patents, should it be an American entity. Its lawyers might think of this "for protection".
But once you have registered a patent for such a technology, you should license the software under such a license, or you should make such a legal statement that people to know you will NEVER sue ANYONE for the use of a technology covered by or derived from that patent! This is what you should do, in bona fide.
But Microsoft is SELECTIVELY protecting Novell's customers, which is something outrageous.
> Microsoft giving protection to Novell doesn’t mean they’ll attack everyone else.
This is exactly the point. You don't need to actually attack someone! By SELECTIVELY protecting some particular entity and only FOR SOME SPECIFIC USAGES, Microsoft gives the following LEGAL message: "We can sue anyone else, and you can't be sure of anything. We're just saying you're not safe. You should not build your business on this technology, because you're at risk. You'd better not ship Mono with RHEL, dear Red Hat Inc." Etc.
This is the academic definition for "FUD". Really.
> You guys focus on the legalities and the ideology
Nopoe. It's about peace of mind, smiling Sun and flying butterflies.
> Linux Mint’s main purpose is to be as easy and comfortable as possible
And possibly... impossible to be adopted by a US company, right? Because of legal reasons, right?
> the FSF would say and distributions like Gnewsense
I do *not* support GNonsense.
> there’s absolutely no doubt we need to support multimedia codecs, flash, moonlight, and all the things people want to use.
No, no, no. Everybody wants codecs, but you should not host them on a US server, if possible. Flash... there is an official (and crashing) player from Adobe, so it's not up to you. The 2 open-source alternatives are a different issue.
But Moonlike is a pest. It's submission to a MONOPOLY. In what other domain of activity can you find such submissive people?
Say tomorrow there is some company issuing a new brand of sugar. How many billions should they spend to persuade 30% of the people to WANT that particular sugar?
And here comes Microsoft with a new technology, and all of the sudden EVERYONE wants it!!! (What cheap whores are the computer users!)
> You’re not going to make the World boycott Moonlight
Of course this won't be possible. The world wasn't able to boycott G. W. Bush, the world isn't able to do anything, because it's a bunch of stupid people, with no ideals, no guts, no morals, no anything -- except for mortgages to pay. But I was thinking of smart people, and of people able to be influenced by smart people: they should *not* allow Moonlight to become "the" standard!
<-- cut --------------------------
Comments are closed, complaints to info@.
A non-opensource opensource project. But this was clear from beginning. Novell did it to benefit itself and no other. No even their customers, poor fools. Seeing that Linux and other related projects are works of a group in open manner, Novell's actions cannot be seen in any other way. It was an attack on the "group".
"Now, if there are still Linux users still loving Mono, and still believing they have anything in common with FREEDOM & Open Source, they're idiots like hell."
There are lots of them and their number is growing.
Microsoft goes to the extreme to limit the usage of "Moondarkness" to just the "browser" and see videos. Using it for any other thing is illegal.
Also, Microsoft can cancel their agreement/change at any time and it's only applied to v1.0 and v1.1. This version is already useless with the arrival "Silverlight 2.0".
But never fear. Miguel de Icaza to the rescue. There's already a "Moondarkness" v2.0 available. And his Highness is requesting volunteers to help in his quest to release the first "openclosesource" software. But this time Microsoft has not provide any guarantees. Not even as pathetic as that one. What would be Miguel's excuse this time?
But the farce does not end there. A Microsoft representative, Brian Goldfarb", got to the point of writing on Cnet and pointing out to the page where that is written[1], that anyone was "free" to use and distribute it freely. Even Red Hat, Canonical, etc...
I would like to know in what dictionary are Microsoft employees getting their definitions of "Open" and "Free".
I also like to point out that Microsoft is running a offer of some "open source" tools to help you become a "open source hero". The tools: "Windows Server 2008" and "Visual Studio 2008" trial versions.
Great "open source" tools. And they are "free" in every sense of the word too. Not like that "free as beer", "free as speech".
With Microsoft there are no ambiguities! I'm at awe with Microsoft. They are so transparent...
http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/heroes/default.mspx
[1] http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx
And the innovation that will finally shut down the Internet. It was about time:
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/legalnews/57100.html