-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Microsoft's Empty Promise

Last week, Microsoft extended the terms of their Community Promise to
implementations of the ECMA 334 and 335 standards. You might think this means
it's safe to write your software in C#. However, this promise is full of
loopholes, and it's nowhere near enough to make C# safe.
Why Worry About C#?

Since we published Richard's article about Mono last week, some people have
been asking us why we're expressing special concern about free software
developers relying on C# and Mono, instead of other languages. Sun probably
has patents that cover Java. Maybe IBM has patents that cover C
compilers. "Shouldn't we discourage the use of these too?" they ask.

It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers—but that doesn't
mean that all software patents are equally threatening. Different companies
might have patents that could be used to attack other languages, but if we
worried about every patent that could be used against us, we wouldn't get
anything done. Microsoft's patents are much more dangerous: it's the only
major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and
stated its intention to attack our community with patents. If Microsoft
designed a patent trap into C#, that is no more than what it said it would do.

The company has been quite clear about its intentions since late 2006. At a
user conference in November that year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said,
responding to a question about their patent agreement with Novell:

    ... the fact that [GNU/Linux] uses our patented intellectual property [sic]
is a problem for our shareholders. We spend $7 billion a year on R&D, our
shareholders expect us to protect or license or get economic benefit from our
patented innovations. So how do we somehow get the appropriate economic return
for our patented innovation...?

(Seattle Post-Intellegencer, The Microsoft Blog, "Ballmer on Novell, Linux and
patents," November 16, 2006.)

A few days later, an interview with Microsoft President Bob Muglia was
published, and he made it clear that they considered C# one of these
so-called "patented innovations:"

    There is a substantive effort in open source [sic] to bring such an
implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by Novell,
and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the
intellectual property [sic] associated with that is available to Novell
customers.

(eWeek.com, "Microsofts Muglia Talks Longhorn, Novell and Java", November 17,
2006.)

They've been turning up the heat ever since. In May 2007, Microsoft followed
all this up by announcing in a Fortune magazine interview that they believed
GNU/Linux infringed 235 Microsoft patents. And recently they made it very
clear that these were not idle threats: the company sued TomTom for using the
VFAT filesystem implementation in the kernel Linux without buying a license
from it.

All of this can't simply be brushed aside. These are statements and actions
made at the highest executive levels of the company. Using patents to divide
and conquer the free software community is a fundamental part of their
corporate strategy. Because of that, C# represents a unique threat to us. The
language was developed inside Microsoft, so it's likely they have many patents
to cover different aspects of its implementation. That would make free
software implementations of C#, like Mono, an easy target for attack.

The Community Promise does nothing to change any of this. Microsoft had an
opportunity to take action and demonstrate that it meant us no harm with C#.
Instead, they took meaningless half-measures that leave them with plenty of
opportunities to hurt us.
Incomplete Standards

The ECMA 334 and 335 specifications describe the core C# language, including
information about standard libraries that must be available in any compliant
implementation. However, there are several libraries that are included with
Mono, and commonly used by applications like Tomboy, that are not required by
the standard. And just to be clear, we're not talking about Windows-specific
libraries like ASP.NET and Windows Forms. Instead, we're talking about
libraries under the System namespace that provide common functionality
programmers expect in modern programming languages: binary object
serialization, regular expressions, XPath and XSLT, and more.

Because these libraries are not defined in the ECMA specifications, they are
not protected in any way by Microsoft's Community Promise. If this were the
only problem with the promise, it might be safe to use applications that avoid
these libraries, and stick to what's in the standard. But even the code that's
covered by the promise isn't completely safe.
Figuring Out What's Necessary

The Community Promise only extends to claims in Microsoft patents that are
necessary to implement the covered specifications. Judging just by the size of
its patent portfolio, it's likely that Microsoft holds patents which a
complete standard implementation probably infringes even if it's not strictly
necessary—maybe the patent covers a straightforward speed optimization, or
some common way of performing some task. The Community Promise doesn't say
anything about these patents, and so Microsoft can still use them to threaten
standard implementations.
Moving the Goalposts

Let's say you've written an implementation of one of the specifications covered
by the Community Promise, and you want to determine whether or not you'll be
sued for infringing a certain Microsoft patent. The necessity question already
makes it difficult enough to figure this out. But even if you manage it, you
should make sure you check again tomorrow, because the Community Promise might
not protect you then.

The Community Promise does not give you any rights to exercise the patented
claims. It only says that Microsoft will not sue you over claims in patents
that it owns or controls. If Microsoft sells one of those patents, there's
nothing stopping the buyer from suing everyone who uses the software.
The Solution: A Comprehensive Patent License

If Microsoft genuinely wants to reassure free software users that it does not
intend to sue them for using Mono, it should grant the public an irrevocable
patent license for all of its patents that Mono actually exercises. That would
neatly avoid all of the existing problems with the Community Promise: it's
broad enough in scope that we don't have to figure out what's covered by the
specification or strictly necessary to implement it. And it would still be in
force even if Microsoft sold the patents.

This isn't an unreasonable request, either. GPLv3 requires distributors to
provide a similar license when they convey modified versions of covered
software, and plenty of companies large and small have had no problem doing
that. Certainly one with Microsoft's resources should be able to manage this,
too. If they're unsure how to go about it, they should get in touch with us;
we'd be happy to work with them to make sure it's satisfactory.

Until that happens, free software developers still should not write software
that depends on Mono. C# implementations can still be attacked by Microsoft's
patents: the Community Promise is designed to give the company several outs if
it wants them. We don't want to see developers' hard work lost to the
community if we lose the ability to use Mono, and until we eliminate software
patents altogether, using another language is the best way to prevent that
from happening.

_______________
Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Privacy Policy.

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpgisUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6kkwCglEF0kx+kwayBKHS9bloAWH1L
cyAAoIPHQb7UUarjYTGWlZ8qLPhAH30d
=Q6oo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?

http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg

"Moshe Goldfarb" <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht 
news:h3q710$ov1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>
> http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg


Meet an "average" linux admin:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/96/Typical_unix_admin.jpg 

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:20:14 +0200, Arend  van der Berigheid
wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb" <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht 
> news:h3q710$ov1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>>
>> http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg
> 
> 
> Meet an "average" linux admin:
> http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/96/Typical_unix_admin.jpg

Hahahaha!

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers�Xbut that doesn't
> mean that all software patents are equally threatening.

No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source developers
a license to use their software is not a threat.  However, all other
patentas are equally threatening because you don't know if the author will
sue you or not.  This even extends to Microsoft.  Microsoft has yet to sue
*ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.  The TomTom suit was defensive
because TomTom was itself threatening to sue MS over software patents
first.

> but if we
> worried about every patent that could be used against us, we wouldn't get
> anything done.

In other words, you really don't care if you violate patents.  That's fine,
just admit it.

> Microsoft's patents are much more dangerous: it's the only
> major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and
> stated its intention to attack our community with patents.

It has done no such thing.  You (and others) have implied that such an
intention is there, and again, that's fine to interpret that there is a
veiled threat, but you are highly dishonest to claim that it's a "stated"
intention.  This is just more of your twisting the truth to make things
appear worse than the reality is.

> If Microsoft
> designed a patent trap into C#, that is no more than what it said it would do.

No, they have not said any such thing.  They have not said they will sue
anyone.  And they certainly haven't said they intend to use patents in the
way you suggest.  Again, you are being dishonest Roy.

> The company has been quite clear about its intentions since late 2006. At a
> user conference in November that year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said,
> responding to a question about their patent agreement with Novell:
> 
>     ... the fact that [GNU/Linux] uses our patented intellectual property [sic]
> is a problem for our shareholders. We spend $7 billion a year on R&D, our
> shareholders expect us to protect or license or get economic benefit from our
> patented innovations. So how do we somehow get the appropriate economic return
> for our patented innovation...?

Nowhere in that quote does it say "We intend to sue Linux users for using
our patents", which is what you claimed Microsoft has stated.  

> (Seattle Post-Intellegencer, The Microsoft Blog, "Ballmer on Novell, Linux and
> patents," November 16, 2006.)
> 
> A few days later, an interview with Microsoft President Bob Muglia was
> published, and he made it clear that they considered C# one of these
> so-called "patented innovations:"

And yet a few days ago, some 2.5 years after his comments were made, they,
by action, showed that they don't intend to sue anyone over the use of any
such patents they could hold by adding it to the Community Process.

You can't use 2.5 year old comments to counteract recent actions.

> They've been turning up the heat ever since. In May 2007, Microsoft followed
> all this up by announcing in a Fortune magazine interview that they believed
> GNU/Linux infringed 235 Microsoft patents. And recently they made it very
> clear that these were not idle threats: the company sued TomTom for using the
> VFAT filesystem implementation in the kernel Linux without buying a license
> from it.

TomTom, the agressivly litigating company that had already sued other
companies over software patents, and had been threatening MS for over a
year with a lawsuit.  

Funny how people like yourself don't like when Microsoft threatens a
lawsuit, and see it as direct evidence that Microsoft intends to sue,
despite the fact that Microsoft has never used patents that way.  Yet
TomTom threatening to sue Microsoft isn't grounds for Microsoft to sue them
back.

When it comes to Microsoft, you hypocrites spin so many ways that you can't
keep your stories, or your logic straight.

> All of this can't simply be brushed aside. These are statements and actions
> made at the highest executive levels of the company. Using patents to divide
> and conquer the free software community is a fundamental part of their
> corporate strategy. Because of that, C# represents a unique threat to us. The
> language was developed inside Microsoft, so it's likely they have many patents
> to cover different aspects of its implementation. That would make free
> software implementations of C#, like Mono, an easy target for attack.

And the Community Promise is a binding legal document that gives up the
right to sue for those patents.

> The Community Promise does nothing to change any of this. Microsoft had an
> opportunity to take action and demonstrate that it meant us no harm with C#.
> Instead, they took meaningless half-measures that leave them with plenty of
> opportunities to hurt us.
> Incomplete Standards

They took the *EXACT SAME* action that Sun has taken in regards to
intellectual property over ODF.  They took the *EXACT SAME* action that IBM
has taken in regard to many of it's patents as well.  

> And just to be clear, we're not talking about Windows-specific
> libraries like ASP.NET and Windows Forms. Instead, we're talking about
> libraries under the System namespace that provide common functionality
> programmers expect in modern programming languages: binary object
> serialization, regular expressions, XPath and XSLT, and more.

"and more"?

All those libraries you mention are part of the ECMA standards.  So why are
you lying and saying they're not?

Here, let me prove it to you.  This document contains all the ECMA 335
Standard namespaces in XML format:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-335.zip

XPath and XSLT are integral parts of the System.XML namespace.  XPath and
XSLT functionality are included in all the XML objects.  There are no
seperate libraries for XPath and XSL, they're part of System.XML and
System.XML is part of the CP.

From the document I reference above:

<AssemblyName>System.Xml</AssemblyName>

Regular Expressions are part of the System.Text Namespace, which.. lo and
behold is in fact part of the ECMA 335 standard as well.

In fact, this (incomplete) Wikipedia entry lists it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Class_Library

"System.Text 
Supports various encodings, regular expressions, and a more efficient
mechanism for manipulating strings (StringBuilder)."

> Because these libraries are not defined in the ECMA specifications, they are
> not protected in any way by Microsoft's Community Promise. If this were the
> only problem with the promise, it might be safe to use applications that avoid
> these libraries, and stick to what's in the standard. But even the code that's
> covered by the promise isn't completely safe.

Yeah, and we believe you when you can't even get something as simple as
regular expressions libraries being included right.

What makes you think anything else you say is any more correct?

> Figuring Out What's Necessary
> 
> The Community Promise only extends to claims in Microsoft patents that are
> necessary to implement the covered specifications. Judging just by the size of
> its patent portfolio, it's likely that Microsoft holds patents which a
> complete standard implementation probably infringes even if it's not strictly
> necessary�Xmaybe the patent covers a straightforward speed optimization, or
> some common way of performing some task. The Community Promise doesn't say
> anything about these patents, and so Microsoft can still use them to threaten
> standard implementations.

Of course what you fail to say is that *ANY* code *ANYONE* writes could
fall afoul of such patents, if they existed (let's be clear, you're way off
in speculation la-la land here).  Funny how "you can't worry about every
patent or we'd get nothing done", but yet you want to worry about
theoretical patents that don't even exist.

> Moving the Goalposts
> 
> Let's say you've written an implementation of one of the specifications covered
> by the Community Promise, and you want to determine whether or not you'll be
> sued for infringing a certain Microsoft patent. The necessity question already
> makes it difficult enough to figure this out. But even if you manage it, you
> should make sure you check again tomorrow, because the Community Promise might
> not protect you then.

They can't revoke the promise, it's already out there.  This is pure FUD.
The promise even says it's irrevokable.

> The Community Promise does not give you any rights to exercise the patented
> claims. It only says that Microsoft will not sue you over claims in patents
> that it owns or controls. If Microsoft sells one of those patents, there's
> nothing stopping the buyer from suing everyone who uses the software.
> The Solution: A Comprehensive Patent License

And yet when I brought up the issue of Microsoft acquiring nearly all of
SGI's 3D patents, including patents on OpenGL, nobody seems concerned.
Likewise nobody seems concerned that Sun's patent promise is now going to
be owned by Oracle.

> This isn't an unreasonable request, either. GPLv3 requires distributors to
> provide a similar license when they convey modified versions of covered
> software, and plenty of companies large and small have had no problem doing
> that. Certainly one with Microsoft's resources should be able to manage this,
> too. If they're unsure how to go about it, they should get in touch with us;
> we'd be happy to work with them to make sure it's satisfactory.

You might want to re-read the GPLv3.  

From the GPLv3:

"In the following three paragraphs, a ��patent license�� is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such
as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for
patent infringement). To ��grant�� such a patent license to a party means to
make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the
party."

In other words, a covenant not to sue is accepted by the GPLv3 as the same
thing as a patent license.

Didn't know that, did you?  Of course not.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?

.... like you and your friends?

> 
(snip)

-- 
Rick

Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik Funkenbusch
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:


> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers?but that
>> doesn't mean that all software patents are equally threatening.
> 
> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source
> developers
> a license to use their software is not a threat.



GPL'd software is not a threat either.

So saying get lost to micoshaft mono until they GPL'd
all their software is a good and safest best practice plan.

In article <3969847.5uOaCGIn1n@schestowitz.com>,
 Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> quoted the FSF:
> The ECMA 334 and 335 specifications describe the core C# language, including
> information about standard libraries that must be available in any compliant
> implementation. However, there are several libraries that are included with
> Mono, and commonly used by applications like Tomboy, that are not required by
> the standard. And just to be clear, we're not talking about Windows-specific
> libraries like ASP.NET and Windows Forms. Instead, we're talking about
> libraries under the System namespace that provide common functionality
> programmers expect in modern programming languages: binary object
> serialization, regular expressions, XPath and XSLT, and more.
> 
> Because these libraries are not defined in the ECMA specifications, 
> they are not protected in any way by Microsoft's Community Promise. 

If Microsoft has patents covering regular expressions, XPath, and other 
such functionality programmers expect in modern programming languages, 
then we are at as much risk from those patents if we use PHP, or Python, 
or Perl, or Ruby, or any of the other numerous things on Linux that 
implement those.

-- 
--Tim Smith

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:47:20 GMT, 7 wrote:

> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik Funkenbusch
> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> 
>>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers?but that
>>> doesn't mean that all software patents are equally threatening.
>> 
>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source
>> developers
>> a license to use their software is not a threat.
> 
> GPL'd software is not a threat either.
> 
> So saying get lost to micoshaft mono until they GPL'd
> all their software is a good and safest best practice plan.

Idiot.  Mono *IS* GPL'd.

On 2009-07-17, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <3969847.5uOaCGIn1n@schestowitz.com>,
>  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> quoted the FSF:
>> The ECMA 334 and 335 specifications describe the core C# language, including
>> information about standard libraries that must be available in any compliant
>> implementation. However, there are several libraries that are included with
>> Mono, and commonly used by applications like Tomboy, that are not required by
>> the standard. And just to be clear, we're not talking about Windows-specific
>> libraries like ASP.NET and Windows Forms. Instead, we're talking about
>> libraries under the System namespace that provide common functionality
>> programmers expect in modern programming languages: binary object
>> serialization, regular expressions, XPath and XSLT, and more.
>> 
>> Because these libraries are not defined in the ECMA specifications, 
>> they are not protected in any way by Microsoft's Community Promise. 
>
> If Microsoft has patents covering regular expressions, XPath, and other 
> such functionality programmers expect in modern programming languages, 
> then we are at as much risk from those patents if we use PHP, or Python, 
> or Perl, or Ruby, or any of the other numerous things on Linux that 
> implement those.

....don't forget grep.

    If you are going to whine about this at least mention the tools
that more than likely represent widely published prior art.

-- 

   Unauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That      ||| 
particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be    / | \ 
cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you   
can be and alienate potential fans.

On 2009-07-17, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <3969847.5uOaCGIn1n@schestowitz.com>,
>  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> quoted the FSF:
>> The ECMA 334 and 335 specifications describe the core C# language, including
>> information about standard libraries that must be available in any compliant
>> implementation. However, there are several libraries that are included with
>> Mono, and commonly used by applications like Tomboy, that are not required by
>> the standard. And just to be clear, we're not talking about Windows-specific
>> libraries like ASP.NET and Windows Forms. Instead, we're talking about
>> libraries under the System namespace that provide common functionality
>> programmers expect in modern programming languages: binary object
>> serialization, regular expressions, XPath and XSLT, and more.
>> 
>> Because these libraries are not defined in the ECMA specifications, 
>> they are not protected in any way by Microsoft's Community Promise. 
>
> If Microsoft has patents covering regular expressions, XPath, and other 
> such functionality programmers expect in modern programming languages, 
> then we are at as much risk from those patents if we use PHP, or Python, 
> or Perl, or Ruby, or any of the other numerous things on Linux that 
> implement those.

....it just occured to me that Chomsky himself could end up dragged
into something like this. Now that would be something worth charging
admission to see. It could be an internet pay-per-view event. '-)

-- 

   Unauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That      ||| 
particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be    / | \ 
cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you   
can be and alienate potential fans.

On Jul 17, 12:39=A0pm, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >
> > Microsoft's patents are much more dangerous: it's the only
> > major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux =
and
> > stated its intention to attack our community with patents.
>
> It has done no such thing. =A0You (and others) have implied that such an
> intention is there, and again, that's fine to interpret that there is a
> veiled threat, but you are highly dishonest to claim that it's a "stated"
> intention. =A0This is just more of your twisting the truth to make things
> appear worse than the reality is.
>

Although Microsoft hasn't declared itself the enemy of linux, or
stated that it's going to attack the Linux community with patents,
wouldn't you have to look at Microsoft slightly differently than other
companies if you were involved with Linux in any way? I mean they are
one of the few companies that has mentioned Linux as direct
competition right? Have Apple, Sun, WindRiver, etc. ever mentioned
competing with Linux? Anyway, I don't understand the mistrust and
blind hatred of Microsoft, but I can at least see where they're coming
from. Not where they end up, but where they're coming from.

"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> schreef in bericht 
news:doj9a8xjeobt.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:47:20 GMT, 7 wrote:
>
>> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik 
>> Funkenbusch
>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of 
>> Marketing:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers?but that
>>>> doesn't mean that all software patents are equally threatening.
>>>
>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source
>>> developers
>>> a license to use their software is not a threat.
>>
>> GPL'd software is not a threat either.
>>
>> So saying get lost to micoshaft mono until they GPL'd
>> all their software is a good and safest best practice plan.
>
> Idiot.  Mono *IS* GPL'd.
>

<to 7>
Gotcha, you little Schestowitz suck-fucktard!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!!! 

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:IKSdnT7zs65iLv3XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>
> ... like you and your friends?
>
Are you the bearded cola regular with the "funny" hat, (P)Rick, or is he 
just a friend?
I bet he's on Marti's Hackwerk poster as well!
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d9/Linux_nylug_booth.jpg

On 2009-07-17, cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 12:39 pm, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >
>> > Microsoft's patents are much more dangerous: it's the only
>> > major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and
>> > stated its intention to attack our community with patents.
>>
>> It has done no such thing.  You (and others) have implied that such an

"free software is a cancer"

The obvious comparison here would invoke Godwins law.

>> intention is there, and again, that's fine to interpret that there is a
>> veiled threat, but you are highly dishonest to claim that it's a "stated"
>> intention.  This is just more of your twisting the truth to make things
>> appear worse than the reality is.
>>
>
> Although Microsoft hasn't declared itself the enemy of linux, or
> stated that it's going to attack the Linux community with patents,
> wouldn't you have to look at Microsoft slightly differently than other
> companies if you were involved with Linux in any way? I mean they are
> one of the few companies that has mentioned Linux as direct
> competition right? Have Apple, Sun, WindRiver, etc. ever mentioned
> competing with Linux? Anyway, I don't understand the mistrust and
> blind hatred of Microsoft, but I can at least see where they're coming
> from. Not where they end up, but where they're coming from.


-- 
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether 
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask,                    |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'"                  / | \

                         -- Bill Gates

Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik Funkenbusch
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:


 
>>>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers?but that
>>>> doesn't mean that all software patents are equally threatening.
>>> 
>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source
>>> developers
>>> a license to use their software is not a threat.
>> 
>> GPL'd software is not a threat either.
>> 
>> So saying get lost to micoshaft mono until they GPL'd
>> all their software is a good and safest best practice plan.
> 
> Idiot.  Mono *IS* GPL'd.


You are the fscking idiot!!!! Micoshaft is mono.
And micoshaft's call their mono their .Nit.
GPL .Nit and we'll see the back of all micosahft / mono
issue. But somehow I don't think that will happen
and neither will asstroturfers like you are
prepared / allowed to discuss that, because you are after
all the fscking idiot that has volunteered to become
micosahft mouth piece in Linux newsgroup.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:40 +0200, Ad Hominem \(Don Zeiglers and HPT's
coach\) wrote:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:IKSdnT7zs65iLv3XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>>
>> ... like you and your friends?
>>
> Are you the bearded cola regular with the "funny" hat, (P)Rick, or is he
> just a friend?

.... look, another one not yet out of kindergarten ... so much for you 
having any credibility regarding th use of Linux systems.
(snip)

-- 
Rick

Verily I say unto thee, that 7 spake thusly:
> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik 
> Funkenbusch wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil 
> Department of Marketing:

>>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to 
>>> developers?but that doesn't mean that all software patents are 
>>> equally threatening.
>> 
>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source 
>> developers a license to use their software is not a threat.

This is why the term "Intellectual Property" is dangerous, since (as
you've just demonstrated) it confuses entirely separate concepts,
blurring the boundaries between them, and causing people to draw the
wrong conclusions.

Microsoft's "Community Promise" is not a license (copyright). It's not a
patent grant either. Indeed, patent grants are not copyright licenses
either. This "promise" is just what it claims to be ... a promise, a
statement of intent, directed at no one in particular. It is not a legal
document, although it could be used as a challenge in a patent
litigation case, assuming that challenge asserted full compliance with
the exact meaning of this "promise" - a challenge in itself.

And even the scope of this "promise" is rather limited, whether or not
one chooses to trust it. It only covers /complete/ implementations of
the ECMA covered code, and it's not entirely certain what is covered, or
even if a "complete implementation" is feasible using Mono - or any
other clone of Microsoft's .NET technology.

> GPL'd software is not a threat either.

Generally speaking, no software is a "threat". The threat comes from
those who use that software as a weapon against Freedom. Unfortunately,
versions of the GPL before version 3 do not fully address the problem of
patents. /No/ version of the GPL addresses the unique problem of
Microsoft.

The real threat with Mono is not patents, it's the patentor - Microsoft.
To support Mono is to support Microsoft's standards, and thus support
Microsoft themselves, a company with a well documented agenda of
opposition to GNU/Linux and Free Software, and one with a very long
history of engaging in the most unscrupulous business practices.

> So saying get lost to micoshaft mono until they GPL'd all their 
> software is a good and safest best practice plan.

Even if, by some miracle, they were to actually relicense their entire
portfolio to GPLv3, I still wouldn't touch Microsoft's software on
principle. The main principle being that I don't support gangsters. The
secondary principle is that their software, and the underlying
technology that drives it, is monumentally crap.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
 22:58:37 up 50 days,  2:56,  4 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

On 2009-07-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers—but that doesn't
>> mean that all software patents are equally threatening.

> .....Microsoft has yet to sue *ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.
> The TomTom suit was defensive because TomTom was itself threatening
> to sue MS over software patents first.

The monopoly sued where TomTom hadn't. Your statements pretending the contrary
carry almost as much weight as helium.

The law doesn't allow someone to kill another person just because the
other person mouths the words, "I'm going to kill you." This instance
was no different, since the monopoly didn't know if TomTom was bluffing
or not without a suit filed.

-- 
I think, therefor I am... I think?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Linux Mint 7
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:58:56 +0100, Homer wrote:

>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source 
>>> developers a license to use their software is not a threat.
> 
> This is why the term "Intellectual Property" is dangerous, since (as
> you've just demonstrated) it confuses entirely separate concepts,
> blurring the boundaries between them, and causing people to draw the
> wrong conclusions.

I think you're the one that's confused.

> Microsoft's "Community Promise" is not a license (copyright).

No, it's not a license, patent or copyright.  (yes there are licenses for
both, not just copyrights).  But they are in liu of a license.  Even the
GPLv3 explicitly treats them as licenses.

> It's not a
> patent grant either. Indeed, patent grants are not copyright licenses
> either.

Why do you keep bringing up copyrights?  Licenses are a document that grant
you the rights to use something.  Sometimes it's copyright, sometimes it's
patents.  A patent grant is a patent license.

You seem to be confused into thinking that only copyrights have licenses.
This is not the truth.

> This "promise" is just what it claims to be ... a promise, a
> statement of intent, directed at no one in particular. It is not a legal
> document, although it could be used as a challenge in a patent
> litigation case, assuming that challenge asserted full compliance with
> the exact meaning of this "promise" - a challenge in itself.

False.  It is in fact a legal document.  The legal term here is "Promissory
Estoppel" and it makes the CP and other such "covenants not to sue" legally
binding.

I've told you this several times already, Homer, and you keep conveniently
ignoring it and repeating your false claim over and over again, as if
ignoring it will make it untrue, and repeating your version over and over
will make it true.

Do me a favor.  Read this before you make this claim again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel

> And even the scope of this "promise" is rather limited, whether or not
> one chooses to trust it. It only covers /complete/ implementations of
> the ECMA covered code, and it's not entirely certain what is covered, or
> even if a "complete implementation" is feasible using Mono - or any
> other clone of Microsoft's .NET technology.

Of course Mono is already a complete implementation of ECMA 334 and 335, so
I really don't understand your whinging about it.

Can someone make a partial implementation of these technologies without
some theoretical risk?  No, but we're not talking about some theoretical
version.  We're talking specifically about Mono, which is already a
complete implementation.

The rest of your argument is pure hand waving.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:32:15 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:

> On 2009-07-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers�Xbut that doesn't
>>> mean that all software patents are equally threatening.
> 
>> .....Microsoft has yet to sue *ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.
>> The TomTom suit was defensive because TomTom was itself threatening
>> to sue MS over software patents first.
> 
> The monopoly sued where TomTom hadn't. Your statements pretending the contrary
> carry almost as much weight as helium.

TomTom has already sued other companies for patent infringement.  TomTom
itself says they were "in negotiations" for over a year with Microsoft.
When talking about "patent negotiations", it's clear that's a threat to
sue.

In fact, you guys see a threat to sue simply by Microsoft saying "Hey,
we've got patents, and we think you linux guys might be in violation of
some of them".  TomTom was well beyond that.

> The law doesn't allow someone to kill another person just because the
> other person mouths the words, "I'm going to kill you." This instance
> was no different, since the monopoly didn't know if TomTom was bluffing
> or not without a suit filed.

Then you agree that Microsoft saying anything about their patents is not a
threat against Linux.

Wow.  

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:50:53 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:47:20 GMT, 7 wrote:
> 
>> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik Funkenbusch
>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers?but that
>>>> doesn't mean that all software patents are equally threatening.
>>> 
>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source
>>> developers
>>> a license to use their software is not a threat.
>> 
>> GPL'd software is not a threat either.
>> 
>> So saying get lost to micoshaft mono until they GPL'd
>> all their software is a good and safest best practice plan.
> 
> Idiot.  Mono *IS* GPL'd.

*Slam Dunk !!!*

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:40 +0200, Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and
HPT's coach) wrote:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> schreef in bericht 
> news:IKSdnT7zs65iLv3XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>>
>> ... like you and your friends?
>>
> Are you the bearded cola regular with the "funny" hat, (P)Rick, or is he 
> just a friend?
> I bet he's on Marti's Hackwerk poster as well!
> http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d9/Linux_nylug_booth.jpg

The idiot with the beard is Rubin Safir (sp?)

On 2009-07-18, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:32:15 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:

>> The monopoly sued where TomTom hadn't. Your statements pretending the contrary
>> carry almost as much weight as helium.
>
> TomTom has already sued other companies for patent infringement.  TomTom
> itself says they were "in negotiations" for over a year with Microsoft.
> When talking about "patent negotiations", it's clear that's a threat to
> sue.

"I'm coming over to talk to you," means I'm coming armed and ready to
shoot?

> Then you agree that Microsoft saying anything about their patents is not a
> threat against Linux.

The monopoly has already massacred scores of innocents. I plan on not
being next on the list. Especially if they're asking me to take their
word for it.

That doesn't mean they will, mind you. That simply means I choose not
to be a target. I also don't appreciate anyone making me a target
without advising me first so I can make a different choice, like Ubuntu
did.

But taking precautions doesn't mean I'm going to run up to Blammer with
the chainsaw running. Like you keep claiming a certain crooked monopoly
did against TomTom.

-- 
We should limit congressmen to two terms: one in Congress...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Linux Mint 7
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:58:49 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:

> On 2009-07-18, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:32:15 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-07-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
> 
>>> The monopoly sued where TomTom hadn't. Your statements pretending the contrary
>>> carry almost as much weight as helium.
>>
>> TomTom has already sued other companies for patent infringement.  TomTom
>> itself says they were "in negotiations" for over a year with Microsoft.
>> When talking about "patent negotiations", it's clear that's a threat to
>> sue.
> 
> "I'm coming over to talk to you," means I'm coming armed and ready to
> shoot?

When they've already shot several other companies, you would certainly
think so.

>> Then you agree that Microsoft saying anything about their patents is not a
>> threat against Linux.
> 
> The monopoly has already massacred scores of innocents. I plan on not
> being next on the list. Especially if they're asking me to take their
> word for it.

I notice you deleted YOUR comments.  You must be ashamed of them, because
you realize how it completely flips your argument.  Here, let me quote what
you said again:

> The law doesn't allow someone to kill another person just because the
> other person mouths the words, "I'm going to kill you." This instance
> was no different, since the monopoly didn't know if TomTom was bluffing
> or not without a suit filed.

There we go.  You essentially saying that talking about patents isn't a
threat.  

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to developers—but that doesn't
>> mean that all software patents are equally threatening.
>
> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source developers
> a license to use their software is not a threat.  However, all other
> patentas are equally threatening because you don't know if the author will
> sue you or not.  This even extends to Microsoft.  Microsoft has yet to sue
> *ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.  The TomTom suit was defensive
> because TomTom was itself threatening to sue MS over software patents
> first.

How Orwellian of you.

TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
possible answers:

1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.

2. Microsoft sues.

Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?

The question is rhetorical, BTW. 

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

7 wrote:
> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik
> Funkenbusch wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil
> Department of Marketing:
>
>
>
>>>>> It's true that all software patents are a threat to
>>>>> developers?but that doesn't mean that all software patents are
>>>>> equally threatening.
>>>>
>>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source
>>>> developers
>>>> a license to use their software is not a threat.
>>>
>>> GPL'd software is not a threat either.
>>>
>>> So saying get lost to micoshaft mono until they GPL'd
>>> all their software is a good and safest best practice plan.
>>
>> Idiot.  Mono *IS* GPL'd.
>
>
> You are the fscking idiot!!!! Micoshaft is mono.

Check your facts, you idiot of idiots!
"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 and ASP.NET AJAX client software are released by Microsoft under
the open source Microsoft Permissive License."
http://mono-project.com/Licensing

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:00:16 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:

>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source developers
>> a license to use their software is not a threat.  However, all other
>> patentas are equally threatening because you don't know if the author will
>> sue you or not.  This even extends to Microsoft.  Microsoft has yet to sue
>> *ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.  The TomTom suit was defensive
>> because TomTom was itself threatening to sue MS over software patents
>> first.
> 
> How Orwellian of you.
> 
> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
> possible answers:
> 
> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.

Which they did, by TomTom's own admission, for more than a year.

> 2. Microsoft sues.

Which appears to have happened only when it was clear that TomTom was going
to sue them and negotiations failed.

> Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
> common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?

Which argument is wrong?  Yeah, that's right, yours.

> The question is rhetorical, BTW. 

No, it's not even that.. because your facts are wrong.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:00:16 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> 
>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source developers
>>> a license to use their software is not a threat.  However, all other
>>> patentas are equally threatening because you don't know if the author will
>>> sue you or not.  This even extends to Microsoft.  Microsoft has yet to sue
>>> *ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.  The TomTom suit was defensive
>>> because TomTom was itself threatening to sue MS over software patents
>>> first.
>> 
>> How Orwellian of you.
>> 
>> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
>> possible answers:
>> 
>> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.
> 
> Which they did, by TomTom's own admission, for more than a year.
> 
>> 2. Microsoft sues.
> 
> Which appears to have happened only when it was clear that TomTom was going
> to sue them and negotiations failed.
> 
>> Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
>> common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?
> 
> Which argument is wrong?  Yeah, that's right, yours.
> 
>> The question is rhetorical, BTW. 
> 
> No, it's not even that.. because your facts are wrong.

Why does Mart come back for more?
He got his clock cleaned the last time.
Oh well, get out the popcorn for round 2 of the rope-a-dope.

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:00:16 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source developers
>>> a license to use their software is not a threat.  However, all other
>>> patentas are equally threatening because you don't know if the author will
>>> sue you or not.  This even extends to Microsoft.  Microsoft has yet to sue
>>> *ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.  The TomTom suit was defensive
>>> because TomTom was itself threatening to sue MS over software patents
>>> first.
>> 
>> How Orwellian of you.
>> 
>> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
>> possible answers:
>> 
>> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.
>
> Which they did, by TomTom's own admission, for more than a year.
>
>> 2. Microsoft sues.
>
> Which appears to have happened only when it was clear that TomTom was going
> to sue them and negotiations failed.
>
'Appears'.

Your masters should give you a little more than just speculation. It
would help your damaged credibility a bit.

>> Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
>> common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?
>
> Which argument is wrong?  Yeah, that's right, yours.
>
>> The question is rhetorical, BTW. 
>
> No, it's not even that.. because your facts are wrong.

So, who sued first?

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Moshe Goldfarb <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:00:16 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>> 
>>>> No, since any software patent owner that has granted open source developers
>>>> a license to use their software is not a threat.  However, all other
>>>> patentas are equally threatening because you don't know if the author will
>>>> sue you or not.  This even extends to Microsoft.  Microsoft has yet to sue
>>>> *ANYONE* (including TomTOm) offensively.  The TomTom suit was defensive
>>>> because TomTom was itself threatening to sue MS over software patents
>>>> first.
>>> 
>>> How Orwellian of you.
>>> 
>>> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
>>> possible answers:
>>> 
>>> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.
>> 
>> Which they did, by TomTom's own admission, for more than a year.
>> 
>>> 2. Microsoft sues.
>> 
>> Which appears to have happened only when it was clear that TomTom was going
>> to sue them and negotiations failed.
>> 
>>> Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
>>> common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?
>> 
>> Which argument is wrong?  Yeah, that's right, yours.
>> 
>>> The question is rhetorical, BTW. 
>> 
>> No, it's not even that.. because your facts are wrong.
>
> Why does Mart come back for more?
> He got his clock cleaned the last time.
> Oh well, get out the popcorn for round 2 of the rope-a-dope.

How dumb are these freetards? Almost every thing they say is plainly and
provably wrong. Between High Plains Hypocrite, Dumb "Me too" Willy,
Th(r)ick, Halliwell and Mart 99% of the words dumbness emanates. I
suspect the IEEE have a word for the units of dumbness they exude.



-- 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

"Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't." - AH
 ** http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dec7cb073d761af4

"Moshe Goldfarb" <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht 
news:h3r7je$6ve$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:40 +0200, Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and
> HPT's coach) wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:IKSdnT7zs65iLv3XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>>>
>>> ... like you and your friends?
>>>
>> Are you the bearded cola regular with the "funny" hat, (P)Rick, or is he
>> just a friend?
>> I bet he's on Marti's Hackwerk poster as well!
>> http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d9/Linux_nylug_booth.jpg
>
> The idiot with the beard is Rubin Safir (sp?)
>


:-? , I think it is Jay Sulzberger, who calls Ruben Safir a madman!
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-23/commerce-drm-roundtable-1.jpg
Three "madmen" on one picture! (Stallman, Safir, Sulzberger)
http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/27105?theme=print
"Working with NYLXS, In New York City in the past two years there's risen a 
wonderful new free software organization run by a *madman* , Ruben Safir. 
NYLXS is a membership organization. You have to pay a fee and you also have 
to volunteer, and then you get to vote. They have classes in free software. 
They have a lot of projects going on."
<aside>
Ping > Marti:
Heya Mart, three of your "heroes" on one picture! ;-)

Moshe Goldfarb <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> writes:

>
> Why does Mart come back for more?
> He got his clock cleaned the last time.

Funny. It was Erik who once again disappeared.

But then again, you are almost a dumber shit than DooFuS and Hadron. No
wonder you are so in love with them.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:29:05 +0200, Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and
HPT's coach) wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb" <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht 
> news:h3r7je$6ve$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:40 +0200, Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and
>> HPT's coach) wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:IKSdnT7zs65iLv3XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>>>>
>>>> ... like you and your friends?
>>>>
>>> Are you the bearded cola regular with the "funny" hat, (P)Rick, or is he
>>> just a friend?
>>> I bet he's on Marti's Hackwerk poster as well!
>>> http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d9/Linux_nylug_booth.jpg
>>
>> The idiot with the beard is Rubin Safir (sp?)
>>
> 
> 
>:-? , I think it is Jay Sulzberger, who calls Ruben Safir a madman!
> http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-23/commerce-drm-roundtable-1.jpg
> Three "madmen" on one picture! (Stallman, Safir, Sulzberger)
> http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/27105?theme=print
> "Working with NYLXS, In New York City in the past two years there's risen a 
> wonderful new free software organization run by a *madman* , Ruben Safir. 
> NYLXS is a membership organization. You have to pay a fee and you also have 
> to volunteer, and then you get to vote. They have classes in free software. 
> They have a lot of projects going on."
> <aside>
> Ping > Marti:
> Heya Mart, three of your "heroes" on one picture! ;-)

You might be right!

I attended a couple of their meetings a few years ago but it's
been a long time.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:35:30 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>>
>> Why does Mart come back for more?
>> He got his clock cleaned the last time.
> 
> Funny. It was Erik who once again disappeared.
> 
> But then again, you are almost a dumber shit than DooFuS and Hadron. No
> wonder you are so in love with them.
> 
> Mart

You are projecting again Mart....

"Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and HPT's coach)"
<Linux_SUX@apen_staartje.net> writes:

> "Moshe Goldfarb" <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht 
> news:h3r7je$6ve$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:40 +0200, Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and
>> HPT's coach) wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:IKSdnT7zs65iLv3XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>>>>
>>>> ... like you and your friends?
>>>>
>>> Are you the bearded cola regular with the "funny" hat, (P)Rick, or is he
>>> just a friend?
>>> I bet he's on Marti's Hackwerk poster as well!
>>> http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d9/Linux_nylug_booth.jpg
>>
>> The idiot with the beard is Rubin Safir (sp?)
>>
>
>
> :-? , I think it is Jay Sulzberger, who calls Ruben Safir a madman!
> http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-23/commerce-drm-roundtable-1.jpg
> Three "madmen" on one picture! (Stallman, Safir, Sulzberger)
> http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/27105?theme=print
> "Working with NYLXS, In New York City in the past two years there's risen a 
> wonderful new free software organization run by a *madman* , Ruben Safir. 
> NYLXS is a membership organization. You have to pay a fee and you also have 
> to volunteer, and then you get to vote. They have classes in free software. 
> They have a lot of projects going on."
> <aside>
> Ping > Marti:
> Heya Mart, three of your "heroes" on one picture! ;-)
>
>
>

He thinks he's Robin Williams. I can only imagine the smell in that
room.


-- 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

"Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't." - AH
 ** http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dec7cb073d761af4

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> writes:

> Moshe Goldfarb <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Why does Mart come back for more?
>> He got his clock cleaned the last time.
>
> Funny. It was Erik who once again disappeared.
>
> But then again, you are almost a dumber shit than DooFuS and Hadron. No
> wonder you are so in love with them.
>
> Mart

History and Google don't lie. You were made, yet again, to look like a
clueless fan boy. You telling lies does not change that.

-- 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

"Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't." - AH
 ** http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dec7cb073d761af4

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:37:39 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:

>>> How Orwellian of you.
>>> 
>>> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
>>> possible answers:
>>> 
>>> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.
>>
>> Which they did, by TomTom's own admission, for more than a year.
>>
>>> 2. Microsoft sues.
>>
>> Which appears to have happened only when it was clear that TomTom was going
>> to sue them and negotiations failed.
>>
> 'Appears'.
> 
> Your masters should give you a little more than just speculation. It
> would help your damaged credibility a bit.

Changing the subject noted.

Why can't you admit you just fucked up?

>>> Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
>>> common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?
>>
>> Which argument is wrong?  Yeah, that's right, yours.
>>
>>> The question is rhetorical, BTW. 
>>
>> No, it's not even that.. because your facts are wrong.
> 
> So, who sued first?

Microsoft did, as you well know.  3 weeks later, TomTom filed their suit.
Anyone with half a brain knows it takes longer than 3 weeks to prepare a
lawsuit.  This suit was ready to fire.

It's not even beyond the realm of impossibility that TomTom told Microsoft
they were going to file the lawsuit on a given date, and then didn't..
hoping Microsoft would take them at their word and file their own lawsuit,
then use the delay to generate free community publicity.

There is no way that TomTom wasn't completely prepared for their lawsuit in
order to file it so fast.  Both parties had been arguing for more than a
year, and it's clear negotiations broke down.

"Who sued first" when the timetable is a few weeks is irrelevant, it's
basically both doing it at the same time.

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:37:39 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>>> How Orwellian of you.
>>>> 
>>>> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
>>>> possible answers:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.
>>>
>>> Which they did, by TomTom's own admission, for more than a year.
>>>
>>>> 2. Microsoft sues.
>>>
>>> Which appears to have happened only when it was clear that TomTom was going
>>> to sue them and negotiations failed.
>>>
>> 'Appears'.
>> 
>> Your masters should give you a little more than just speculation. It
>> would help your damaged credibility a bit.
>
> Changing the subject noted.
>
> Why can't you admit you just fucked up?
>
I'll admit I fucked up when you post facts. Not earlier.

>>>> Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
>>>> common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?
>>>
>>> Which argument is wrong?  Yeah, that's right, yours.
>>>
>>>> The question is rhetorical, BTW. 
>>>
>>> No, it's not even that.. because your facts are wrong.
>> 
>> So, who sued first?
>
> Microsoft did, as you well know.  3 weeks later, TomTom filed their suit.
> Anyone with half a brain knows it takes longer than 3 weeks to prepare a
> lawsuit.  This suit was ready to fire.
>
Doesn't matter. TomTom didn't choose to fire. Microsoft did.

Microsoft sued first. That's offensive in any definition except in
Erik-speak.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> writes:

> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:37:39 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>>>>> How Orwellian of you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
>>>>> possible answers:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.
>>>>
>>>> Which they did, by TomTom's own admission, for more than a year.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Microsoft sues.
>>>>
>>>> Which appears to have happened only when it was clear that TomTom was going
>>>> to sue them and negotiations failed.
>>>>
>>> 'Appears'.
>>> 
>>> Your masters should give you a little more than just speculation. It
>>> would help your damaged credibility a bit.
>>
>> Changing the subject noted.
>>
>> Why can't you admit you just fucked up?
>>
> I'll admit I fucked up when you post facts. Not earlier.
>

>>>>> Which one of these reactions is defensive, and which one is offensive in
>>>>> common English usage (as opposed to Erik-speak)?
>>>>
>>>> Which argument is wrong?  Yeah, that's right, yours.
>>>>
>>>>> The question is rhetorical, BTW. 
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not even that.. because your facts are wrong.
>>> 
>>> So, who sued first?
>>
>> Microsoft did, as you well know.  3 weeks later, TomTom filed their suit.
>> Anyone with half a brain knows it takes longer than 3 weeks to prepare a
>> lawsuit.  This suit was ready to fire.
>>
> Doesn't matter. TomTom didn't choose to fire. Microsoft did.
>

It does matter. The fact you do not understand it does not make you right.


> Microsoft sued first. That's offensive in any definition except in
> Erik-speak.
>
> Mart

Then you're an idiot. Take a deep breath and go re-read the sequence of
events and try not to make a tit of yourself any more than you have
managed so far. Think. Thinking is so important. Parroting Spamowitz is
no way to go through life son. Do you want to become an object of
ridicule like Miniwitz?

-- 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

"Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't." - AH
 ** http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dec7cb073d761af4

On 2009-07-18, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:58:49 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-18, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:32:15 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-07-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>> 
>>>> The monopoly sued where TomTom hadn't. Your statements pretending the contrary
>>>> carry almost as much weight as helium.
>>>
>>> TomTom has already sued other companies for patent infringement.  TomTom
>>> itself says they were "in negotiations" for over a year with Microsoft.
>>> When talking about "patent negotiations", it's clear that's a threat to
>>> sue.
>> 
>> "I'm coming over to talk to you," means I'm coming armed and ready to
>> shoot?
>
> When they've already shot several other companies, you would certainly
> think so.
>
>>> Then you agree that Microsoft saying anything about their patents is not a
>>> threat against Linux.
>> 
>> The monopoly has already massacred scores of innocents. I plan on not
>> being next on the list. Especially if they're asking me to take their
>> word for it.
>
> I notice you deleted YOUR comments.  You must be ashamed of them, because
> you realize how it completely flips your argument.  Here, let me quote what
> you said again:

I removed my comments because they were no longer relavent to what more
I had to say. But, very well, let's entertain your misreading of them
for a moment.

>> The law doesn't allow someone to kill another person just because the
>> other person mouths the words, "I'm going to kill you." This instance
>> was no different, since the monopoly didn't know if TomTom was bluffing
>> or not without a suit filed.
>
> There we go.  You essentially saying that talking about patents isn't a
> threat.  

Under normal circumstances I might agree with you on that assessment.
For instance, the subject of TomTom negotiating with $MONOPOLY. That's
in no way or shape a threat in and of itself. Not unless they also make
threats about actions if the negotiations don't go as they'd like.

When discussing the likes of Gate$, Blammer and the monopoly they're
tied to, the opposite of that would be the truth.

-- 
Useless Invention: Candy bars with stannous fluoride added.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Linux Mint 7
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On 2009-07-18, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:

> Microsoft did, as you well know.  3 weeks later, TomTom filed their suit.
> Anyone with half a brain knows it takes longer than 3 weeks to prepare a
> lawsuit.  This suit was ready to fire.

Couldn't possibly because TomTom saw the writing on the wall and knew
the monopolists were probably going to file a preemptive suit. It might
be wise to prepare for the eventuality rather than trust a venomous
snake not to bite you.

Nope. It's always the way blessed MICRO$~1 claims it is.

Who sued first again?

-- 
But I forgot all about the Amnesia Conference!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Linux Mint 7
Friends don't let friends use Windows

Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:

> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> writes:
>
>> Microsoft sued first. That's offensive in any definition except in
>> Erik-speak.
>>
>> Mart
>
> Then you're an idiot. Take a deep breath and go re-read the sequence of
> events 

I did. 

Microsoft initiated licensing talks on 8 of its patents when confronted
with TomTom's claim. When that discussion went nowhere according to
Microsoft, they pulled the gun and sued.

Link in dutch:

http://www.fembusiness.nl/web/artikelSmal/38341/TomTom-wijst-patentclaim-Microsoft-af.htm

And linked from there, Microsofts own press statement:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/feb09/02-25statement.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases

Fact: Microsoft sued first.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

In article <86y6qmz267.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>,
 Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> TomTom notifies Microsoft of a patent infringement. There are two
> possible answers:
> 
> 1. Microsoft enters into negotiations with TomTom.

Which they did, for over a year.

-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <86hbx9znoj.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>,
 Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> Fact: Microsoft sued first.

Microsoft *filed* first. It takes several months to prepare and file a 
patent lawsuit. Why do you think it is significant that when MS and 
Tomtom were both several months into preparing suits against each other, 
MS happened to end up being a little bit faster? For all you know, that 
was just a matter of lawyer scheduling.


-- 
--Tim Smith

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:

>> I notice you deleted YOUR comments.  You must be ashamed of them, because
>> you realize how it completely flips your argument.  Here, let me quote what
>> you said again:
> 
> I removed my comments because they were no longer relavent to what more
> I had to say. But, very well, let's entertain your misreading of them
> for a moment.

Because you realized you seriously dropped the ball.

>>> The law doesn't allow someone to kill another person just because the
>>> other person mouths the words, "I'm going to kill you." This instance
>>> was no different, since the monopoly didn't know if TomTom was bluffing
>>> or not without a suit filed.
>>
>> There we go.  You essentially saying that talking about patents isn't a
>> threat.  
> 
> Under normal circumstances I might agree with you on that assessment.
> For instance, the subject of TomTom negotiating with $MONOPOLY. That's
> in no way or shape a threat in and of itself. Not unless they also make
> threats about actions if the negotiations don't go as they'd like.
> 
> When discussing the likes of Gate$, Blammer and the monopoly they're
> tied to, the opposite of that would be the truth.

So let me get this straight.  A company like TomTom who has already sued
several companies for software patent infringement should be considered
"bluffing" when they say they're going to sue, but Microsoft, who has
*NEVER* sued anyone for software patents who wasn't threatening them first
should be treated as the word of god.

Your logic is stunningly stupid.

On 2009-07-19, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>
>>> I notice you deleted YOUR comments.  You must be ashamed of them, because
>>> you realize how it completely flips your argument.  Here, let me quote what
>>> you said again:
>> 
>> I removed my comments because they were no longer relavent to what more
>> I had to say. But, very well, let's entertain your misreading of them
>> for a moment.
>
> Because you realized you seriously dropped the ball.
>
>>>> The law doesn't allow someone to kill another person just because the
>>>> other person mouths the words, "I'm going to kill you." This instance
>>>> was no different, since the monopoly didn't know if TomTom was bluffing
>>>> or not without a suit filed.
>>>
>>> There we go.  You essentially saying that talking about patents isn't a
>>> threat.  
>> 
>> Under normal circumstances I might agree with you on that assessment.
>> For instance, the subject of TomTom negotiating with $MONOPOLY. That's
>> in no way or shape a threat in and of itself. Not unless they also make
>> threats about actions if the negotiations don't go as they'd like.
>> 
>> When discussing the likes of Gate$, Blammer and the monopoly they're
>> tied to, the opposite of that would be the truth.
>
> So let me get this straight.  A company like TomTom who has already sued
> several companies for software patent infringement should be considered
> "bluffing" when they say they're going to sue, but Microsoft, who has
> *NEVER* sued anyone for software patents who wasn't threatening them first
> should be treated as the word of god.

No, you didn't "get it straight" at all. But I'm not surprised. You
wouldn't be able to make excuses for your masters effectively if you
actually understood.

> Your logic is stunningly stupid.

When compared to yours it certainly is.

-- 
C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Linux Mint 7
Friends don't let friends use Windows

"Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:h3t2vi$m18$2@hadron.eternal-september.org...
> "Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and HPT's coach)"
> <Linux_SUX@apen_staartje.net> writes:
>
>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:h3r7je$6ve$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:40 +0200, Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and
>>> HPT's coach) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> schreef in bericht
>>>> news:IKSdnT7zs65iLv3XnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who cares about a bunch of unwashed losers?
>>>>>
>>>>> ... like you and your friends?
>>>>>
>>>> Are you the bearded cola regular with the "funny" hat, (P)Rick, or is 
>>>> he
>>>> just a friend?
>>>> I bet he's on Marti's Hackwerk poster as well!
>>>> http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d9/Linux_nylug_booth.jpg
>>>
>>> The idiot with the beard is Rubin Safir (sp?)
>>>
>>
>>
>> :-? , I think it is Jay Sulzberger, who calls Ruben Safir a madman!
>> http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-23/commerce-drm-roundtable-1.jpg
>> Three "madmen" on one picture! (Stallman, Safir, Sulzberger)
>> http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/27105?theme=print
>> "Working with NYLXS, In New York City in the past two years there's risen 
>> a
>> wonderful new free software organization run by a *madman* , Ruben Safir.
>> NYLXS is a membership organization. You have to pay a fee and you also 
>> have
>> to volunteer, and then you get to vote. They have classes in free 
>> software.
>> They have a lot of projects going on."
>> <aside>
>> Ping > Marti:
>> Heya Mart, three of your "heroes" on one picture! ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
> He thinks he's Robin Williams. I can only imagine the smell in that
> room.
>
........... because that pig Stallman ate his toe-jam again, I bet!