User talk:Miguel.de.Icaza

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~ ; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 05:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mono development platform (patents)
Hi Miguel.

Some time ago there were a anonymous user (User:83.237.60.214) adding an sentence on Mono development platform about Portable.NET not having any problems with patents and licensing. I removed it, as I believe it's false.

I and the anonymous user started to discuss the matter on Mono's talk-page, but now I don't really now what to say and I wonder if you would like to contribute to the discussion.- David Björklund (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, You used it correct. Some like to reply on the talk-page direct, but as you did, replying on my talk-page is also okej.


 * Thanks for the clarification on Mono's talk page.- David Björklund (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no section on the critisizms of the Mono framework? Not just the patents but complaints from the MS camp about poor implimentation. I know there are such complaints, but I don't code so I cant talk!

Proprietary open source
For User:83.237.108.102: please stop this edit war; let's discuss here or in my talk page, please. No, Mono is definitely not proprietary, even if its development is leaded by a commercial company. You can say that it's commercial free software since it's presumably written (also) for a profit, but its license makes it inequivocably free sofware and open source. For another example of commercial free software I invite you to see GNAT; also many developers of GCC are paid, but this doesn't make the compiler proprietary. The same holds for many RedHat tools. --positron 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * User:83.237.108.102 doesn't seem to answer, so I'll do that instead. Mono's licensening FAQ (http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) says:
 * "When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms.


 * This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code.


 * Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release those changes back. "
 * Mono is commercial, yes. Mono is open source, yes. BUT Novell can decide to give you a version of Mono where you do not need to distribute the changes back (Which probably cost some $) . For me that sounds like you can get a proprietary version of Mono. - David Björklund (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The project can be either open source or not. If it is released under the open source license (GPL, LGPL and so on), it is the open source project, even if written by the devil himself. If there are any additional restrictions, or the license is specific, it probably is not. I downloaded the Mono sources, they contain the file Copying.lib with the text of LGPL. To be completely sure, it would be good to check if it builds. Novell is doing something very strange by not saying nothing direct about the license in the main homepage, but there is unlinked that states all licenses are open source. Audriusa


 * Changed text so that it now mention the licensing of all different parts of Mono. There are quite a lot of open source projects that are, more or less, only driven by one company. The proprietary open source nature about Mono is because it's availible both under open source licenses and a proprietary.- David Björklund (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Portable.NET project: patents and licensing.
Hi User:83.237.60.214. I reverted your edits (twice) about Portable.NET and the patents and licensing. Mono could have problems with licensing and patents, but to this day - nothing has happend. Also, the article has a section discussing the patents and licensing.

Your addition is an opinion more than facts. - David Björklund (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi David Björklund. "Mono could have problems with licensing and patents, but to this day - nothing has happend." Doesn't that sound like a problem with licensing and patents? I think this should be said in a way or another. As the Portable .NET project is developed it a way that it doesn't have those problems at all - then it makes a difference? And then there is the part about why patents it is not a problem for Mono, doesn't this point that the licensing and patents are actually a problem for Mono development?


 * No. That sounds like they could have problems with licensing and patents - not that they have problems. Also I'd like to know how why (some sources) Portable.NET won't have any problems at all - it cover system forms, one of the problematic parts.- David Björklund (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is not wether Portable.NET or Mono "could" have problems, the question is which project is using a license that makes IP claims an actual problem. I have emailed a Portable.NET developer, he answered me quiet quickly in contrast to what I could think as they work on the project in they free time.


 * "In the early days, mono's class library was still LGPL, it was then changed to the MIT X11 license and mono leads announced that, if Microsoft ever wants them to buy an IP license, they will do so[1] and *that* is the difference. Portable.NET is completly GPL(+linking exception)/LGPL, thus, even if the copyright holders ("Southern Storm Software, Pty Ltd" and the "Free Software Foundation") wanted to buy such a license, the (L)GPL(+linking exception) would not allow this. If you contribute code to mono's class library and assign the copyright to Novell, it is only free as long as Novell wants it to be free (if Microsoft claims IP on that implementation Novell announced to buy it, thus, turning your contributed code into proprietary software because the MIT X11 allows such action). It's not that the MIT X11 is a bad license, it's just that the LGPL would be a much better choice for a free software project that also wants to *remain free* in the future. With "MIT X11" licensed libraries it is possible for a proprietary software company to take a library (which was jointly developed by many companies and individuals), change it, and consider the modified version their proprietary library which they license only under restrictive conditions. This means that in the long run it could happen that contributions to Mono's class library (which is licensed under the MIT X11 license) might actually help proprietary software companies to compete successfully against Free Software, like DotGNU Portable.NET.
 * [1] http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/mono-list/2003-October/016292.html "
 * Well, what is your opinion? Should we change the text to show that the project gives a lot of attention to the patents/licensing problems, shouldn't we?


 * The issue is a practical one. If a piece of code is found to infringe a patent it is up to the patent holder to set the terms and the rules for the use of his invention.   So it is a primary directive of the Mono effort to abide by the law and if we are forced through a legal ruling to remove the code, we will remove the code.  Such a ruling would also affect Portable.NET (and the same theoretical problem happens with all software: if you infringe on someone else's code, you must abide by their rules;  if this is free software you would have to stop distribution of the infringing code no matter what license you picked).


 * If the Mono code is found to infringe on a patent, our intention is to negotiate with the patent holder, and if the terms are right, we could make the code that uses the patented invention available to those willing to abide by the terms impossed by the patent holder. The actual requirements would depend on the patent holder and the rules he wants to enforce.  This means that Mono would have two editions: one that is completely free and does not infringe any code (removing the infringing code) and another edition that has the patented code available licensed under whatever terms the patent holder might impose on us.  Open source/free software developers could continue to use Mono, without the infringing parts.


 * The difference is that Mono is in a position of offering two editions if we are ever forced to go down that path.  Portable.NET on the other hand would be limited to remove the features and there would be no option to users of the system, even if they are willing to pay or license the patent, to make use of the software.   This is detailed in the GPL section 7:


 * If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.


 * The steps that Mono took were taken precisely to avoid that problem: if we are found to be infringing, we will have to remove the code, but we are still allowed to make an edition that licenses the patents to those users and customers that need it. A GPL or LGPL implementation means that we would have to cut the option without being able to offer any remedial steps to any customers.


 * The quoted text is also missing a point: if Mono's code were at any point to become proprietary, anyone could continue developing the open source edition. This is the same situation that exists today with BSD or X11.  If someone makes a proprietary version that does not stop anyone from maintaining the already existing open source code.  Today people take pieces of Mono code and stick it into their projects, this is very common, as our license is very lax and they do not have to worry about infringing the GPL or the LGPL.  They are allowed to do so.  The fact that many people borrow Mono code and include it with their projects does not mean that Mono has to stop, we continue to develop code in the open, and we continue to release it as free software.- User:Miguel.de.Icaza

Isn't it true that you do money from selling licenses of Mono? And that it is the main part of the money you get from Mono? And that you don't pay people who work on they free time on open source?


 * Yes, Mono can be licensed by people who need a proprietary license. And you are right that people who have contributed their code to Mono are not paid, but: (a) this is not different than any of the other Dual licensed projects (OpenOffice, Qt, BerkeleyDB, MySQL and others);  (b) everyone contributing that does so, knows under which terms they are contributing it, they are free to not contribute the code, or to not sign a copyright agreement license (and in that case, we are unable to integrate the code into Mono).


 * As for your financial questions, am unable to answer those, but you can read Novell's SEC filings for more details.

It sounds resonable. You said that the patents has the same effect to a software that was initially GPL, LGPL or X11. But in the GPL license i thought that if you contribute code you have to be sure that it doesn't have any problem with patents. Maybe there isn't such point in the X11? So that this is the reason of the patents problem?
 * You are confusing a few topics. Patents affect all kinds of software, regardless of the license.  Lets use an example, if company "A" has a patent that product MyGPLproduct and MyX11product infringe, they both infringe, if "company A" requests that the code be removed, both products must remove it.
 * Now, the GPL on the other hand states that if the creator of MyGPLProduct has a patent, it implicitly grants a patent license to those using copies of his software, but it can obviously not grant patents rights to patents it does not own.  Lets consider an old example: once in a lifetime the algorithm used by the GIF file format had a valid patent.  it did not matter that there were free (GPL and non-GPL) implementations of the algorithm: it was illegal to distribute those implementation (in fact, it is illegal to even develop it).
 * Now, from the Mono standpoint, we figured that if we were ever found to be in violation of a patent, we could not just tell our customers "Sorry, better luck next time". We needed a mechanism by which we could continue to support their products.  So our strategy allows Mono to be forked: one open source fork would not include infringing components, one proprietary edition would include patented components.
 * So far, we have not been forced to fork Mono.
 * Now, on a separate note, today we do license versions of Mono for proprietary use, when pieces of GPL or LGPL code can not be used by a company that needs the software; We are able to give a legal license to this code for use in a proprietary product. - Miguel.de.Icaza 05:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And it really does sound when you edit the wiki page on Mono and are attacking me (without any real reason btw, even if I'm lurking on the #dotgnu and working on they JIT) as Bill Gates editing the wikipedia page on Windows :)
 * Am not attacking you. You have decided to attack Mono by trying to vilify it with the "proprietary open source" expression which you invented and does not reflect the actual practice.  In addition, you have decided to remove all the text that records your actions. - Miguel.de.Icaza

Hi,

the term "proprietary open source" exists, for example it can be meet in. It is true I'm working on the problem and publishing articles for science conferences. For example in have written article (in Russian, so you will need to translate to read it) about the problem of 'proprietary open source'. According to both analysis (not only mine)the problem of proprietary open source does exists. You said: "In addition, you have decided to remove all the text that records your actions." This is non-sense. We all know that we can hide nothing in the internet. I don't see what actions I should have to hide, but you said a lot of negative about me. I'm not attacking Mono, I'm just being objective, as it doesn't mean if you are have started the Mono project that my opinion is wrong just because it is different. We are all thinking people and if my opinion doesn't accord with your it doesn't mean that you are right and I'm wrong. Most probably the truth is somewhere between. And wikipedia is made to be objective and to reflect all opinions. So being said I would excuse your attack on me if you email a public excuse on the Mono maillist.
 * Quoting yourself is hardly a "source" for your expression.  The only other source is Bruce Perens, and in his context "proprietary open source" as I mentioned means something different.
 * Second, you are removing the discussion text from the Talk:Mono_development_platform

Edits and your user page
Hi, thanks for contributing here. I'm sorry you've immediately had to deal with conflicts. It seems you're generally handling it right, by discussing and asking for assistance from more experienced users. It's probably better not to write about yourself because it could be seen as a conflict of interest. You'll probably have more success just pointing people to the information you feel should be included. Also even though this user seems to be difficult, try not to revert things repeatedly that you don't agree with. Just explain your reasoning, ask for others to agree and if there is agreement, then ask everyone to pitch in to impliment the consensus. A good tool is to require sources to back up the edits, and if material is added without sources it can be removed. See WP:V. You have to be willing to do the same, because the quality of sources involved can be an effective tool to prevent bad information getting into articles and to justify the right material getting in. Finally, consider adding at least a couple words to your user page so that it doesn't show up as a red link. Anything I can be of assistance with, please let me know. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments Taxman.  Although I have documented this in other places, the situation basically became problematic because this person removed the comments from the talk page and avoided the discussion while at the same time removing the text that was there.
 * I agree that I should not write about my personal involvement on the page, but in this case I was just restoring text that was there before but that this person decided should not be there (see the discussion on Talk:Mono development platform) - Miguel.de.Icaza
 * You can reply on either, most people come up with their own policy and stick with it. As you see at the top of my page I prefer to keep conversations cohesive. I saw the relevant background though didn't check through every diff. I was basically just giving general advice to try to catch you up to speed on Wikipedia conventions that can be a little daunting. Keep discussing reasonably on the talk page and if your reasoning is sound other editors will agree and a reasonable conclusion can be reached. Sometimes that may be one you don't think is ideal, but we all have to accept that of course. If the editor can't give good evidence for their position, that should be fairly obvious, and you'll likely prevail. Yes it does appear this user is being difficult so as long as you go to extra effort to stay clean, you should be successfull. It also appears enough people are now reviewing the situation which also helps in having a good result. But definitely start a userpage even if it's a couple words :). - Taxman Talk 18:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Entered data into my page now - Miguel.de.Icaza 19:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I even didn't think about an existence of such policy, why you don't just make everyone register before any editing and stick this to the top. If this is not allowed at all just remove this possibility. So being said this is very strange from wikipedia admins. [krokas]

Moonlight and Microsoft support
Hello, I've added a chapter on Moonlight about Microsoft support. I've tried to present concerns that have arisen about the level of involvement of Microsoft in the project (even if they were coming from a bunch of uninformed pundits;-)), but also some answers you provided on your website about these critics. Feel free to comment on the article talk page, be it about accuracy, or tone. Hervegirod 09:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Toshok for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Toshok is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chris Toshok& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MB 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)