ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Comparing Java to .Net and C-sharp"

(Microsoft also distributes ''.NET Micro Edition'' (which covers a superset of the code covered by ECMA/ISO 335<ref>http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html</ref>) under the Microsoft Public Li)
m (Reverted edits by 218.6.16.162 (talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
==Text to be reviewed==
+
{{help|Is any part of Mono based on this code? (if not, this protection doesn't apply to Mono)}}
  
:''The following text has been moved from [[Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)]].  A few people have said it needs thorough review.''
+
MS-PL is incompatible with GPL, and it only applies to parts that are under MS-PL. {{help|Which parts are under MS-PL?}} If another part of Mono, which is not distributed by Microsoft under MS-PL, infringes the same patent, the MS-PL parts are irrelevant.
 
 
Miguel de Icaza has suggested <ref>http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html</ref> is that people should move to Mono and C# because [[Microsoft]]'s patent terms are better than Oracle's.  On Twitter, a Microsoft programmer/evangelist touts his company's support for Mono: ".NET is 'closed', Java is 'open'. Microsoft embraces Mono, Oracle sues Google."<ref>http://twitter.com/bradwilson/status/21078358141</ref> Mono started June 30 2001 (before the first version of Microsoft .NET was released to manufacturing in 2002); by contrast, Oracle acquired Sun and its Java patents little more than six months before taking Google to court.
 
 
 
This is analogous to suggesting it is better to be robbed by a more polite thief.  The problem is the robbery - in this case, the fact that software patents may exist at all. Obviously, attempting to choose between companies and products on the basis of possible future patent litigation is not only impossible, but foolish on its face.
 
 
 
Even if developers could somehow determine which companies will use patents aggressively today, this case eloquently demonstrates how companies can change, making those judgments moot tomorrow. More fundamentally, under a software patent regime, the vendor most associated with a given product or idea is hardly the only one that can later decide to sue you over an impossible-to-avoid trespass against their patent portfolio.
 
 
 
If one believes the "lesser of evils" argument at all, and attempts to patronize companies with a more open and amenable patent posture, this case illustrates the special dangers facing Mono users. 
 
 
Microsoft is an infamous monopoly, notorious for litigiousness and anti-competitive behavior<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft</ref>. The company regularly uses and threatens to use patents offensively, both directly<ref>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/</ref> and indirectly<ref>http://www.zdnet.com/news/fact-and-fiction-in-the-microsoft-sco-relationship/139743</ref>. This behavior is far more egregious than Oracle's, even today. Under the cloud of software patents, users of Mono/.NET are only in as much jeopardy as every other software developer. But to the extent that we consider corporate stewardship, Mono users' proximity to such an aggressive litigant could place them at special risk. Microsoft's attempts to convince potential Mono developers of relatively reduced patent risk with certain highly qualified assertions<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_and_Microsoft.E2.80.99s_patents</ref>, may be consistent with a motivation to avoid further limiting the growth of .Net marketshare, in order to build the future value of their intellectual property.
 
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
Line 60: Line 50:
 
* [http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html Initial Thoughts on Oracle vs Google Patent Lawsuit], 13 Aug 2010, '''Miguel de Icaza'''
 
* [http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html Initial Thoughts on Oracle vs Google Patent Lawsuit], 13 Aug 2010, '''Miguel de Icaza'''
 
* [http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u21-doc-license.txt Java Language Specification]
 
* [http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u21-doc-license.txt Java Language Specification]
 +
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29#Mono_and_Microsoft.E2.80.99s_patents Mono and Microsoft’s patents], '''Wikipedia'''
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 17:58, 14 January 2011

With Oracle's patent attack on Google's Java-like Dalvik, many people asked if Java's patent risk is similar or higher than that of Microsoft's C# / Mono.

Who owns related patents?

For both languages, there is only one patent holder which asserts that it has patents on the language and is willing to take developers to court. For C#, that's Microsoft, and for Java, that's Oracle.

For Java there is also a patent which was owned by SCO until recently.[1][2] The current owner isn't known, but this patent has never been mentioned in relation to enforcement.

What forms of aggression have the patent holders shown?

Oracle sued Google in 2010.

Microsoft has long history of aggressive use of their patents against software projects such as their use of their FAT patents (against TomTom and against and unknown defendant in Germany[3]), and their litigation against Salesforce. Microsoft executives have also made repeated comments about free software such as GNU/Linux infringing their patents and have knelt on various free software distributors to obtain royalties for the distribution of GNU/Linux.

What reassurances have the patent holders offered?

Java

  • Oracle (holder of all the worrying patents) has distributed a version of Java, called OpenJDK, under the terms of the GPLv2. In doing so, it has given an implicit grant to everyone that distributes and develops software based on that code, including modified versions, subsets, and supersets.
  • Oracle is a licensee of Open Invention Network, which means it has promised not to enforce its patents against the list of free software packages.
  • Of least importance, Oracle makes a patent grant in the Java Language Specification, but this is of low importance because it only applies to Java implementations that are 100% compliant, no subsets, no supersets.

.Net and C#

For .Net and C#'s core libraries and VM,[4] Microsoft gives the Microsoft Community Promise. Subsets are not covered, but supersets are. It says:

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

Microsoft also distributes .NET Micro Edition (which covers a superset of the code covered by ECMA/ISO 335[5]) under the Microsoft Public License[6] which contains this patent grant:

each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.

Can you help? Is any part of Mono based on this code? (if not, this protection doesn't apply to Mono)


MS-PL is incompatible with GPL, and it only applies to parts that are under MS-PL. Can you help? Which parts are under MS-PL?

If another part of Mono, which is not distributed by Microsoft under MS-PL, infringes the same patent, the MS-PL parts are irrelevant.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References