Alguns links que mostram a Armadilha que o m$-Mono é para o Software Livre

Porque o m$-mono é um risco inaceitável:

Seth Nickell – Design Fu : mono

Why Mono is Currently An Unacceptable Risk

Argument In Brief

1. Microsoft’s C#/CLI licensing people, at high levels, are aware of us.
2. Microsoft can choose to do damaging things in the current C#/CLI licensing ambiguity.
3. Microsoft considers the free software / Linux community to be a major competitive threat
4. Microsoft does not “compete” gently
5. A + B + C + D = ?

Miguel has repeatedly stated that the patents necessary to implement the standards ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI) are available from Microsoft “RAND + Royalty Free”. This seems like an effective open patent grant and encouraged me initially that we could do Mono. I really like Mono. Its terrific technically, and I’d love to be able to use it. But two problems upon further consideration the past couple months:

1. I’ve not seen an official statement by Microsoft that will let me trust the royalty free assertion. I think we are remiss if we do not assume Microsoft is looking for ways to, quite frankly, screw us. So unless there is a statement from Microsoft that they will have to stick to in a court, I feel (at the very least) uncomfortable.
2. “RAND + royalty free”, can still seriously screw Free Software. I think this is more important than the first point. Even with RAND + royalty free you still have to execute a license agreement with Microsoft, and license agreements can stipulate things that are RAND from a corporation perspective but still screw over Free Software. Also, there is evidence that key Microsoft people are already aware of (or planned?) incompatibilities between the licensing scheme for C#/CLI and, at least, the GPL. The eye of Sauron is upon us. RAND + royalty free is very different from a patent grant.

In short, we are in an adversarial situation. Microsoft does not want us to succeed. Thus we cannot trust Microsoft, even if we’d like to, and must consider Mono based upon the question “What is the worst thing MS can reasonably do?”. We can only trust Mono if we are convinced Microsoft doesn’t have weasel room. The current situation appears, to me, to have lots of weasel room. The technical merits of Mono are basically irrelevant if its a trojan horse in the long term.

Boycott Novell » Microsoft, Novell, Mono and the More Expensive GNU

Microsoft is likely to try subjugate GNU/Linux users. Novell was merely a first stop and plans for the Silverlight-powered desktop are just a trap, which seems very unwelcome based on Slashdot’s feedback and some of the comments here.

Our reader Vexorian has just left a good comment in Slashdot (pointed out by Groklaw). Pamela Jones also points to this old page, adding: “Written in 2004. Anything changed since?”

One person has already published Mononono. What is Mononono? Here you have it.

Miguel De Icaza On Mono, Moonlight, and Gnome

by Vexorian (959249) on Monday August 04, @11:55AM (#24467851)

Miguel de Icaza: “We could refresh the look and feel of the entire desktop with Moonlight”

Translation: We’ll try to make the whole desktop dependent on a MS standard.

Interview: Mono leader criticizes double standards when it comes to the open web and talks about future developments and the increasing openness at Microsoft

The increasing openness of these guys? []

The problem with 3.5 is, that it includes 3.0 where they basically dumped a bunch of libraries that are not really part .Net

You meant MS changed the whole definition of what is part of .net to include stuff not covered by OSP or that are not portable? Shocker.

Also one thing that is very unique: Microsoft is going to be distributing an add-on to Moonlight called the “media pack” And that add-on contains all the media codecs that Silverlight uses, so it contains the MP3 decoder, the VC1 decoder, WMV and all that stuff. We are going to provide Moonlight and they are adding the codec parts – and this is going to be totally legal, it’s something that they are actually encouraging – that’s pretty sweet

Moonlight is going to require a proprietary addon in order to actually interoperate with silverlight, pretty sweet.

For every distribution, also x86, x86_64 and PowerPC. In fact we are going to provide binaries for BSDs, for Solaris – both on SPARC and Intel.

Same old, you’ll have to download them from MS and only MS, and SLED will be the only distro one able to ship them. Oh, it looks like Icaza actually confirms so in page 2.

I hope so. It might end up that at some point Microsoft just open ups .NET


you get C#, you get a DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime), you get a fantastic graphics engine with a fantastic animation framework, you get video, you get audio, multi-language compatibility and so on and so forth. And I get a JITted language also, and a static language with dynamic features that beats Javascript out of the water.

As a hacker you get Microsoft, Microsoft, compatibility to Microsoft languages, and Microsoft. And beating javascript with Microsoft.

As websites start using Silverlight we don’t want Linux to be in a position where you can’t access those websites. Also we thought Silverlight will be important enough and have enough market share just because it is Microsoft doing it

Specially after the free, false advert of ‘silverlight works in Linux’ thanks to moonlight.

I mean – how many people outside of the technology world really know about Linux at the moment.

Typical MS fanboyism from Icaza

And even the Mozilla guys – the keynote we had here was done on a mac, every single Mozilla developer uses a Mac.

Diverting attention are we?

And it’s funny, they constantly attack Silverlight, they constantly attack Flash and then all of them use proprietary operating systems, they don’t seem to have a problem doing it. And then they had the Guiness record thing for Firefox 3 and you went to the website and it had a flash map to show where people are downloading – so there definitely is a double standard here.

Icaza here’s the deal: AT least FLASH is NOT FREAKING MICROSOFT! Don’t you get it? call it a double standard if you want, just missing all the previous record of Microsoft’s anticompetitive actions and the clear intent to take over the world with .net and how Mono makes Linux threated by it… It is getting ridiculous.

And that’s after all their claiming that you can do everything in AJAX – so they definitely don’t “walk the walk”.

Mozilla is evil therefore we’ll help poisoning the web with Silverlight, fuck open standards.

The Open Sourcerer » How to remove Mono (M$) from Ubuntu Hardy Heron

How to remove Mono (M$) from Ubuntu Hardy Heron

I have had a long-time problem with Mono and the Mono-based applications that, for reasons I do not understand, come installed by default with Ubuntu.

For those who don’t know about it, Mono:

provides the necessary software to develop and run .NET client and server applications on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, Windows, and Unix.

That sounds pretty innocuous on the face of it. But Mono has a potentially fatal sting-in-the-tail for some, and leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouths of many others…

The potential sting is because Mono is developed and supported largely by Novell who are, as we all know so well, in a patent-protection deal with Microsoft.


Aurora… o futuro, hoje…powered by mozilla :)

“Aurora is a concept video exploring one possible future user experience for the Web, created by Adaptive Path as part of the Mozilla Labs concept series. For more, visit

via Vimeo

Mais aqui

Lawrence Lessig indica que existe um i-Patriot equivalente ao Patriot Act

O professor Lawrence Lessig, da Universidade de Stanford, um dos fundadores da licença Creative Commons, membro da direcção da EFF e da Software Freedom Law Center e «um dos maiores defensores da Internet livre, do direito à distribuição de bens culturais, à produção de trabalhos derivados (criminalizadas pelas leis actuais), e do fair use.» [1], veio a terreiro afirmar que após uma conversa com o antigo czar do terrorismo, Richard Clarke, este lhe terá dito que iria haver um acontecimento parecido com os atentados de 11 de Setembro de 2001, mas desta vez a nível informático, e que após este, entraria em vigor o i-Patriot Act, a versão electrónica do Patriot Act.

USA PATRIOT Act – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the Patriot Act, is a controversial Act of Congress that U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The acronym stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).

The act expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States;

O mais estranho é ele ter afirmado que esta nova lei já se encontra preparada, estando só à espera que ocorra um atentado deste tipo.

Como é que já têm um projecto lei preparado para ser aprovado após algo que ainda não aconteceu?
As administrações norte-americanas agora adivinham quando se vão dar atentados? O tipo de atentado?

Na minha modesta opinião mais uma vez estes senhores preparam-se para repetir os atentados de 9/11, ou melhor, preparam-se para nova operação False Flag de forma a mais uma vez aprovarem leis que atentam contra as liberdades e garantias do povo norte-americano e que infelizmente têm a péssima tendência de se propagar pelo resto do planeta, especialmente para a UE.

Law Professor: Counter Terrorism Czar Told Me There Is Going To Be An i-9/11 And An i-Patriot Act : Information Clearing House – ICH

During a group panel segment titled “2018: Life on the Net”, Lessig stated:

There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn’t necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.

The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said “of course there is”.