09.13.08
Microsoft Admitted Mono is a Patent Trap Back in 2006 (Updated)
And now it comes to Mandriva?
[Update (17/09/08): Mandriva is said to have addressed this issue. Adam Williamson wrote: “Our oo.o build is based on the go-oo project, which optionally adds Mono support (basically for writing plugins or macros in Mono). We enable this, and by default if you do that, it winds up with an auto-generated mono dependency in the package. In fact everything will basically still work without Mono installed - you just won’t be able to use any plugins or macros that are written in Mono unless you have Mono installed. So with the new build we’ve just disabled the Mono dependency.”]
Let it be emphasised that Mono is a threat because of a variety of innate issues. We’ve known this since 2006. Here is a top Microsoft executive admitting that Mono is a patent problem for GNU/Linux. We also discussed the effects on OpenOffice.org back in 2006. Microsoft admitted this again on several occasions later on (even in 2008 when Brian Goldfarb accidentally confessed). For the lawyers among us, it’s also in the heavily-redacted contract with Novell [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Only one company is said to have ‘protected’ its paying customers. Yes, Novell is fine with Mono risk because it probably wants to use this to its advantage.
Now, I am a very happy Mandriva user. It’s therefore disappointing to find this short rant from Planète Béranger. It suggests that there is a Mono dependency in OpenOffice.org 3.0.
# rpm -i --force openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586.rpm 2>&1 | grep mono
libmono.so.0 is needed by openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586
mono(mscorlib) = 1.0.5000.0 is needed by openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586
mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 is needed by openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586
PCLinuxOS, a Mandriva derivative, was once claimed to have had a similar dependency in version 2.4 of OpenOffice.org.
Makes sense to me and I want to purge mono-related packages - if any - from distributions I use [which are - on hard drive - PCLinuxOS, Fedora, Mandriva, Mint, and Kubuntu].
An interesting but quickly executed purge, right? Not. The packages I don’t want are:
mono-common, and
libmono0.PCLinuxOS doesn’t have mono-common - done. It does have libmono0 - which I tried to zap but got:
rpm -e libmono0
error: Failed dependencies: libmono.so.0 is needed by (installed) openoffice.org-2.4.0-3pclos2007.i586Oops! Put a hold on that for a bit!
Some input would be appreciated while I look at those other distros.
Fortunately, the claim was eventually challenged and refuted.
OpenOffice.org 3.0 is soon to be integrated into many GNU/Linux distribution, as Tectonic has just reported.
The final release of OpenOffice.org 3.0 is expected later this month, in time for the upcoming Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora and OpenSuse releases later this year.
There will hopefully be no Mono poison inside OpenOffice.org in its distributor-packaged form. Novell and Microsoft would love this to happen. █
Béranger said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:09 am
Roy,
libmono0 is only an interface lib, written in plain C. It’s harmless, except for the psychological effect.
However, mono(mscorlib) is provided by mono-core, and this is where Mandriva 2009 went off-limits: by having mono-core required by OpenOffice.org!
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:56 am
Also worth noting that the .net binding is an important option in the ODF toolkit.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 6:24 am
I now see the comment from Valentin Villenave. Mandriva will hopefully sort this out before the release (it’s still an RC). Have they been informed yet? I suppose they already read Béranger’s blog.
paul (the unverified) said,
September 14, 2008 at 9:36 am
Thanks for the update, Roy. I’ve been wondering where this stuff was lurking. I hope Mandriva does purge it.
Also, I’m seeing more stuff re Mandriva. I had used Mandrake v7 and 8. Then I was distro hopping for a while, but finally settled (?) on three; CentOS for a server, PCLinuxOS for an easy to install and configure desktop solution for friends and family, and Sidux for my Dell 1501 laptop. But now I’m feeling the itch again re a different distro and am becoming sorely tempted to return to Mandriva. The mono thing would probably discourage me, though.
Thanks again for an insightful update.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Mandriva is a solid distribution. I’m sure they’ll resolve this dependency mistake now that it’s pointed out in public. OOo3 is out next week I believe.
landofbind said,
September 14, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Humans and hysterical behavior.
So what that there is something written in C# on your systems? Will it turn you blind, rape your wives, kill your children, make you worshipers of the devil or anticipate the end of the world?
Why live in fear?
You, Roy, have a big mouth. Why don’t you create a distribution that promises to never, ever include anything developed in C#? It’s a challenge to you and your fear mongering, gray cells-lacking friends.
Do something productive for a change. Instead of the usual “the sky is falling”.
The problem is, dear Roy, your purity is all pretense. You don’t oppose patents, patent deals or even proprietary software. No, you only oppose it because it’s Microsoft or Novell. Blind hate. Associated with it is also the lack of any cognitive ability and laziness.
Incapable of making a intelligent, reasonable comment, incapable of analyzing any of what you post in any meaningful way, not even an superficial one.
You’re not even entertaining.
When you don’t have anything damaging, and because you’ve to make 10 posts a day, you resort to lying, rumor, fud, fear-mongering, and absolute nonsense. Posting anonymous comments as facts. You run a “smear campaign”.
You show yourself lacking in any ethical and moral values when you have to answer your critics. You never contradict them, never argue with them. Instead you purposely ignore what they say and post some more links completely unrelated, most of them pointing to you. If you make some comment it’s always something offtopic and nonsensical.
Seeing you arguing with someone is like seeing a Monty Python sketch.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
ildeG said,
September 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm
while (landofbind.PaidByMicrosoft || others.PaidByMicrosoft) {
landofbind.WasPaidToBash(Roy And Others);
we.knoWhoIsBehind();
we.AppreciateAndEncourage(Roy);
}
ildeG said,
September 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm
OO.ps!!! (Sorry, I’m new to object oriented programming)
while (landofbind.PaidByMicrosoft || others.PaidByMicrosoft) {
landofbind.WasPaidToBash(Roy And Others);
// ’s/knoWhoIsBehind/knowWhoIsBehind/’
we.knowWhoIsBehind();
we.AppreciateAndEncourage(Roy);
}
Mick said,
September 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“So what that there is something written in C# on your systems? Will it turn you blind, rape your wives, kill your children, make you worshipers of the devil or anticipate the end of the world?”
It exposes you to a future lawsuit, if you had cared to even read the post title.
Downloading music and movies carries a fairly low risk of being sued too. Tell that to the tens of thousands of people who have been sued and ask them if the risk was worth the reward and whether they’d do it again.
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 2:39 pm
@Mick: that’s not really a good enough answer, though. Patents don’t apply to specific implementations: anything which Mono infringes on, Java is almost certain to infringe on as well, because technically they are extremely similar.
What we need to do is defend free software from the threat of patents, not scare users off it. If it wasn’t Mono it would be something else; most successful free software is a copy of something proprietary.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Alex, all you ever do in this Web site is defend Microsoft’s party line, just like Miguel de Icaza. The issue at hand is different for a variety of reasons and saying “this is not evil” because there are “other evils” is precisely the same defense Microsoft is using against Apple and Google at the moment.
Software patents are bad, this Web sites fights them, but here you have two companies signing a deal which explicitly encapsulates an /entire technology/, not a set of ideas or algorithms.
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Don’t twist my words Roy; that’s not even vaguely the argument I’m putting forward.
First; don’t misrepresent the Novell/MS deal. It is not a patent cross-license.
Second; patents affect myriad free software projects. We in the free software community don’t abandon them just because patent holders threaten them, we defend them.
In this specific instance, if there is a threat to Mono (which, remember, is defended by OIN), that is 90% likely to be the same threat to Java (and, possibly, Tamarin, Android’s VM, and other VM-based projects). This isn’t “other evils”, this is the same evil. All of these projects should be defended from software patents, not just those Roy likes.
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:18 pm
And, by the way, if rejecting the threats of software patents is the Microsoft party line and throwing mud/FUD at free software projects isn’t, then I suggest that your compass is slightly out of kilter.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:26 pm
It is. Even Novell admits it now (”agree to disagree” is passé).
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:35 pm
No, they don’t admit that. From Mono’s licensing page:
Care to cite something which specifically shows that is wrong and that they have licensed MS patents? Not just rumour, people guessing, opinion, but actual _fact_ ?
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Novell cross-licensed with Microsoft and recently promised its customers “intellectual property peace of mind” in a formal statement from the PR Director.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Oh, and Mono was included by the way. it’s noted in several places. But only Novell is ‘protected’. Not even Xandros and Linspire were ‘permitted’ to use it. I don’t know about Turbolinux, but I imagine it’s the same.
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Repeating your opinion isn’t presenting a citation.
Just to be specific, I’m looking for you to show some evidence that they have entered a cross-licensing deal which isn’t based on some opinion / guess / other fantasy article on the web, but… y’know, something actually factual?
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:51 pm
They put some ‘dressing’ on it. From Microsoft:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2927608517.html
“To do this, Novell and Microsoft are providing covenants to each other’s customers, therefore releasing each company from the other’s patent portfolio. This may sounds odd vs. a traditional patent cross-license agreement but it is one of the things that makes this deal so unique.”
And later this from Microsoft:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061121-8259.html
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Your first citation is a link where they explain why it sounds odd compared to a cross licensing deal.
And then you restate the “Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents” link where Novell and MS “agree to disagree”, which you earlier dismissed saying: “Even Novell admits it now (”agree to disagree” is passé)”.
That’s not the most convincing evidence, I’m afraid: neither citation backs up your claim, and you don’t even seem to be consistent on the point of the second.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:06 pm
That was 2007. This is from last month:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/novell_and_microsoft_stop_with_the_fud_already
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm
That opinion piece doesn’t even include the phrase “cross license”, let alone put forward the theory that the Novell/MS deal contains a patent cross license. I find that “evidence” wanting as well.
While you’re trying to find more links, let me pose a question. If this was a cross-license deal, where Novell get access to and use Microsoft patents, why did the Free Software Foundation explicitly exempt it from the terms of the GPLv3?
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Just for the sake of clarity; I agree with SJVN’s view in that opinion piece. It just doesn’t support your argument, that’s all.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You’re taking it very literally and attempt to find flawed arguments based on two words that you brought up. Let’s rephrase that: is the Novell/Microsoft deal about patents? I say it is. Novell implicitly agrees. It offers patent ‘protection’.
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Sure, we can rephrase it if you’re willing to retract your claim that it is a cross-license. I’m quite happy to discuss whether or not it’s about patents, are you happy to accept you were incorrect?
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Looks like your stylesheet doesn’t like embedded block quotes, oh well. I’m sure you can figure it out
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Hmmm… comments seem not to be nested blockquote-aware, whereas post body is fine with that.
Anyway, yes, it’s not cross-licensing, which is the term you brought up. It is, however, about patents.
AlexH said,
September 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Sure, it is about patents, and frankly their deal with MS stinks. I’m glad that the GPLv3 attacks that kind of setup more explicitly, so it’s the first and last one.
However, I’m not a Novell customer, so it doesn’t apply to me and with the situation of the GPL it’s something that is relatively time-limited. I disagree with their statements about IP and I don’t recommend people buy their products. I have no problem with their free software contributions, though.
xiso said,
September 14, 2008 at 7:20 pm
@landofbind: can I be troll just like you? how much do M$ pay? Do I get free $oftware too. What version troll are you? MS-Troll v2.1?
Thanks for any help
xiso
mpz said,
September 15, 2008 at 6:08 am
I just had a thought - MS don’t ever need to sue anything to do with mono - it serves them very well even without that.
First, it is great as a FUD tool. They can claim patent risks as often as they like as a marketing mechanism without ever having to prove a word of it. Novell certainly do. And they can do that without all the costs and most of the bad-press they’d suffer if it ever came to a lawsuit.
Second, it will probably never be at the quality and functionality to rival the MS implementation, and certainly not keep up with on-going changes (through no real fault of the guys doing it - they’ll have to keep up with moving goalposts). It will always be the poor cousin - so anyone wanting to do ‘real work’, or use the latest features, certainly wont (be able to) stay with mono. (until they piss it off and start working on their next big thing). Hell even if it does somehow pull the golden rabbit out of the hat and achieve parity, they can just say it sucks anyway.
And third, and more indirectly. It helps dilute free software developer power by diverting resources and creating conflict and disagreement. Developer resources are not unlimited, even in the free software world. Diverting even a significant fraction into mono/related work removes them from the talent pool that may otherwise work on competing technology (and particularly with that set with interest in the area) . And the icing on the cake is the conflict it creates - diverting emotional energy and making the `linux community’ look like a bunch of rabid lunatics.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 6:33 am
@mpz: actually, Mono already outclasses .net in a number of significant areas, and there are many reasons why you might want to run Mono even if you’re on Windows: more up-to-date .net runtime available, access to key free software technologies such as Gtk#, Qt, etc. It’s more cross-platform, has much better support for interoperability and has much better support for things such as introspection.
I also don’t buy the “dilutes manpower” argument. That’s not a languages or platform thing; part of what makes free software work is that it is a thriving ecosystem of competing implementations.
I totally agree with you about the conflict, though. It’s unfounded and unnecessary, and it’s not for us to tell other people what they should and shouldn’t work on: it’s free software.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 6:38 am
It’s not about manpower only; it’s about Mono-based applications that replace Mono-free counterparts. Novell makes this happen by sponsoring projects like banshee.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 6:45 am
Sure, but that’s their prerogative: at the end of the day, the person or company paying the bills gets to decide what the developer does. If the Mono-based stuff is what other people are deciding to use, then that’s because it’s better software. It’s free software, that’s how it works, there’s choice.
Mono is an extremely attractive platform for developing applications for free desktops; it’s easier and quicker than any of C, C++ or Java, and marginally better than Python (especially when it comes to wrapping native libraries). It’s a good technical choice.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 7:28 am
Going by this logic, why fight for Free(dom) software? There are already similar(ly encumbered) technologies.
What you’re sometimes suggesting is that companies choose software never based on some choices that are imposed by convenience or other people’s choice. In essence, many companies end up adopting Mono-based applications simply because the software distribution comes with it. Ubuntu, for example, comes with quite a heavy ‘Mono duty’ saddled onto it. While this issue was discussed before, there are no easy answers.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 7:44 am
You’re conflating two separate issues. Whether or not you like Mono, or like people developing Mono, is a separate issue to whether or not Mono-based apps are free software.
Mono is free software, and the apps you’re talking about in Ubuntu are free software. It’s a shame you don’t like Mono, but then some people don’t like Python. You can’t please everyone. What matters is that they are free software.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 7:53 am
Yes, .EXE and .DLL files produced using the framework which Microsoft warns is only for Novell, Microsoft’s partner in a corporate recovery plan.
Do you really think they are interested in anything other than their investors?
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 7:57 am
No public company is interested in anything other than their investors, Red Hat included: that’s the law, they operate in the best interests of shareholders.
Quite why the names of files involved should be of any relevance, I don’t know. It is certainly of absolutely no *technical* relevance, and neither is Microsoft’s FUD. They throw mud at a lot of free software projects, it’s sad to see you copy them.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:03 am
I guess you could say the same thing to Groklaw (”it’s sad to see you copy them [Microsoft]”). In case you haven’t grasped it yet, the problems with Mono are recognised more widely. It’s more convenient for you (plurally speaking) to point a finger at one ’source’ of backlash, despite the fact that it goes many years back and echoed elsewhere, albeit less frequently.
paul (the unverified) said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:12 am
And therein lies the real problem. Mono is tied to m$. It may be “free,” but the business landscape is littered with memories of promising businesses that m$ was “helping.”
There is NO reason to expect anything different from Redmond now. Especially now.
Alex, most of your points are valid enough, the bottom line comes back to who is at the center of all this. And again, I’d rather be very suspicious of a convicted monopolist than innocently naive.
For me, this has tainted the free software environment. I’d rather not use (and thereby, approve or support or even recognize) anything that’s associated with mono. If m$ really was feeling all sincere and genuine now and only wanted to ‘help’ and ‘contribute,’ they would not have pulled the blatantly unethical crap they did with OOXML and Ballmer would admit that he screwed up about the patent infringements.
Sorry, it’s the old ‘fool me once… fool me twice’ scenario. m$ can go crawl under the trash heap of history for all I care. No mono for me, thank you.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:12 am
That sounds like an appeal to authority to me
Groklaw is not the fountain all truth.
I think it’s convenient to say “problems with Mono” when that could mean virtually anything.
And I’m quite happy to admit that there are issues with specific aspects of it: for example, Fedora have decided at the moment that they’re not willing to carry Moonlight, due to the patent risk around XAML. Thus, I don’t use Moonlight.
What do we do about that, throw our hands up? No. If Moonlight is risky, then so is XUL: technologically, they’re virtually identical. Even if we decide we never want Moonlight, we still cannot ignore that threat, it must be dealt with.
But that is a bit of a special case. The rest of Mono is happily accepted by all mainstream free software distributions, and people are building good apps with it. If there is a vocal minority that does not like it because it comes from Microsoft; tough, it’s free software: you can choose not to use it.
We’re already seeing more Microsoft code in free software apps; just today it turns out that Microsoft code is critical to the new Google Chrome browser. Is Chrome suddenly non-free? Of course not. Free software is free software, whether it comes from Microsoft or anywhere else. That’s the measure, not the level of FUD you can throw at it.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:23 am
Saying that Microsoft contributes to Free software is misguidance. Do you know what patch they announced in OSCON? A plug in Free software for proprietary SQL Server. Is that the type of patches you want?
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:28 am
Well, if it’s free software, why not?
Giving people the option to run against a proprietary SQL server isn’t necessarily a bad idea: I know plenty of systems, including web hosts, where the choice of database is non-negotiable.
What matters is that people have the ability to choose free software. If free software won’t work in that setting, they won’t choose it, and we lose.
If they can choose the free software, and they choose a proprietary SQL DB - well, frankly, that’s their loss, and you can’t force them into choosing free software everything.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:32 am
It’s intended to push FOSS away from GNU/Linux and onto Microsoft cash cows. See this.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:34 am
@paul: your point about trusting MS is entirely valid. I don’t agree that they are at the centre of this, but that’s an understandable point of view.
At the end of the day, Mono leverages a number of key free software technologies which aren’t available to people on .net, and encourages people to start using them, and offers real benefits to .net programmers.
This is bringing Windows developers over here. You might not think that’s a big deal, but it is - there are literally millions of them. Starting out with Mono isn’t a huge step, but we’re bringing them slowly towards the free software ecosystem. That’s a huge win.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:37 am
@Roy: but it doesn’t matter what the intention is. Microsoft’s intention is that they’re the number one video games company; they can have that intention but it doesn’t make it true.
People aren’t going to go out and buy MS SQL server just because some free software supports it now. You’re not going to see people swapping out Postgres. I would bet there are a fair few people itching to get off SQL Server though, and giving them a migration path is crucial.
You can’t force people down the path either way, but it’s vital that the path exists to bring people to free software.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:44 am
If you facilitate people’s proprietary comfort, they are unlikely to depart from it.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 8:56 am
If you don’t facilitate people’s free software comfort, they are unlikely to stay with it.
Jose_X said,
September 15, 2008 at 12:42 pm
AlexH, there aren’t technical reasons for using mono as opposed to something else that is similar.
The biggest effect of advancing mono specifically as opposed to something else that is similar is to help establish MSdotnet.
There is a clear effort by Novell to be Microsoft’s pet and follow their lead or they would have left by now (and as well not accepted the money and conditions). That is fine for Novell, but not for the rest of us.
Mono lowers the cost of dotnet for those that can’t pay the MS toll. It supports the dotnet ecosystem which is ultimately controlled and dominated by Microsoft. Does piracy of Windows interface help or hurt Microsoft? Mono is like a pirated, though lower quality (less integration to Windows), dotnet. It helps dotnet have breadth and depth despite Microsoft’s pricing/brand and manpower and other limitations.
Again, you can make any of very many different decisions from a technical point of view and the results would mostly be the same.. technically speaking. Mono people could be doing their VMs very differently in specifics to get very similar effects. Sticking to dotnet precisely as MS describes is a very conscious decision that helps Microsoft. The tech arg is worthless (just add the few gains of dotnet to something else .. eg, work on Parrot or something else if Java is deemed not good enough.. heck fork dotnet today, since not years ago, through an open community).
Actually following dotnet is about the “hooked” aspect.. both mentally for those developing with it and as well the facility this creates for Microsoft to extend their hooks onto dotnet apps (as opposed to the apps being made differently). Microsoft can more easily reuse quality mono FOSS (both to study, to add value to MS platforms as the free low end apps, and through a license from Novell on command if they wanted actual source) to create “deluxe versions” (with lock-in to MS platforms).
Mono helps Microsoft. Free software or not, if you help Microsoft you hurt Linux/FOSS. Also, the point of free software is that you can fork when you don’t like the leadership. In this case, the patent issue and some other things (like lack of sufficient interest in ms technology by those not on the mono plan already) keep mono from being forked. Mono should be forked. Then the story will get interesting.
Everyone supporting dotnet will talk about the inevitability of this or of that MS technology. That is intentional. Microsoft would spend huge sums of money to create the perception that their technology is inevitable (Roy quotes frequently about the slog). It’s crucial to Microsoft that people talk about how they can’t leave ms technology.
AlexH, you should consider forking mono if you want to help out FOSS. You can mostly get your technology fix this way and would be creating competition which you recently said was good. Why would you not fork mono and the dotnet specs.. for the sake of FOSS since this would be just as useful to use technically speaking and less useful to Microsoft? We’d have control among other gains.
Let’s remember something. Microsoft is in competition with a lot of more Linuxy-open technologies and companies. Dotnet gaining puts the pressure on the commercial ecosystem around Java and others to move to dotnet. This would bring Microsoft huge amounts of money and more control. This would be bad for FOSS. This would remove more FOSS support and even more checks on Microsoft. Microsoft large incomes also means they can subsidize losing efforts to get into industries they otherwise could not reach (like game consoles and more hw/services industries). It means more marketing dollars against Linux/FOSS and the freedoms across the board that we represent and offer.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@Jose,
I think there are a number of problems with your argument above, but I want to take issue with a couple of points:
Mono is absolutely nothing like a “pirated” dotnet. First, Mono is free software. Second, Mono and dotnet overlap, but one is not a subset of the other: Mono provides significant benefits over dotnet, not least:
UNO and XPCOM interop support,
advanced support for bytecode introspection and manipulation with Cecil,
support for DBus, Gtk#, Gnome#, Stetic, Cocoa#, ObjC#, Qt, and numerous other important free software technologies,
support for OpenGL.
If you don’t use or understand Mono, it’s very unfair to comment on what it is and isn’t, and what it does.
Second,
Nothing prevents Mono from being forked; anyone can do that. If people don’t want to do that, that’s up to them, but please don’t drag false patent problems into this. The Novell developers have no patent licenses for dot net stuff and are not protected from MS lawsuits.
Jose_X said,
September 15, 2008 at 1:15 pm
>> If you don’t facilitate people’s free software comfort, they are unlikely to stay with it.
I completely agree that comfort is very important.
>> If you facilitate people’s proprietary comfort, they are unlikely to depart from it.
Yup.
Let’s see if we can achieve both of these simultaneously.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Alex,
I disagree with this. Novell has some sort of agreement around it.
Jose_X said,
September 15, 2008 at 1:43 pm
>> Mono is absolutely nothing like a “pirated” dotnet. First, Mono is free software.
I didn’t say totally like MSdotnet.
And do you really believe that it is “absolutely nothing” likea pirated MSdotnet? That’s a shock. I trully thought there were many similarities between mono and MSdotnet (the pirate aspect represents the $0 costs that piracy would enable).
Do you want to clarify since you seem to contradict public info available on mono vs dotnet?
I perfectly know there are differences, btw, ie, the licensing among other things. But source code that is licensed X or Y can look or act identically in every respect; hence, there can be a great very many similarities despite some differences.
>> Second, Mono and dotnet overlap, but one is not a subset of the other
So quickly you seem to contradict what you just said about mono and dotnet being “absolutely nothing” like each other.
And I didn’t say one was a subset of the other.
I said, “Mono is like a pirated, though lower quality (less integration to Windows), dotnet.” This was a simile [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile ].. kind of how one might say that you were hungry like a wolf.
Oh wait, your’s was a simile as well, so I imagine then that you do recognize that mono and MSdotnet have similarities. Add the $0 of a pirated MSdotnet, and the number of similarities increases further.
>> UNO and XPCOM interop support,
advanced support for bytecode introspection and manipulation with Cecil,
support for DBus, Gtk#, Gnome#, Stetic, Cocoa#, ObjC#, Qt, and numerous other important free software technologies,
support for OpenGL.
Thus:
Mono brings Microsoft the ability to control and mimic all these protocols you mentioned, except that the work was done by distracted FOSS developers, and Microsoft gets a proprietary (nonGPL) license on a moments notice from their contractor Novell [or so I assume].
You do understand what I just said, right? Microsoft now also has an ability to interface with all of these Linux things since mono can. It’s the benefit of open FOSS, except that MSdotnet continues to be better at least in that it has exclusives.
mono volunteers are helping MS be able to leverage their huge msdotnet closed source investments to control and manage Linux and essentially be able to cut Linux out of the picture. Microsoft can create these bindings themselves, but it would take much more time and effort than if they get devs with experience to do it, and preferably for free. Also, through Novell and not Microsoft, the expectation is that we will trust and start using these dotnet protocols everywhere.
Don’t use dotnet. Leverage something else. With FOSS you can add whatever you like in dotnet to anything else. There is little reason for the FOSS community to stick precisely with dotnet, though this certainly helps Microsoft. mono people are making sure dotnet stays up to date with other Linux technologies.
Microsoft: manage everyone, but be unmanageable.
The best way to fight them is to avoid helping them. Don’t use things that help them. Look towards free software to see what we should create, rather than assume Microsoft is inevitable, then copy them left and right to the tee. You are just participating in their embrace. Making things easier for them to add special Windows tie-ins with these apps than they could with apps built on other technologies.
Of course, there are other issues, like mono grows dotnet mindshare among devs (that is a valuable asset) and makes the dotnet path more likely to stick with execs and tech leaders that otherwise would switch to a different technology. Ergo, why I talked about the effective pirated msdotnet being mono when looked at this way.
>> I think there are a number of problems with your argument above, but I want to take issue with a couple of points:
so what’s the next issue you have?
Jose_X said,
September 15, 2008 at 1:47 pm
>> I perfectly know there are differences
I should clarify. I don’t perfectly know all the differences, but I am very aware of what makes free software different from most other.
>> If you don’t use or understand Mono, it’s very unfair to comment on what it is and isn’t, and what it does.
I’ll comment, and I’ll leave it up to you to see if you can find mistakes and maybe fix them for me. I think I know enough about what is going on in general to comment. I disagree with enough important items that you say to feel a bit of an urge to comment. We’ll each comment and each correct the other… deal?
paul (the unverified) said,
September 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Kudos to you, Jose. Excellent response. I think you’ve put things into perspective very well.
I am astonished at how often m$ has used the Ex3 strategy and yet people blindly jump right into their arms whenever they say they have the next great thing.
Anyone that doesn’t see this as an effort by m$ to pollute the FOSS environment must be living next door to Pollyanna.
And you’re right, Alex. It is about choice. So if someone feels warm and cozy with m$’s products, they should buy all the licenses they can afford from them. But please, don’t expect those of us that believe in and support FOSS to listen to a rationalized defense of Redmond.
There is only one way to counter Redmond’s efforts. Stay the course. Keep FOSS as free and unencumbered by patents as possible. I know that is impossible to do completely re all the software manufacturers (eg, Mozilla), but when it comes to m$ it must be as close to 100% as possible.
FOSS will draw developers because they see it as an advantage because it is unencumbered and because it is better maintained and developed. We don’t need to make allowances for or tolerate convicted monopolists who SAY that they want interoperability and let’s all get together and hug and sing ‘Kumbaya.’
I really appreciate the work that Roy and the others here do with re to keeping a watchful eye on what is going on in our industry. I say, keep up the outstanding work. Some day I hope we drive a stake through the heart of the Redmond beast. I DO NOT care how that sounds. They have done nothing to improve our industry. They only introduce conflict, confusion, and angst into the market. They are a cost to all of us.
I apologize for the angry response, but I get the impression that you, Alex, have created an homage to the infamous Monty Python Argument Sketch in the form of this discussion. So unless you’re willing to pay for another “five minutes,” we won’t be permitted to argue with you any longer.
AlexH said,
September 15, 2008 at 4:41 pm
@Jose:
I said it’s absolutely nothing like a pirated dot net. You’re equating use of Mono with copyright infringement, which is so wrong I just don’t know where to begin.
@roy:
We went through this yesterday; there is no patent cross-license. You admitted it.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Look back at this discussion. Formally, there is no “cross-license”, just a close equivalent.
Microsoft is a company of lawyers and marketing and I shall post something about it in 5 minutes.
Jose_X said,
September 15, 2008 at 6:55 pm
>> You’re equating use of Mono with copyright infringement
That’s not what I was doing. Maybe you will reread it later and it will make sense.
mono is like MSdotnet in a lot of ways but MSdotnet is not $0; however, a pirated MSdotnet is still somewhat like mono as before except that it’s also $0.
Why do I mention this? because mono is a bit like the poor man’s MSdotnet. Those that can’t afford MSdotnet and want $0 (and better, without pirating) now have mono.
Gates and others have said that pirating your software (ie, your technology) is preferable to the customer going with someone else’s technology. mono allows the benefits of pirating Gates’ technology for those that won’t buy MSdotnet.
Sorry, if you don’t understand what I mean. I could try again some other day on some other thread.
Shane Coyle said,
September 15, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Hey folks. I know I rarely stop by anymore, but I still have the RSS feed… just no time.It keeps coming up where people say Novell has no patent license from this deal with MS directly, only their customers.
Not only do I disagree, but so does Novell. Let us review what Novell had to say in their 10Q filing regarding the deal with Microsoft (emphasis mine):
FWIW
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 2:42 am
Thanks, Shane. I wish you wrote here as often as you used to.
If I’m gone from here one day, I’m sure you’ll take over and brighten up the place. I’ll be away Sep 26-30, so I hope you’ll post some stuff. I can’t reach you by E-mail by the way.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 2:59 am
@Roy, Shane:
Sorry, but you’re simply both wrong. Nothing you have posted shows Novell having licenses for Mono. Conveniently, you post the 10Q where it says “with certain exceptions”, without saying what those exceptions are.
Look at the actual agreement for definitive text on what is covered:
Mono is not a “Covered Product”, it is an “Excluded Product” because it is a “Clone”.
This isn’t the first time that this information has been pointed out on this site; it is sad that it makes the same false claims again and again.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 3:02 am
@Jose:
I’ve already given numerous examples where Mono is better than Microsoft’s dot net platform. I’ve also given examples of where it allows you to do stuff that dot net doesn’t.
People don’t choose to use Mono because of the price. If you’d look on the internet, you’d find out that Microsoft don’t charge for dot net (nor, infact, do they charge for the entry developer environment in Visual Studio, either). People choose Mono because of the advantages it has over any other available system (see: Linden Labs, et al)
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 3:27 am
http://commandline.org.uk/linux/2007/aug/5/be-careful-who-you-kiss/
“Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true.“
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 3:42 am
Yeah. If you actually read the evidence they cite, it doesn’t make sense, because it’s comparing two different parts of two different deals.
The exceptions that they mention only admit products before a specific date (November 2006). What they’re saying is, they won’t sue people for using old versions of “Clone” products. There is no such benefit for current editions.
zinka said,
September 16, 2008 at 7:29 am
AlexH: “I’ve already given numerous examples where Mono is better”
Yeah, but this is wrong! It should be completely compatible. But it doesn’t matter, this technology is doomed out of my cultural space. You can have it all you want.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 7:33 am
@zinka: you can be compatible and still better.
I’m not encouraging people to use it; I’m explaining why people do use it and defending it from people who like to knock free software.
Shane Coyle said,
September 16, 2008 at 7:59 am
Umm, I didn’t mention a word about mono in my comment. I simply refuted the repeated assertions that Novell hasn’t any broad patent license with Microsoft as a result of this deal. That blanket release is also in addition to the virtualization patent license as well. And, if my memory serves me correctly, (and Mr Muglia had any clue in the linked article) Novell does indeed have protection for Mono.
I’ll admit I am not nearly as up on all of these details as I once was, but that is how I remember it.
FWIW
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:10 am
@Shane:
The discussion was about Mono specifically; that probably explains why your comment wasn’t very insightful about Mono.
No-one’s arguing that Novell don’t have “protection” in place for their customers. That’s very different to having a patent license themselves, which Roy keeps claiming but never seems to have any evidence for.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:12 am
I use the word “protection”, not “licence”.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:20 am
@Roy: Actually, you did.
First you claimed they have a cross-license twice , before you later retracted the claim, but then later changed your mind and disagreed with my statement that they don’t have a license.
It’s all in the record.
Shane Coyle said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:32 am
Well, I don’t know what you call an agreement in which Novell agrees to pay Microsoft an ongoing per-unit royalty in order for Microsoft to pledge not to enforce their (supposed) legal rights, but here in my neighborhood we call it a license.As far a Mono goes, I haven’t any stronger opinion about that project than Wine, both are on potentially dubious ground due to the farce that is software patents and IP, but undoubtedly they are Free Software implementations. I’ve even pointed out here, before, in discussions that Gnewsense includes Tomboy/Mono and had pondered whether the FSF had done the legwork in certifying it as safe… something which would help the project immensely, imo.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:40 am
@Alex: not quite. You deliberately manufactured a catch, asking if there was cross-licensing. I don’t typically describe it in such a way. I say Novell’s customers are ‘protected’ for the use of Mono — whatever that means in practical terms.
Shane Coyle said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:42 am
Oh, and Roy - email has long been gone in my life, as well as most of my internet time. I’ve never even configured kontact/kmail on this new PC, which is perhaps almost a year old now. I’ll fire it up and send you an email (s@___ , right?) so that you can share any rss feeds that you patrol for scoops, and I’ll be sure to be ready for end of the month. Kinda like Joan Rivers sitting in for Johnny Carson, I suppose. I don’t know what domain or email I will setup an account for, maybe @shanecoyle.com - I was getting so much spam I had to give up on shane at edu-nix.org and some other domains too. Filtering made it worse, because I still had to look at every email in the trash to ‘be sure’ - many hundreds per day, it seemed. Now, I look at no emails and love my life (and my house is really coming along - not the worst on the block anymore!).
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:43 am
@Shane: There absolutely is a per-copy fee, but you can’t really sever up the deal and say it’s a patent license fee: for one, Novell aren’t getting an actual license.
What annoys me is the implicit suggestion that Novell are putting code into Novell which infringes Microsoft’s patents, which is obviously wrong.
But, there is much we can agree on. And indeed, I would point out that Red Hat/Fedora have already done a legal review of Mono: it wasn’t allowed into the distribution before that was done.
The thing is, you can never say for sure a project is 100% safe: even the simplest of free software applications have been attacked by software patents. But what you can do is say that a. the Mono project avoid patents, b. OIN protect Mono, c. major distributors have found no problems with it after review (Red Hat’s ongoing concern with Moonlight notwithstanding).
There’s not much more you can say about it.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 8:45 am
@Roy: I manufactured nothing. You made a wild claim which you were unable to support, because it suits your argument to suggest that Novell have licensed Microsoft patents.
It’s all in the record.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 2:15 pm
No, not quite. I made a claim. You then posed this as a question suggesting “cross licensing”, but it was a trick question.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 2:23 pm
@Roy: again, no. I didn’t pose it as a question at all, I made a statement asking you to stop inferring it was a cross-licensing deal.
There was no question from me, and I certainly didn’t ask you anything to “trick” you. Please retract that false claim also.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 2:38 pm
You introduced the notion of cross-licensing here, but I typically refer to ‘protection’, not cross-licensing.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 2:51 pm
So when you said “Novell cross-licensed with Microsoft”, what, I hypnotized you or something?
If you’re in so little control of the words you write that reading things makes you burp them back out accidentally, I suggest you take steps to correct that. You spent about four posts defending an idea you now said I “tricked” you into, which is pretty pathetic behaviour to be honest.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 2:53 pm
It started here where I incorrectly responded to something you said. I didn’t bring up the notion of “cross licensing”. I have already admitted the mistake.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I know you admitted it wasn’t a cross license, I’m not bothered by that.
What I am bothered by is your suggestion that I somehow asked a “trick” question. You still haven’t retracted that false claim, even though it’s quite obviously factually false to anyone who cares to check this record.
For whatever reason, you started to defend an idea which is indefensible, and now you’re trying to put the blame on me for your apparently poor comprehension skills.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Sorry for suggesting (or rather making it sound like) it was something intentional that you did. I know it was not, so the way I phrased it stands out badly.
AlexH said,
September 16, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Ok, I accept that, thanks. For what it’s worth, I absolutely didn’t attempt to trick you - if it was a simple misunderstanding, that was unfortunate.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Yes, I understand that. We’re debating, not arguing/fighting and I appreciate that. BTW, I’m working from the office today and tomorrow (connection problems at home), so BN will probably be less active and I’ll be slow to respond.
Adam Williamson said,
September 16, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I really can’t be bothered reading through this entire gigantic comment thread, but in case it hasn’t been noted yet, the dependency on Mono in openoffice.org is removed as of openoffice.org-3.0svn13581-2mdv2009.0 .
Our oo.o build is based on the go-oo project, which optionally adds Mono support (basically for writing plugins or macros in Mono). We enable this, and by default if you do that, it winds up with an auto-generated mono dependency in the package. In fact everything will basically still work without Mono installed - you just won’t be able to use any plugins or macros that are written in Mono unless you have Mono installed.
Adam Williamson said,
September 16, 2008 at 4:47 pm
er, missed the last bit of my comment:
…so with the new build we’ve just disabled the Mono dependency.
Dan O'Brian said,
September 16, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Out of curiosity, where do you work Roy? You always ask anyone who disagrees with you where they work but I have yet to see any mention of where you work.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 16, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Manchester University. I suspect you knew this already.
Dan O'Brian said,
September 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Nope, I didn’t know.
Adam Williamson said,
September 17, 2008 at 1:36 am
Roy, you’re obviously reading these comments, but I haven’t seen an update to the article yet…
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 17, 2008 at 3:51 am
I’ll update the post, Adam. Thanks for the information.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 17, 2008 at 11:59 am
@Shane: I thought about going down the very same route. I dropped cellphones in 2003. I even set up some Wikis private for communication to reduce the impact of spam back in 2004 or 2005. I know a people who have no landline, either.
You got my E-mail address right. Let me know when it’s set up and I’ll pass you all the stuff I’ve probably been sending to your /dev/null/ ‘folder’ over the past year.
I hope you’ll help me out here more.
Jose_X said,
September 17, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I am cutting my participation on forums in order to advance something more interesting.
>> I’ve already given numerous examples where Mono is better than Microsoft’s dot net platform.
Honestly, as large as dotnet is, could you imagine if mono didn’t beat out msdotnet in anything?
Keep in mind that Microsoft has msdotnet AND mono. And with proprietary licenses (or free software licenses like Apache, MIT, BSD, etc) from Novell, they will have modified mono closed source, too.
FOSS always has that issue that it can be used by closed source companies as their entree. Most of the time, this just gives company X a little payback for investments in FOSS study/devel/whatever. Preferably, I contribute nothing to company Microsoft where they can gain particular advantage. I think mono falls into this bin, as I have said many times. Microsoft’s market-distorting advantages are already too great. Linux and FOSS doesn’t need more handicaps. [Why delay the inevitable?]
I think companies hooked on dotnet will use mono and supplement with msdotnet or use msdotnet with mono here and there. As long as msdotnet is significant (true on MS platforms), then mono will be on shaky ground. “Introspection” won’t save it from lack of interoperability as suits Microsoft.
>> I’ve also given examples of where it allows you to do stuff that dot net doesn’t.
And since Microsoft has just as much access to mono (to package it or extend it or whatever) as everyone else, Microsoft and their offerings have these capabilities as well.
>> People don’t choose to use Mono because of the price.
I’m sure this is a consideration.
>> If you’d look on the internet, you’d find out that Microsoft don’t charge for dot net (nor, infact, do they charge for the entry developer environment in Visual Studio, either).
All versions aren’t free (”poor man’s” version might be). No version is guaranteed to be free over time, eg, once the lock-in kicks in. [As Matt Asay recently wrote, “Discounts are nice, but discounts only make it cheaper to fall into lock-in.” http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10043997-16.html ] Those companies that swallow the hooks of MS’ more integrated and advanced offerings, will find mono to be of limited use (a shame since mono is open).
I know FOSS mono has benefits as does any FOSS tool, but if you are into dotnet, mono lags and falls short in integration/interop on Windows (most using dotnet are on Windows).
>> People choose Mono because of the advantages it has over any other available system (see: Linden Labs, et al)
It’s good you can find an example of a company that might think this is true. [I do think I remember them stating they find value in mono.]
…
Sorry, I took so long to reply. Like I said, I am trying to cut back in order to work on some more interesting things. Microsoft can attempt to embrace and extend anything. They don’t need mono, but mono helps them with certain goals and makes some things easier.
Make things easyeasier for Microsoft? Not me! If I ever find dotnet-ish needs, I’ll look for or contribute to alternatives.
Those that support FOSS that don’t think Microsoft is as much of a hindrance to FOSS as I do may not mind adopting mono as they find a need.
Baby In The Bath Water said,
September 17, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Uh… yes they are. Microsoft’s .NET runtime and framework are both free.
AlexH said,
September 18, 2008 at 3:17 am
@Jose:
The Mono compiler and class library is MIT, but the runtime library is LGPL and the tools are GPL. Your theory that ” Microsoft has msdotnet AND mono [and] they will have modified mono closed source, too.” just doesn’t stand up to any factual scrutiny, I’m afraid.
The rest of your argument seems to be based on this speculation.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 18, 2008 at 5:20 am
AlexH, a reader has sent me some very detailed analysis of Mono, which I will post soon. I very much agree with Jose on this point.
Dan O'Brian said,
September 18, 2008 at 6:14 am
It should also be noted that Mono’s class libraries are also shared with DotGNU.
Jose_X said,
September 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm
>> Uh… yes they are. Microsoft’s .NET runtime and framework are both free.
I was going by AlexH’s comment (which makes sense) which included development tools that are not free.
Also, you have to pay for Windows (at least most of us do). If you pay for Windows, you pay for everything within Windows. That packaging is how IE ended up $0 (not) and the Spyglass suit. You can’t use MSdotnet in a vacuum. You have to pay Microsoft for Windows/Vista. Same applies for all Windows products.
This was such a small part of that original post. I wish you guys would choose to focus on something else. You aren’t getting too far with this minor point as is. [This original minor point was that mono had the effect towards msdotnet as a pirated Windows contributes to Windows mindshare and “addiction”.. because you have a similar product in terms of what developers see and code up (investment in brain cells and code much less useful elsewhere), but at no charge. This was a minor point. Are we going to fetch down all prices of all MS products for all time?]
>> The Mono compiler and class library is MIT, but the runtime library is LGPL and the tools are GPL. Your theory that ” Microsoft has msdotnet AND mono [and] they will have modified mono closed source, too.” just doesn’t stand up to any factual scrutiny, I’m afraid.
I have no idea what you are talking about. *Anyone* can distribute mono.
I also said that this mere fact means that MSdotnet users have access to it even if Microsoft isn’t the one that directly gives it to them. This is an issue with all FOSS. One difference with MS protocol clones vs other FOSS is that it that it serves as marketing for keeping customers on the lock-in product. It also leads to many apps that don’t work unless others adopt and follow Microsoft. Advantage Microsoft. I don’t find it funny donating FOSS developer time to give advantages to Microsoft’s closed platforms.
As I’ve said before, developing mono is not the end of the world. It’s help to Microsoft and a failed opportunity. Eg, imagine the ODF folks throwing in the towel to follow OOXML just because Microsoft said that’s the next greatest and latest. Sure, Microsoft can embrace and extend ODF (anyone can though not with the leverage of Microsoft), but let’s move the game there to ODF instead of to OOXML and Microsoft’s home court.
Mono has been in development for a very long time and no doubt it has contributed to dotnet uptake. If dotnet, “wins out” over other technologies, it is a setback. Leading is how FOSS will be able to overtake the monopolies, not by following. At the time mono was pushed, we (those contributing) took the follower role AND helped give legitimacy to dotnet when it didn’t have it. Novell admits time and time again that Microsoft is here for the long haul, and they show through actions that they want to be as high in the Microsoft dominated protocol ecosystem pecking order as possible. Those liking dotnet could have forked in many places or worked with other groups on alternatives (if they really liked that model.. eg, over the existing JVM). Not a huge problem. Just another case of let’s follow Microsoft. Novell is in good company. That is how Microsoft has been making their living for a long time.
I mentioned somewhere that it’s possible Novell will break off with Microsoft, but that is their business. As has been said, tomorrow it can be any other company. Will I help companies that work to sustain the monopolist closed source platforms? No. Simple. Nothing complex. No evilness anywhere. Just my decision. I speak for no one else.
I don’t believe in staying with bad technology. As I said earlier, if a FOSS supporter finds value in dotnet, s/he can work on similar alternatives. We already have alternatives, but you may want something closer.
To finish off with the quote…
Anyone can include MIT licensed code in their closed source products or link to LGPL code. I still don’t see what you point was of mentioning this in an attempt to put down my statement. Maybe I again wasn’t clear in explaining what I meant.
Additionally, no one (just about) outside Novell’s (or Microsoft’s) top management is likely in a position to say which of their code (eg, GPL code) gets or doesn’t get licensed to Microsoft under alternative commercial licenses. No one can talk about the future either (not with certainty.. only with probabilities).[ I understand that you can’t condemn Novell on what they might do in the future.]
..However, a dotnet app is easier for Microsoft to leverage directly, in terms of strengthening the value proposition of the Windows platform, then would be for applications written with Linux in mind.
>> It should also be noted that Mono’s class libraries are also shared with DotGNU.
Noted.
FWIW, also, note that I don’t support the FSF’s dotGNU, but that project is a very small part of what they do.
Eventually, it might be a good idea to support dotnet. A shame if that becomes the case.
I’m optimistic though that despite dotnet, Linux will continue to move forward aggressively if not as fast. Microsoft can’t match the giving away of all source code and build tools. We will hopefully tap into that advantage much more and lead as much as possible with GPL type code (with distributed ownership).
Microsoft will be able to change to all open source, but I won’t expect it without them first taking a huge hit financially and losing much control. At such time, they will be less of an impediment to FOSS, so it won’t matter. [It’s unlikely they will change while retaining most of their strength, but it’s theoretically possible, I imagine.]
Jose_X said,
September 18, 2008 at 5:47 pm
>> Will I help companies that work to sustain the monopolist closed source platforms? No.
I am referring to *net* help (based on what conclusion I come to).
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 18, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I used to assist some SUSE users before the deal. Novell is not the one to help now. it empowers Microsoft, which fights Novell’s rivals (using the same source code).
paul (the unverified) said,
September 18, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Jose, what an articulate and intelligent response. You absolutely nailed it re the general tack of the discussion. That’s why I stopped commenting. I’m really impressed with Roy’s measured and respectful responses.
Alex was completely strung out on a point of minutiae. We all understood what Roy is concerned about. It’s more than just a little obvious, but your explanation bears reading for those of us that are still naive about how Redmond operates.
Occasionally, I’ve had to deal with people like Alex during my 20+ years in the business world as a manager. Their points might be valid enough, but they slow everybody down with their overwhelming desire to debate a point and prove themselves right. And in this case, I believe this mindset can put FOSS at risk because it comes off as if it’s rational and analytical when in fact it’s naive.
In business, when dealing with a competitive threat, you have to be aware of possibilities. It is not a bad thing to be suspicious. This is not like programming where you can point to a section of code and say it’s good or bad and be certain of it because you can confirm it by testing.
This is an environment of innuendo and implication with no testing allowed. You must achieve a very delicate balance between suspicion and confidence. You don’t have a nice safe well-defined dev environment in which to see if you’re ideas are sound. You can’t be certain if a strategy will pay off until the sales numbers are examined. And sometimes, then it’s too late.
So when considering the FOSS community’s security re the world’s largest software manufacturer who has consistently used the Ex3 strategy, there is no way that I would encourage using mono. If someone can’t see how this is an attempt at polluting the FOSS environment, then they can go buy as many winDOHs licenses as they have money for.
Thanks again, Jose.
Jose_X said,
September 18, 2008 at 10:04 pm
IMO
AlexH many times takes a stance you could describe as developer-practical. It recognizes that there is lots of “free software” already and Novell is contributing more to the pile. [Smartly, AlexH also points out problems in other companies’ approach as a way to divert attention from Novell. Some of it is very reasonable criticism, btw.]
What I think is missing from this perspective is the view that the people who feel most threatened tend to take (I think): the pov of “users everywhere” and not just the pov of the lucky few developers (or users) that will be able to have all the source accessible to entertain themselves as they could possibly want/use in a lifetime.
Those of us with what I am calling the “users everywhere” pov care much that Microsoft’s hold be broken. That FOSS is being created is secondary. FOSS sets the conditions of the field of play and is the source of great diversion (you may feel this way if you are a dev), but the primary driving factor is about end user (and developer) freedom across the board.
Developers may be split for all time between the virtues of having open and closed source, depending on how they are leveraging each one, but end users that don’t make a living off coding likely would care much more about the empowerment they would have in a FOSS environment [most still aren’t at a point to see this]. So most users likely much prefer to break monopolies, opacity, lack of control, lock-in, etc, if at all possible by having access to FOSS that works and is practical.. over simply knowing that FOSS exists but is out of reach to solve their immediate problems. A dev could have an orgasm with impractical FOSS, but most people would like to have the freedoms of FOSS as part of the software they “are stuck with.” It’s important that FOSS not be developer-fun only but user-practical as well. And note I am not talking about having sw that “just works” (like a Mac) as being the ultimate goal. I am specifically saying that the openness brings with it some very valuable items, but it must be usable (interop, quality, usability, etc). I suppose users want to have their cake and eat it.
AlexH may not agree with this depiction, but that’s what I conclude when, in defending deals with Monopolysoft that help sustain Monopolysoft, one effectively defends the continued existence of Monopolysoft. Maybe AlexH doesn’t think Novell is helping Monopolysoft, but, besides ignoring certain types of arguments, we’d have to believe that Ballmer and staff have been having a lapse of clear thinking on their part for all of this time (considering they extended the voucher program). Maybe it’s a huge bluff by Microsoft, some might reason. Maybe FOSS is so powerful that a little eating of the pie before dinner won’t really hurt anyone very much. Or maybe Microsoft is so powerful that FOSS has no real chance for the time being. Or, more precisely, maybe Novell is such a small player that they can’t possibly do much to tilt the pendulum in either direction. Or maybe Microsoft, by embracing FOSS, will become good and wholesome and all problems and conflicts will be solved (never mind that their primary products have more lock-in, less transparency, etc, than ever). Maybe users really don’t care about the benefits of being able to rely on FOSS for any need. Maybe users want nothing more than software that works. [Never mind that this is a trap argument because closed software never really just works and solves your problems because humans are complex beings who among other things really value freedom of choice and control, two things taken away if any closed source vendor had his way.]
AlexH and anyone else can do their thing career-wise, but it’s up to those interested in the “users everywhere” goals to draw attention to and challenge attacks on users everywhere. On some issues we are friends ..on others we are enemies. That is life.
PS: Above I said, “but [FOSS] must be usable (interop, quality, usability, etc).” AlexH backs FOSS criticisms that could be seen to help improve FOSS. And AlexH backs “interop”. The criticisms he backs should be done tactfully whenever possible since doing otherwise can serve other purposes (criticism doesn’t bother me too much but context may call for a balanced explanation). More importantly, “interop” with Microsoft is an illusion or a short-term gimmick to help divert business in a way beneficial to Microsoft. It’s true that *maybe* Novell is not doing THAT much that is wrong, but I’d rather play it safe and not underestimate Microsoft and the inside knowledge and tactics they have at their disposal nor the demands stockholders can place on Novell at any point in time if Novell sets its table properly (they have added significant backing and resources to technologies that benefit Microsoft significantly in relation to everyone else). It is a shame because deep down I think some Novell/Suse folks and those on the other side really would like peace. But enough likely don’t care. Just like the Microsoft employees that want peace but overall are more than willing to continue contributing to Microsoft lock-in: developer friendly (and exclusive access high inducing) when you have access and make the bucks, but not much fun to ordinary users (including a threat to a free society and privacy).
PS2: Darn, another reply that got out of hand in the length and obscurity department. It’s late for me tonight. Off to sleep I go.
AlexH said,
September 19, 2008 at 2:06 am
While it may be interesting to speculate about people at length, it doesn’t help the discussion.
The basic point remains: the people criticising Mono here have very little idea of how it works, what it contains, and why people choose it.
You can continue to hold the point of view of “It’s a poor man’s .net”, but that’s fundamentally mistaken, and you’re just going to get more frustrated as Mono take-up increases.
I know it takes effort to come to a more sophisticated point of view, but that would then allow you to understand why Fedora are not happy with Moonlight but are happy to ship Mono.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 19, 2008 at 2:26 am
See this.
zinka said,
September 19, 2008 at 2:38 am
Alex,
I don’t criticise Mono. You’re right, I know nothing about it nor I want to. What I do care about is to make it completely out of my little world, with a simple switch, make variable or whatever. I respect your point of view, I know you can respect mine.
AlexH said,
September 19, 2008 at 2:59 am
@Zinka:
Absolutely; it’s entirely your choice what software you run.
I don’t mind people choosing not to use Mono; that’s their choice. The only problem I have is with people who criticise the project unfairly, especially when they have a habit of bashing free software developers and applications not because of what they do but because of who they are. (the Novell OOXML vs. Sun OOXML hypocrisy is particularly obvious).
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 19, 2008 at 3:21 am
No, Novell supported OOXML in 2006. As a supporter, it helped Microsoft market it as a substitute to ODF.
AlexH said,
September 19, 2008 at 3:26 am
Right, and Sun’s code just dropped off the tree yesterday…
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 19, 2008 at 3:28 am
Timing matters. See this discussion. Novell gave Microsoft ammunition, which Microsoft paid them for.
AlexH said,
September 19, 2008 at 3:55 am
Yes, that’s a very interesting discussion where someone who knows OOXML very well tries to correct your misunderstandings and fails, because you’re unwilling to change your viewpoint to fit the facts.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. I don’t think I’m going to have much more success. Your beliefs about OOXML are based more in faith than anything else.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 19, 2008 at 3:57 am
This is muchly related to your stance on Mono. Can’t you see that by following Microsoft companies cannot properly compete against it?
OOXML is like Mono — technical and legal baggage…
AlexH said,
September 19, 2008 at 4:05 am
No, it’s nothing like my stance on Mono, the two things are entirely unrelated.
I’ve made this argument numerous times before: the main reason people are able to use OpenOffice.org is not that it has great support for ODF, but because it has great support for .doc. Anyone who thinks that OOo ignoring the default format of the latest Microsoft Office is somehow going to convert users to ODF is living in cloud cuckoo-land.
And, at the end of the day, this is an argument that has run its course. Office is getting some form of ODF support, which will not be perfect but will certainly be good enough, and ODF and OOXML will be slowly merged over the coming years. Microsoft is a member of the ODF TC and has already contributed to the spreadsheet work.
Losing sleep over OOXML is really missing the point.
Roy Schestowitz said,
September 19, 2008 at 4:18 am
It is very much related. It’s about doing things ‘the Microsoft way’ using their so-called “IP”.