07.17.09

Gemini version available ♊︎

Free Software Foundation Discourages Dependence on Mono, Dismisses Microsoft Community Promise

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Patents at 8:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

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

Why Worry About C#?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Incomplete Standards

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

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

Figuring Out What’s Necessary

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

Moving the Goalposts

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

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

The Solution: A Comprehensive Patent License

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

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

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


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

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

11 Comments

  1. eet said,

    July 17, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Gravatar

    “…this was brought to you via ‘Roy-Broadcasting’; now in fabulous, new one-dimensionality…’

  2. Dylan McCall said,

    July 17, 2009 at 11:30 am

    Gravatar

    I like the FSF’s article, but here’s my issue with it: It is all about patents.

    Microsoft says GNU / Linux infringes on 235 of their patents. They have, thus far, failed to communicate what those patents are. They are trying to coerce us into a standstill by making people afraid of touching GNU / Linux either as a developer or a user. That is immoral.

    Saying “people shouldn’t use Mono because it infringes on patents” is complete garbage, because clearly GNU / Linux infringes on patents in the same way, and also lacks patent protection. Ultimately, Microsoft wants to sue GNU / Linux users. That won’t stop me, or anyone else, from using it.
    This is the case for any software development down the line, too, free or otherwise. The only difference with Mono is it’s a smaller bit of code than the whole of GNU / Linux, so it’s easier to point at it and say “this one product infringes so we should be afraid.” You can’t do that for the entire operating system.

    I guess that’s the thing I don’t understand, and I bet I’m not alone. Roy, or anyone else: I would love to see something convincing. Why should I care so much about patents here, but ignore the issue elsewhere? Aren’t we kind of playing along with Microsoft’s scheme here?

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Patents ought to be just a small portion of this discussion, in my eyes. Mono is about Microsoft controlling FOSS by APIs, not just patents. It’s a strategic issue, not just a legal issue.

    BTW, Groklaw has more overage of this and it adds:

    I think that there’s a major missing element to the list of requirements …, before you can consider using C#, and that is a commitment to ensuring that future standards are based on the same set of promises.

    “At the moment, even if all the conditions above were satisfied and it were safe to use C#, there’s no guarantee that it’s not an evolutionary dead-end for FOSS. Languages exist in a context, and they have to change and evolve to remain useful in a changing landscape. But there’s no commitment that I’ve seen from MS to keeping the future safe for FOSS. “

    nachokb Reply:

    Dylan,
    I disagree with this part of your reply:

    > “people shouldn’t use Mono because
    > it infringes on patents”

    That’s not the problem. If you want to use them, by all means use it. Mono is a fine piece of software and no doubt it’s useful for many people.

    The problem is that there is a seemingly powerful lobby campaign to include it in distributions which are renowned for respecting freedom.

    And one of the main problems with patents is the power it gives to established players to influence negatively a market (in billg’s own words, even). Let’s not forget that the real danger of patents is not the ability to shut down products or competitors (which would be too obvious), but the ability it gains powerful players to sow doubt or veiled threats.

    On the other hand, the exposure of Mono to specific patents is undoubtedly larger, than, say, the Linux kernel. Of course any software is exposed to stupid patents (that’s what they were designed for, after all). But Mono is specificly a reimplementation of technologies dear to the main monopolist/patent troll. It’s about credibility; if MS says that the LK is violating their patents for some memory management hat trick, they’ve got a lot to prove, and that would only be useful if they went ahead and went to a court (which is costly, even to the monopolist, be it money, PR, time); OTOH, just saying “Mono violates .NET patents” implicitly gives credibility and is easier to sell to the media (and, ultimately, affects the prospects of going to court).

    Furthermore, Ubuntu forum’s moderators showing one-sided behaviour by shutting down any mention of Mono which could be remotely interpreted as a negative or even questioning its holyness (while their users vote against Mono) and shouting FUD is troublesome to all of us Ubuntu users.

    Sorry for the length…

    nachokb

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Dylan,

    nachokb addressed some of the most important points, including the perceived (and real, by design) similarity between .NET and Mono. Remember that SCO marketed its lawsuit to the media by showing UNIX-Linux similarities.

  3. aeshna23 said,

    July 17, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    Gravatar

    Saying “people shouldn’t use Mono because it infringes on patents” is complete garbage, because clearly GNU / Linux infringes on patents in the same way, and also lacks patent protection.

    This isn’t true. Just because Microsoft says GNU / Linux infringes on 235 of their patents, doesn’t mean that Microsoft is telling the truth or when it is telling the truth that the patents will hold up in court. Furthermore, no one outside of the Microsoft has a clue exactly what Microsoft is talking about. In the case of Mono, we know that Microsoft does have relevant .Net patents, and that these patents are likely to be of much higher quality, since Mono imitates .net. Also, courts tend to uphold patent infringement charges more frequently when the alleged infringer admits to imitating.

    eet Reply:

    What you’re basically saying is that the risk of bein sued over an unknown patent is preferable over the legally binding promise not to be sued over a known patent.

    eet Reply:

    To clarify; I wouldn’t give a damn about patents either way – but Microsoft got YOU so indoctrinated that you’re worrying over patents all the time.

    Now, this should really worry you.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Don’t forget In Re Bilski and its ramifications, either.

  4. JohnD said,

    July 18, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Gravatar

    I find it interesting that the post does not mention if the CP is legally binding or not.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Agreed. There are other criticisms raised in Groklaw.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, December 08, 2022

    IRC logs for Thursday, December 08, 2022



  2. Links 08/12/2022: Deepin 20.8 and CERN, Fermilab Move to AlmaLinux

    Links for the day



  3. [Meme] Sirius Corporation Run by Dummies

    At Sirius ‘Open Source’, the fish rots from the head down



  4. Code of Conduct-Like Culture at Sirius ‘Open Source’ (Managers Never Held Accountable for Anything, Other Staff Blamed for Management's Failures)

    Sirius was abandoned a week ago (my wife and I resigned with immediate effect), leaving a skeleton crew that’s about 50% ‘management’ (barely qualified or not qualified at all) and 50% 'low-paid' geeks (what’s left of them); guess who’s blaming who and who always gets punished



  5. Virtually (i.e. Online) and for Only One Hour the EPO's Staff Representation Was Allowed to Discuss Many Lingering Concerns

    “Report on the LSCMN meeting with VP4 of 9 November 2022″ (i.e. one month ago) is being circulated this week; “On 9 November 2022,” says the union or the local officials (Staff Union of the EPO, or SUEPO for short, has overlaps), “the Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN) met with VP4, Ms Nellie Simon, to discuss a number of prevailing local matters in a virtual meeting which had been scheduled, as had the previous one, for one hour only.” (the usual; they intentionally don’t allocate sufficient time)



  6. [Meme] António Campinos-Controlled (EPO-Commissioned) Surveys Are Just for Show (to Help 'Validate' Lies)

    The real EPO survey is not that one conducted by (and for) António Campinos



  7. European Patent Office (EPO) on the Decline, According to the Fifth Edition of the Technologia Staff Survey

    Today we share some documents that circulated amongst EPO staff yesterday; it's about this year's staff survey that was not conducted by the EPO itself (to serve EPO management and its twisted agenda



  8. Free Software is So Robust That Its Opponents Need to Travel 12 Months Back in Time in Order to Find Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) Material

    Microsoft- and Linux Foundation-connected sites help smear or stigmatise Free software (citing hostile 'experts'); this week they borrow news from 12 months ago to make a point



  9. IDG Has Resorted to Microsoft Marketing SPAM Instead of Actual Journalism

    Microsoft puff pieces are published as "opinions", disguised as "news" while in fact serving no purpose other than marketing



  10. Open Invention Network (OIN) Protects Amazon and AWS From Activists Like Us Who Want to Abolish Software Patents Through Reforms of the Patent Systems

    The Open Invention Network (OIN) does not exist to serve the Free software community but to work against it; the latest joining (AWS) proves this



  11. Sirius ‘Open Source’ and the Money Missing From the Pension

    Sirius ‘Open Source’ is unable to cope with basic legal requirements such as sending payslips to staff (this hasn’t been done for months already!) and such issues have gone on for almost 4 years already



  12. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, December 07, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, December 07, 2022



  13. Links 07/12/2022: ArcoLinux Beta 23.01 and Cryostat 2.2

    Links for the day



  14. [Meme] Where Did the Money Go?

    Sirius ‘Open Source’ became a company that cannot even do accounting right; pertinent technical employees had to do a lot of chasing for years just to get the basics rectified



  15. Evidence of Sirius ‘Open Source’ (or Sirius Corporation) Failing to Pay Pensions, Failing to Inform Staff, Not Responding to Staff

    The job my wife and I left this past Friday (after about 21 years combined) had turned sour years ago; hoping that this serves as a cautionary tale to others, we've decided to show pension lapses, lack of payslips, and excuses that accompanied that for years



  16. Links 07/12/2022: Blender 3.4 and Apple GPU Drivers Now in Asahi Linux

    Links for the day



  17. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, December 06, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, December 06, 2022



  18. Links 07/12/2022: Kali Linux 2022.4, GNUnet 0.19.0, and Pgpool-II 4.4.0

    Links for the day



  19. Subsidising the Likes of Rupert Murdoch is Not Supporting Journalism

    There are yet more attempts to tax citations; not only does that make no practical or moral sense, it's being lumped in or joined together with a must-pass "defence" (military) bill in order to suppress opposition



  20. Microsoft Layoffs Again

    The company behind Windows is in a bad state, but it is being propped up by the taxpayers; if rumours are true, Microsoft might get a lot smaller next year



  21. Microsoft is Killing Hospital Patients With Its Insecure-by-design Windows Operating System

    Many people continue to needlessly die because many hospitals still foolishly deploy Windows on mission-critical life-saving machines



  22. Sirius ‘Open Source’ Failing at the Most Basic Employment Regulations

    The company we left behind last week was a repeat violator of employment laws; to make matters worse, it led to its long-term or long(time)-serving staff becoming very baffled, having to contact the pension provider for clarifications



  23. Sirius ‘Open Source’: When the Company Stops Paying Your Pension and You Don't Know Until the Pension Provider Keeps Sending Physical Post to Alert You

    Today we turn our attention to pension blunders at Sirius ‘Open Source’; in recent years even something basic like pension contributions wasn’t smooth sailing



  24. [Meme] Sirius Open Source, Closed-Minded Bossing

    At Sirius ‘Open Source’, decisions are made in the dark without consultation with staff and many things go wrong as a result; of course the culprits never hold themselves accountable



  25. Links 06/12/2022: LibreOffice 7.5 Alpha and digiKam 7.9.0

    Links for the day



  26. Rumour: Very Large Microsoft Layoffs (Another Round) Next Month, Lists Already Being Prepared





  27. Benoît Battistelli in 2015: EPO is Ready to Start Unified Patent Court (UPC), Expect UPC in 2016

    We’re almost in 2023 and UPC is being delayed again; this is what EPO President Benoît Battistelli said way back in 2015 (official video from the EPO; 3:45-4:34 cropped apart)



  28. IRC Proceedings: Monday, December 05, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, December 05, 2022



  29. Links 06/12/2022: FreeBSD 12.4 and Inkscape 1.2.2

    Links for the day



  30. Sirius Not-So-‘Open Source’: Cannot Talk to Colleagues, Cannot Speak About Work

    Cover-up and lies became a corporate pattern at the company where I had worked since 2011; it was time to go in order to avoid cooperation in unethical activities


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts