07.23.07

Patent Alert: Is GNOME Growing a .NET Dependency?

Posted in GNOME, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Patents at 12:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Please allow me to start off by stating that love GNOME. I use KDE most of the time (at work and at home), but I used to be using GNOME more regularly and I love it very much. The choice it offers berings benefit to everybody.

I am only posting this only because certain information needs to reach people’s attention, no matter how inconvenient it may be. Many times in the past we repeated the alarming argument that Novell is turning its Linux desktop into a .NET-rich platform. It appears to be a matter of strategy, based on some recent interviews with Novell executives. Is it a good strategy? Probably not. The main issue is not the fact that Microsoft controls and extends .NET. The main issue is software patents, which bring monetisation (or “taxation”) into the equation.
Say No to Mono
Amid a discussion (and purely by serendipity), something strange was realised. information that I received from someone who wishes to remain anonymous began with the sarcastic statement that “apparently there is considerable effort under way by the Gnome team, to poison Gnome by completely rewriting it in C#!!! Thank you Miguel de Icaza.”

To paraphrase the person, “this turned out to be a tongue-in-cheek remark, but it isn’t far from the truth”. This person is a maintainer of a major Linux distribution. He has sufficient knowledge and credibility to be worth trusting, but please post a correction if we are wrong. I requested some references, which he kindly provided:

Here’s some historical references:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/01/gnome_to_be_based/

http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6232/1/

As a test, install Fedora 7 using the defaults, then (post-install) try to remove the gtk-sharp and mono-core packages. Chaos ensues. It rips out half the system.

And this on a distro where the original maintainers *swore* they would never let mono enter the tree. Now it is poisoned beyond repair.

It’s only a matter of time before the Gnome core libs will be mono dependant, I’d stake my life of that fact. I’m ready to ditch Gnome permanently.

I decided to make the person aware of Novell’s big plans for .NET (Mono). To this, the reply was:

God help them.

I think one can safely assume that Novell are now working almost exclusively to Microsoft’s agenda. If it comes from Novell, it is irreparably tainted.

I wish to believe that GNOME developers will not be persuaded or lured into more Mono dependencies. Other distributions use GNOME. KDE received some Mono bindings a couple of weeks ago, but there has never been any of this at the core, let alone in the build.

Surely, the patent system in the United States has gone completely out of hand. While centralization of .NET control remains an important factor, let the insane court battles teach you a lesson. At the end of last week we saw two important rulings. The first one was a dismissal of an appeal. It is a very serious case that involves a ban.

A U.S. appeals court on Friday dismissed Qualcomm’s appeal of an order by a federal trade agency banning some cellular telephones containing Qualcomm chips.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it lacked jurisdiction over an order by the U.S. International Trade Commission because Qualcomm has a request pending before the Bush administration asking it to invalidate the decision.

“An ITC determination does not become final for purposes of judicial review until the president has either approved of the determination or failed to disapprove within 60 days,” the court said.

The second case speaks about a defeat where obviousness could not be refuted.

In its third opinion of the day designated precedential, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences once again affirmed an examiner’s obviousness rejections. Specifically, the Board found that Appellant’s apparatus incorporating bioauthentication and a consumer electronics device was an obvious solution to a known problem, as all elements of the claims other than the bioauthentication device were found in one prior art reference, a second reference disclosed the bioauthentication devices in a related context, and a third disclosed that they could be substituted for each other. The BPAI appears to have fully embraced its new “flexibility” in determining obviousness in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in KSR.

At times when patent madness thrives in the United States, one must keep an eye open. GPLv3 is needed here, or at least eradication of absurdly-patented ideas. Please refrain from contaminating GNOME with Microsoft-patented technology.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink Mail Send this to a friend

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

18 Comments

Roy Shitzforwitz said,

July 23, 2007 at 12:37 am

Who’s paying you to FUD Novell?
Roy Schestowitz said,

July 23, 2007 at 1:10 am

Nobody pays me. Standing up for users’ right needn’t any monetary encouragement. Are you going to carry on trolling the site?
GNU/Linux user said,

July 23, 2007 at 2:19 am

“As a test, install Fedora 7 using the defaults, then (post-install) try to remove the gtk-sharp and mono-core packages. Chaos ensues. It rips out half the system.”

I can’t agree. I’ve just tested it few minutes ago and the only problem was that mono-core has Tomboy dependency (but afaik Tomboy is written in Mono). So maybe other distributions are affected (afair openSUSE is) but Fedora 7 isn’t. Mono can be safely removed and it won’t delete half of your system. I’m 100% Mono free (at least I don’t have any Mono and Mono related packages installed). Fedora rocks
Roy Schestowitz said,

July 23, 2007 at 2:37 am

Thanks for the information. One thing that leaves room for doubt (to me at least) is an article that talks about Mono in Fedora. It is quite surprising. I was under the impression that Red Hat would never approach Mono.

New Mono-Based Applications for GNOME in Fedora Core 5–Part 1

The hardest concern to address is that of patents. This worry is muddied by the fact that C# was handed by Microsoft to the ECMA (European Association for Standardizing Information and Communication Systems), standards organization as a language standard. As a standard, C# is technically out of Microsoft’s hands to control. However, that doesn’t mean that the rest of .NET doesn’t contain patent issues. In 2002, Microsoft applied for just such a patent, causing a ripple of concern throughout the technology community. Many decried the patent as too broad, and potentially even a violation of the ECMA’s rules for the standards it controls.

Speculation continues to run rampant on whether the patent will be granted, and what this patent will ultimately mean for anyone using .NET technology if Microsoft chooses to enforce the patent in a way that will have it invalidated for ECMA handling. In the meantime, the Mono and DotGNU projects continue on and various groups are throwing their hats into this collective pot.

We’ve accumulated a lot more material and pointers. The worry here is that complacency might lead to risk (through gradual embrace). Recall what happened with MP3 format after many years of “ignorance is bliss”.

I am aware that Red Hat does not distribute Mono ‘out of the box’ (the same applies to DVD playback, some fonts technology, among many other things). One issue to be aware of, however, is behind-the-scenes, Microsoft violation claims s. Microsoft ‘collects’ money from Linux users (without even being specific, mind you). That’s where the distributor is irrelevant. These threats are made secretly. It’s a shame that few people are aware of this, so they can’t protest and call “RICO ACT”.

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp
Slated said,

July 23, 2007 at 3:48 am

“I am aware that Red Hat does not distribute Mono ‘out of the box’”

I’m afraid it does Roy.

Here are four packages on the Fedora 7 DVD:

mono-core-1.2.3-3.fc7.i386.rpm
gmime-sharp-2.2.3-5.fc7.i386.rpm
gnome-sharp-2.16.0-1.fc6.i386.rpm
gtk-sharp2-2.10.0-4.fc7.i386.rpm

In addition to Tomboy:
tomboy-0.6.1-1.fc7.i386.rpm
http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy/

There’s also Beagle:
libbeagle-0.2.16.2-5.fc7.i386
http://beagle-project.org/Installing_prerequisites

Also, I recommend you read this:
http://duncan.mac-vicar.com/blog/archives/145

“Then I found dbus-1-mono and I raised an eyebrow. I thought “Mono is coming too.”. Not big deal, only that not only mono-core was there but mono-data and mono-web. Why a framework would depend in mono-web?. I am completely sure an IDE would depend on it, but a network applet?”

I’m also concerned that a number of Mono-built Gnome Applets might be poisoning the tree, however proving this is a matter of an audit – no simple task.

I’m currently in the process of examining the spec files of every package on the Fedora 7 DVD, to try to ascertain the full and precise extent of Mono infiltration into Fedora. Stay tuned.
Roy Schestowitz said,

July 23, 2007 at 3:59 am

I am doing some further reading on Mono at the moment. Last year, I believe the following was brought to Groklaw’s attention with the intent of showing what Miguel really strives to achieve.

http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/08/11/Let_2700_s-talk-Mono_3A00_–Sam-interviews-Miguel-de-Icaza.aspx

This is from Microsoft. It is worrying to see that Microsoft (through Miguel) is apparently now deciding what belongs inside the the core of Linux. Why aren’t people more aware of this?

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/02/19/1651244

The patent trap: If Gnome gets Mono

Thursday February 21, 2002 (09:24 AM GMT)

A lot has happened in 5+ years.
Stephen said,

July 23, 2007 at 4:19 am

The folks (except the troll) have given some great detail. I would like to add that the hackers producing these Mono applications are very pro-opensource people – just look through the list of authors.

Personally, I would like to see Mono being an Add-on CD type of deal for those that want it (choice etc). I can understand the rationale for Mono though, it represents much less of a barrier to entry in developing for a core platform such as Gnome and that makes sense.

My hope with Mono is that it, and its supporters, can wrestle control of the specification from Microsoft by a more open standards process. This will eventually happing with OOXML. I know, I know – it’s Microsoft and nothing can be taken for granted!
Stephen said,

July 23, 2007 at 4:20 am

It’s clear I need a Gtk-grammar module
Roy Schestowitz said,

July 23, 2007 at 4:27 am

> Mono applications are very pro-opensource people

Definitely! Awareness seems to be the missing piece though. Speaking for myself, I am very well aware of their preference are and I respect that. I talked to/confronted people who came from Windows development to GNU/Linux and wanted to maintain (even thrive) in their previously-acquired skills.

That said, have a look at this short article which was published last night. It should serve as a lesson to Xandros and Linspire.

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/07/ubuntu-must-pla.html

Ubuntu Must ‘Play To Its Strengths” to Beat Microsoft Add as My Number One

“You can’t out-Windows Windows, he says. Defining and playing to Ubuntu’s strengths are what will make free software succeed on the desktop.”

Remember another thing: Mark Shuttleworth said that he would not put wine on those Dell PCs because Linux has its own strengths.

While we’re at it, maybe you can help push this into the front page. 24 Diggs in the past 5 hours…

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Ubuntu_Must_Play_To_Its_Strengths_to_Beat_Microsoft
akf said,

July 23, 2007 at 4:31 am

I also use GNOME and I have no Mono(pol) software installed.

GNOME programs that would need Mono are:
Tomboy, Beagle, F-Spot

Maybe we should maintain a blacklist…
Roy Schestowitz said,

July 23, 2007 at 4:49 am

@akf: See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Gobuntu/pkg-non-free and http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/16/mono-cleanup/ .

Apparently, there are some big announcements on their way. News just in:

More Big Name PCs With Ubuntu Pre-Installed Coming Soon
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/07/more-big-name-p.html

“In a recent post on his blog, Shuttleworth encouraged the Ubuntu community to dream up the perfect free software laptop. He also launched a mailing list and a wiki dedicated to the topic that he hopes will help send a “ripple effect” through the PC industry.” [emphasis mine]

Let’s see how dedication for freedom works out for them. They have been criticised a lot for taking shortcuts (including ‘forbidden’ drivers and components).
Slated said,

July 24, 2007 at 6:40 am

I’ve just completed an audit of Fedora Core 6, and this is the full list of mono dependants and sub-dependants, excluding doc, devel, debug, multi-arch and third-party repo packages:

avahi-sharp
banshee
beagle
beagle-evolution
beagle-gui
boo
bytefx-data-mysql
cowbell
daap-sharp
db4o
dbus-sharp
drapes
evolution-sharp
f-spot
gecko-sharp2
gmime-sharp
gnome-sharp
gsf-sharp
gtk-sharp
gtk-sharp2
gtk-sharp-gapi
gtksourceview-sharp
ibm-data-db2
ikvm
kerry
lat
mod_mono
mono-data
mono-data-firebird
mono-data-oracle
mono-data-postgresql
mono-data-sqlite
mono-data-sybase
mono-debugger
monodevelop
monodoc
mono-extras
mono-jscript
mono-locale-extras
mono-nunit
monotone-server
mono-web
mono-winforms
muine
nant
njb-sharp
tomboy
xsp

Total: 48 packages.

Presumably Fedora 7 has the same number, or greater. I’ll do a similar audit on F7 later.
Anuj Seth said,

August 5, 2007 at 7:09 am

Its just sad whats happening, first Novell Linspire etc .. then Ubuntu’s restricted drivers … i new theyd push C# into GNOME when I read this a long time back
http://lwn.net/2002/0207/a/long-reply.php3
the Novell Microsoft deal confirmed it … Ubuntus decision to go non alphabetical and put Dell Support as the first topic on their forums (i know its stupid but you know … ) … it seems as every distro gets more successful more corporate power play and manipulation come in … its just really sad (IMHO) … we linux people like to think that we have a lot of big companies backing us its just free server tools for most .. oh and f-spot etc come as default installs on gutsy tribe 3
Rico Giove said,

August 10, 2007 at 7:38 am

What scares me more than the patent issue is that anything that is a ms derivative will leave my system open to viruses and security issues.
Brad Bellomo said,

October 22, 2007 at 4:00 pm

What patent issue? Microsoft fully released .NET as open to implementation and encourages it. Neither MS nor anyone else has ever referenced a specific patent of this debate. A desktop platform that truly supports both OS’s is in everyone’s interest. Lots of big companies have contributed to Linux and the open source world, what is wrong with Microsoft doing so?
Alberto Barrionuevo (FFII) said,

November 5, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Brad, you are confusing .NET with C# and CLI, that are the only parts of .NET that are standardized by ECMA and ISO. But .NET is much more, and Mono(pol) is using much more than these standardized parts. Just read a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

@@@@@@@@@
Standardization and licensing
In August 2000, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel worked to standardize CLI and the C# programming language. By December 2001, both were ratified ECMA standards (ECMA 335 and ECMA 334). ISO followed in April 2003 (ISO/IEC 23271 and ISO/IEC 23270).
While Microsoft and their partners hold patents for CLI and C#, ECMA and ISO require that all patents essential to implementation be made available under “reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.” In addition to meeting these terms, the companies have agreed to make the patents available royalty-free.
However, this does not apply for the part of the .NET Framework which is not covered by the ECMA/ISO standard, which includes Windows Forms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET. Patents that Microsoft holds in these areas may deter non-Microsoft implementations of the full framework.
@@@@@@@@@@

Additionally, you are supposing that ECMA is warranty enough to avoid patent threats. Check the two patent (non)licenses of Microsoft for OOXML and you’ll check that ECMA is far from any warranty regarding patents. Indeed ISO, who many times grants RAND standards instead of open standards.
Dark Phoenix said,

December 4, 2007 at 1:00 am

Well, technically this is necroposting, but I feel it needs to be said.

From my viewpoint as a long-time Fedora user, it seems that the Fedora guys have gone to GREAT GREAT lengths to minimize how far into the system Mono penetrates, to the point where it could easily be ripped out at a moment’s notice without major loss of functionality.

Also, a few conversations I’ve had on the Fedora list suggest that the Fedora devs would rather people use Java than Mono for this sort of programming. A good discussion on this is here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-November/msg00772.html
Roy Schestowitz said,

December 4, 2007 at 1:11 am

Dark Phoenix,

Out greater issue, IMHA(ssessment), is that Moonlight and OOXML translators (C#) will force many of us Linux users to embrace Mono regardless of what DE we use. Microsoft will say “yes, we support you, so just pick that Microsoft-patented Mono software, but be aware that we can sue you.” Be alerted as Microsoft has already resorted to extortion, but it does this quietly and businesses that pay Microsoft for ‘protection’ prefer to keep the settlement deals secret. The last thing we need is for them to be dependent on Mono when much better software can be developed differently.

What Else is New

Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)
After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles
Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value
The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate
The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral
The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly
Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

Links for the day
The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation
Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

Links for the day
What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become
The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge
Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption
Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government
Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

Links for the day
Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli
Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives
Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least
Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

Links for the day
White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)
Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)
Journalism 101: Do Not Believe Anything That Benoît Battistelli and the EPO's Management Say (Also Don't Fall for the UPC Hype)

A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they're wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli's department)
Patent Law Firms, David Kappos, and IAM 'Magazine' Still Shelter Software Patents by Cherry-Picking and Lobbying

Amid the gradual collapse of software patents in the United States there are disingenuous efforts to bring them back or maintain a perception that these patents are still potent
Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls Going Places and Suing Microsoft Rivals, Microsoft Wants More 'Linux Patent Tax'

Microsoft-connected patent trolls like Larry Horn's MobileMedia are still attacking Microsoft rivals and Microsoft wants more money from Korea, after it attacked Linux with software patents over there (notably Samsung and LG)
Links 22/9/2016: Linux Professional Institute Redesign, Red Hat Upgraded

Links for the day
Links 22/9/2016: Red Hat's Latest Results, GNOME 3.22 Released

Links for the day
The Patent Law Firms in the US Relentlessly Lobby for Software Patents Resurgence by Placing Emphasis Only on Rare Outcomes

Decisions against software patents continue to be ignored or intentionally overlooked by patent law firms, which instead saturate the media with the few cases where courts unexpectedly rule in favour of software patents
Links 21/9/2016: Lenovo Helps Microsoft Block GNU/Linux Installations

Links for the day
Like Big Tobacco Lobbyists, Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC Are Just Chronically Lying and Manipulating Politicians With Their Lies

Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC continue to meddle in politics and mislead the public (through the press) about patent quality as well the UPC, which is now in effect sunk inside the ashtray of history
The EPO's 'Investigative' Function is Totally Out of Control and Continues to Get Bigger, Whitewashed by So-called 'Review'

An update on the situation which still causes great unrest at the European Patent Office (EPO), namely abuse of staff by the so-called Investigative Unit (Eponia's equivalent of unaccountable secret services)