EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS


Responses to Richard Stallman’s Verdict on Mono

Posted in FSF, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 5:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Richard Stallman and the GPLv3

Summary: Mono developments to be aware of

Richard Stallman’s advice against Mono (by default) has made the front page of Slashdot where it received over 700 comments, which is exceptional even for Slashdot. The updated summary also links to an overview of Gnote, which concludes with:

To me, this is a huge victory for Anti-Mono supporters. Users get just as much functionality out of their old apps, and are rewarded a freedom from code patents at the very same time! It’s a win-win situation!

One of our readers, Toros, writes:

“!fsf !gnu @rms – http://fsf.org/: Why free software shouldn’t depend on #Mono or C# – http://ur1.ca/6d0x”

Brad Kunn from the SFLC passed on this message:

“c.f. Tomboy C++ rewrite effort as well ♻ @toros: !fsf !gnu @rms: Why free software shouldnt depend on #Mono or C# – http://ur1.ca/6d0x”

John Sullivan (FSF) adds:

“!fsf rms warning about !debian and others depending on Mono: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono”

Other core people in Identica remark as follows:


“@gnufs He’s talking talking about the risks faced by including mono by default. He never says not to use it. Just don’t depend on it. !fsf”


“We know #Microsoft plans to attack free software with patents because they’ve said so. Implementing MS tech carries special risks. !fsf”


“Should the !GNU system support #NTFS? Yes. Should the GNU system _depend_ on NTFS? No. Same with #Mono or any other #Microsoft tech. !fsf”


“It’s not a matter of “here @rms supports inclusion of patented software, and here he doesn’t”. !fsf”

Over at LinuxToday, Rainer Weikusat correctly points out that the pro-Microsoft/pro-Mono crowd goes to great lengths to characterise Mono opposition as “crackpots”. We wrote about this before. The only thing worse than this is personal abuse from Novell employees.

As an added bonus, it doesn’t even work: Helping
‘dubious comrades’, like LinuxInsider, with
painting all people who are critical of Mono
as crackpots by virtue of drowning any attempt
at a serious discussion of the associated issues,
eg Microsoft-controlled APIs, especially,
bad Microsoft-controlled APIs in, in “Patents!
Patents! Patents!”-shrieks is likely to rather
help than hinder the proliferation of C#/.NET.
But this is certainly entirely coincidental …

It has become abundantly clear that Mono advances Windows [1, 2, 3]. We published something about this yesterday and this new post may serve as further evidence.

How to build MonoDevelop with Visual Studio in five easy steps…

The above post is not so innocent. The author says he works as a developer for Novell as part of the Mono team where he leads the MonoDevelop project. They sure spend a lot of time improving the Mono experience for Windows and integrating it with Microsoft’s .NET, which won’t be available for GNU/Linux.

“The patent danger to Mono comes from patents we know Microsoft has, on libraries which are outside the C# spec and thus not covered by any promise not to sue. In effect, Microsoft has designed in boobytraps for us.

“Indeed, every large program implements lots of ideas that are patented. Indeed, there’s no way to avoid this danger. But that’s no reason to put our head inside Microsoft’s jaws.”

Richard Stallman, 2007

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

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


  1. JohnD said,

    June 28, 2009 at 10:55 am


    I find interesting that most Linux supporters are willing to rewrite any code that’s proven to infringe on patents, but they aren’t willing to do the same for Mono. I followed one of the links on the Slashdot post that leads to a doc that makes some very interesting points about Mono and it’s detractors. I’d suggest giving it a read.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    This only contains slurs against Mono opposition and wrongly characterises BN as a site “Calling for the deaths of Microsoft employees”.

    More cheap smears from an increasingly-miserable group that simply cannot defend what it’s doing to GNU/Linux with Mono, so it daemonises those who disagree, even with lies.

    aeshna23 Reply:

    The pro-Mono article makes arguments that miss the point. It compares Microsoft as the monopolist responsible for .NET with AT&T as the monopolist responsible for C. Of course, no one is concerned about AT&T suing over the use of C. C was developed in the innocent days before crazy notions of software patenting were rife in our political economy.

    The article makes the calumnious insinuation that people such as me who would object to the Microsoftization of Linux–regardless of patent issues–are simple haters of Microsoft. No, it is that we care that the FOSS wins on it own merits. Copying Microsoft or, as Microsoft would have it, ripping off Microsoft would be to say that FOSS is inadequate, that Linux does not deserve to win the OS wars. I strongly believe Linux is able to win on its own.

    I could go on, but it’s rather easy to tear holes in the article’s argument.

    Jose_X Reply:

    The Linux Today news discussion thread corresponding to that posting is this one: http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009061201035OSCYDV . It includes discussion missing from other links.

    Needs Sunlight Reply:

    @JohnD: It looks like you are just trolling, but the troll post does bring up a common mistake: In contrast to coyright, patents are about what the code does, not where it comes from. So re-writing the code will *not* help anything in regards to patent problems. Using Java and not Mono will. Java is not encumbered, Java is free software and Sun has granted use of all necessary patents.

    So why the hell should free software use patent encumbered .NET? Screwing up FOSS development might be one reason, it might be fine for Redmond, but it’s not a worthy reason for us end-users who *use* computers.

    That aside, Mono/C#/.NET applications are drag-ass slow. Java’s much faster, C++ much so. Drop the ideology and let the technologies live (or die) according to technical and legal merits. The experiment with M$ is over. Leave it behind.

    G. Michaels Reply:

    Bravo “Needs Sunlight”! Rarely does one encounter a comment that encapsulates all that’s wrong with this operation. Accusation of “trolling”, vague FUD about the danger of patents (applies to Mono only, of course), suggestion that Mono is an Evil Plan To Disrupt Goodness (only 11 years in the making!), will someone think of the users, philosophical and religious arguments expressed as lame technical objections… and the IQ-ravishing “M$” thing.

    Evangelism at its best.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    We probably ought to process some more Java exhibits (Comes trial) to remind people what it is that Microsoft (and Novell) are trying to fight and why.

  2. David "Lefty" Schlesinger said,

    June 28, 2009 at 2:10 pm


    Funny to see you complaining about “cheap smears”, Roy. Ever planning on correcting that article on Jimmi Hugh…?

    aeshna23 Reply:

    Some people just love playing simple-minded accusation games about minor incidents half a year old.

    And I checked and Roy did cross out the claim about Jimmi Hugh. I do think he should make a point of explaining why he crosses out some text. It may confuse some people, and I suppose give ammo to people like Lefty.

    Jose_X Reply:

    This was the last I remember of this Jimmi conversation: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/17/steve-ballmer-crimes-vs-os2/comment-page-1/#comment-66982 .

    You had left off at:
    >> We’re clearly not going to agree on much else, and I sense that pursuing this further is a less worthwhile use of my time…

    What specifically are you looking for today beyond what was recounted there?

  3. Nobody Real said,

    June 28, 2009 at 7:42 pm


    Some might think that Roy deliberately used CSS to admit his mistake so that Google (which ignores the CSS) will not see the alteration and continue to publish the slur.

    One has to wonder why Roy chose the method of ‘correction’ he did, but oh well.

    Jose_X Reply:

    I wanted to check up on that and tried googling various things including:
    “jimmi hugh wikipedia censorship vandalism site:boycottnovell.com” and could not get the link to that page to appear.


    How do you get this link above to appear on google as an individual search result link?

    G. Michaels Reply:

    Try another search engine perhaps? Yahoo, Ask.com, Live/Bing, AllTheWeb.

    The URL was removed from Google, which is interesting in that according to Roy there was nothing to apologize for and in fact he hadn’t even read the evidence that he was wrong. Fascinating, don’t you think?

    I’m fairly sure that only the owner of a URL can get it removed from Google without a DMCA takedown notice. Of course that didn’t remove all the mirrors and USENET comments that link to the article, which still show up in Google anyway. If I were a potential employer looking for information on Mr. Hugh it would take me three clicks instead of just one to get to Roy’s hit job.

    When you enter your real name into Google, do you see a smear? I thankfully don’t. Hugh isn’t that lucky. But it’s OK, right? It’s all in the name of freedom. Collateral damage is to be expected. The journalists that see smears about them having been “bribed” with a $1,500 laptop should also be sympathetic to that. And so should everyone else that has ever been targeted by BoycottBoy.

  4. monomania said,

    June 28, 2009 at 7:44 pm


    Oh, now look what’s happened. Just as I was warming to Ubuntu. Just when I had moved all my machines over to their warm and cuddly system, I discover the slow encroachment of Mono applications into the default system. Right now, I can remove the items in question, but it seems clear what’s intended for the future.

    It’s not the patents that bother me. It’s the fact that the mono proponents are attempting to transform Linux into a second rate cousin to Microsoft.

    It reminds me of the film Bridge over the river Quai in which the British officer, mortally wounded, as the allies attack a bridge which he and his fellow captives have built – to show their captors just what discipline and organisation can achieve – suddenly realises that they have also contributed to the enemy effort by building the bridge so well and so effectively, The officer stumbles, stares in amazement at his own realisation, and asks rhetorically with his dying breath, “What have I done…” then, rather fortuitously, falls on the plunger that sets off the explosive charge which destroys the bridge.

    I don’t suppose we can trust the Mono developers to do something similar? Probably not.

    I’d go back to Debian, but horror of horrors, even they can’t be trusted. Who would have thought it.

    Thank goodness for Fedora.

  5. contextfree said,

    June 28, 2009 at 9:29 pm


    your statement that it’s not the patents that bother you, but (as far as I can make out) some kind of vague cultural bigotry (Unix is the only Real Operating System? C and various cheesy dynamic languages are the only Real Languages used by Real Programmers?) typifies what bothers me about some of the anti-Mono etc. sentiment out there.

    apropos of patent concerns, though, you guys may find this blog comment from James Plamondon (of “Evangelism is WAR!” fame) of interest:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2007/10/17/f-a-functional-programming-language.aspx (about 1/4 down the page)

    “My brother Peter Plamondon and I started Project 7 at Microsoft, which was the code-name for an effort to (a) get the .NET & Visual Studio.NET products opened up to non-Microsoft languages and (b) get non-Microsoft languages implemented on .NET. [...]

    There was a LOT of resistance. Microsoft had just been burned by a non-Microsoft language — Java — and there were those who felt that Microsoft should be actively suppressing the emergence of new languages, not facilitating it. Fortunately, Paul recignized that the emergence of Java proved that Microsoft could not suppress the emergence of new languages…and that it shouldn’t WANT to do so. Better to encourage their emergence, and to make it super-easy for them to emerge first, best, and only on Windows. This is what’s happening now with languages such as F#.

    One of the main reasons I wanted to open up .NET and VS.NET this way was to facilitate the miscegenation of programming languages — the mixing together of ideas and features that can only happen on top of a platform (the CLR) that provides a simple, open, flexible DNA for programming languages). [...]

    This modular approach to language functionality would (a) allow the more-rapid evolution of programming language functionality, and (b) be available first, best, and perhaps only on Windows, because no other platform has the necessary infrastructure (and presumably Microsoft has patented the holy shit out of the CLR and VS.NET).

    If, at the same time, Microsoft were to aggressively support the use of VS.NET as a cross-platform development tool, implementing redistributable .NET equivalents (“the .NET Platform”) on other operating systems, then this would de-commoditize programming, establishing Windows as the most efficient platform for developing applications for the .NET Platform (and thereby all other OS’), thereby ensuring that the best applications were developed first, best, and perhaps only for Windows. This could make it possible for Microsoft to regain the Cool Factor Cup than Linux et al. have recently captured.

    Of course, this de-commoditization only happens if VS.NET, the CLR, and the novel re-engineering of programming languages allows such a big jump in programmer efficiency that programers who don’t use it are outcompeted in the marketplace. That’s what de-commoditization MEANS.”

    Don Syme (the principal designer of F#) talks about this as well:
    “Right back in 1998, just in fact as our research group in programming languages started at Microsoft and I joined the team and then other 10 of us joined the team, we were approached by a guy called James Plamondon, who started the project called Project 7, which was about getting 7 academic and 7 industrial programming languages on each side to target the .NET common language runtime and really check out if it was good enough, to see if design changes could be made early on in the design process of .NET to make sure it was good enough for a range of programming languages.

    Some of those design changes were made, like tail calls were, for example, were added in the first version of .NET and that was a very interesting project because they gave a lot of way to our group and researchers at Microsoft to make connections between the academic programming world and .NET. We have seen that there are a lot of people working on .NET over the years, and also let our group work directly on .NET with regard to .NET Generics and other proposed extensions to .NET – we got these researchers engaged with the system.”

    aeshna23 Reply:

    your statement that it’s not the patents that bother you, but (as far as I can make out) some kind of vague cultural bigotry (Unix is the only Real Operating System? C and various cheesy dynamic languages are the only Real Languages used by Real Programmers?) typifies what bothers me about some of the anti-Mono etc. sentiment out there.

    If you’re not willing to take the time to understand other people’s arguments and just want to label them “vague cultural bigotry”, don’t expect me to read what you have to say.

    contextfree Reply:

    I’m not sure what I’m not understanding. If it’s not an actual patent/freedom issue (for him), it sounds like a cultural-symbolism thing and indeed he appears (to me at least) to say it is.

  6. Sean Tilley said,

    June 28, 2009 at 9:39 pm


    Hey, thanks for plugging my article, Roy and Twitter! It’s gotten roughly over 900 views on Linux.com!

What Else is New

  1. Luxembourg Can Become a Hub of Patent Trolls If the EPO Carries on With Its 'Reforms', Even Without the UPC

    With or without the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which is the wet dream of patent trolls and their legal representatives, the EPO's terrible policies have landed a lot of low-quality patents on the hands of patent trolls (many of which operate through city-states that exist for tax evasion -- a fiscal environment ripe for shells)

  2. The Patent 'Printing Machine' of the EPO Will Spawn Many Lawsuits and Extortions (Threats of Lawsuits), in Effect Taxing Europe

    The money-obsessed, money-printing patent office, where the assembly line mentality has been adopted and patent-printing management is in charge, is devaluing or diluting the pool of European Patents, more so with restrictions (monetary barriers) to challenging bad patents

  3. Links 17/3/2018: Varnish 6, Wine 3.4

    Links for the day

  4. Deleted EPO Tweets and Promotion of Software Patents Amid Complaints About Abuse and Demise of Patent Quality

    Another ordinary day at the EPO with repressions of workforce, promotion of patents that aren't even allowed, and Team UPC failing to get its act together

  5. Guest Post: Suspected “Whitewashing” Operations by Željko Topić in Croatia

    Articles about EPO Vice-President Željko Topić are disappearing and sources indicate that it’s a result of yet more SLAPP from him

  6. Monumental Effort to Highlight Decline in Quality of European Patents (a Quarter of Examiners Sign Petition in Spite of Fear), Yet Barely Any Press Coverage

    he media in Europe continues to be largely apathetic towards the EPO crisis, instead relaying a bunch of press releases and doctored figures from the EPO; only blogs that closely follow EPO scandals bothered mentioning the new petition

  7. Careful Not to Conflate UPC Critics With AfD or Anti-EU Elements

    The tyrannical Unified Patent Court (UPC) is being spun as something that only fascists would oppose after the right-wing, anti-EU politicians in Germany express strong opposition to it

  8. Links 15/3/2018: Qt Creator 4.6 RC, Microsoft Openwashing

    Links for the day

  9. PTAB Continues to Increase Capacity Ahead of Oil States; Patent Maximalists Utterly Upset

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sees the number of filings up to an almost all-time high and efforts to undermine PTAB are failing pretty badly -- a trend which will be further cemented quite soon when the US Supreme Court (quite likely) backs the processes of PTAB

  10. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Create a Patent Bubble in India

    Litigation maximalists and patent zealots continue to taunt India, looking for an opportunity to sue over just about anything including abstract ideas because that's what they derive income from

  11. EPO Staff Has Just Warned the National Delegates That EPO's Decline (in Terms of Patent Quality and Staff Welfare) Would Be Beneficial to Patent Trolls

    The staff of the EPO increasingly recognises the grave dangers of low-quality patents -- an issue we've written about (also in relation to the EPO) for many years

  12. The EPO is a Mess Under Battistelli and Stakeholders Including Law Firms Will Suffer, Not Just EP Holders

    As one last 'gift' from Battistelli, appeals are becoming a lot more expensive -- the very opposite of what he does to applications, in effect ensuring a sharp increase in wrongly-granted patents

  13. The EPO Under Battistelli Has Become Like China Under Xi and CPC

    The EPO is trying very hard to silence not only the union but also staff representatives; it's evidently worried that the lies told by Team Battistelli will be refuted and morale be affected by reality

  14. Links 14/3/2018: IPFire 2.19 – Core Update 119, Tails 3.6

    Links for the day

  15. Links 13/3/2018: Qt Creator 4.5.2, Tails 3.6, Firefox 59

    Links for the day

  16. Willy Minnoye (EPO) Threatened Staff With Disabilities Said to Have Been Caused by the EPO Work Pressures

    Willy Minnoye, or Battistelli's 'deputy' at the EPO until last year, turns out to have misused powers (and immunity) to essentially bully vulnerable staff

  17. IAM and IBM Want Lots of Patent Litigation in India

    Having 'championed' lobbying for litigation Armageddon in China (where IBM's practicing business units have gone), patent maximalists set their eyes on India

  18. The Patent Trolls' Lobby (IAM) Already Pressures Andrei Iancu, Inciting a USPTO Director Against PTAB

    Suspicions that Iancu might destroy the integrity of the Office for the sake of the litigation ‘industry’ may be further reaffirmed by the approach towards patent maximalists from IAM, who also participated in the shaming of his predecessor, Michelle Lee, and promoted a disgraced judge (and friend of patent trolls) for her then-vacant role

  19. Patent Trolls in the United States Increasingly Target Small Businesses Which Cannot Challenge Their Likely-Invalid Software Patents

    South by Southwest (SXSW Conference/Festivals in Austin, Texas) has a presentation about patent trolls, whose general message may be reaffirmed by recent legal actions in Texas and outside Texas

  20. EPO Staff Union Organises Protest to Complain About Inability “of the Office to Recruit the Highly Qualified Staff it Needs.”

    Having already targeted union leaders and staff representatives, the EPO may soon be going after those whom they passionately represented and the staff union (SUEPO) wants the Administrative Council to be aware

  21. Battistelli Likes to Describe His Critics as 'Nazis', Team UPC Will Attempt the Same Thing Against UPC Critics

    Demonising one's opposition or framing it as "fascist" is a classic trick; to what degree will Team UPC exploit such tactics?

  22. Session in Bavaria to Discuss the Abuses of the European Patent Office Later Today

    The EPO shambles in Munich have gotten the attention of more Bavarian politicians, more so in light of the Constitutional complaint against the UPC (now dealt with by the German FCC, which saw merit in the complaint)

  23. Links 12/3/2018: Linux 4.16 RC5, KEXI 3.1, Karton 1.0, Netrunner 18.03, Debian 9.4

    Links for the day

  24. EPO Patent 'Growth' Not Achieved But Demanded/Mandated by Battistelli, by Lowering Quality of Patents/Services

    Targets at the EPO are not actually reached but are being imposed by overzealous management which dries up all the work in a hurry in order to make examiners redundant and many European Patents worthless

  25. Doubt Over Independence of Judges at the EPO Clouds Reason in Deciding Regarding Patents on Life

    With the growing prospect of a Board of Appeal (BoA) having to decide on patentability of CRISPR 'innovation' (more like explanation/discovery), questions linger or persist about judges' ability to rule as they see fit rather than what some lunatic wants

  26. Patent Academics and CAFC Make a Living Out of Patents, But Both Must Begrudgingly Learn to Accept That Patents Went Too Far

    A look at academic pundits' views on the patent system of the United States and where the Federal Circuit (a high patent court) stands on these matters after the US Supreme Court (highest possible court) lashed out at many of its decisions, especially those from the disgraced Rader years

  27. Patent Maximalists Cause a Crisis of Legitimacy for Patent Law

    The patent extremists who nowadays equate monopolies on mere ideas to "property" and "rights" gradually cause the public to lose respect for patents, more or less in the same way copyright maximalists (and copyright trolls) cause the population to seek alternatives (both legal and illegal)

  28. We Shall Soon Find Out Where Trump Appointees Such as Neil Gorsuch Stand on Patent Policies

    Staff shuffles at top-level roles will soon reveal what Donald Trump's changes mean to patent law and caselaw

  29. Trump's USPTO Changes Patent Designs, Changes Director/Deputy Director, and Anticipat 'Ranks' Patent Examiners Based on How They Deal With Section 101

    Today's USPTO isn't the same USPTO which was managed by Michelle Lee and anti-PTAB groups (proponents of software patents) have begun profiling examiners based on their stance on abstract/software patents -- a form of neo-McCarthyism

  30. Links 10/3/2018: Amarok 2.9.0, Debian 9.4, Sparky 5.3

    Links for the day


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