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. Public Protests by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff Weaken the EPO's Attacks on the Media

    Where things stand when it comes to the EPO's standoff against publications and why it's advisable for EPO staff to stage standoffs against their high-level management, which is behind a covert crackdown on independent media (while greasing up corporate media)

  2. Why the European Patent Office Cannot Really Sue and Why It's All -- More Likely Than Not -- Just SLAPP

    Legal analysis by various people explains why the EPO's attack dogs are all bark but no bite when it comes to threats against publishers

  3. How the EPO Twisted Defamation Law in a Failed Bid to Silence Techrights

    Using external legal firms (not the EPO's own lawyers), the EPO has been trying -- and failing -- to silence prominent critics

  4. East Texas and Its Cautionary Tale: Software Patents Lead to Patent Trolls

    Lessons from US media, which focuses on the dire situation in Texas courts, and how these relate to the practice of granting patents on software (the patent trolls' favourite weapon)

  5. The Latest EPO Spin: Staff Protesters Compared to 'Anti-Patent Campaigners' or 'Against UPC'

    Attempts to characterise legitimate complaints about the EPO's management as just an effort to derail the patent office itself, or even the patent system (spin courtesy of EPO and its media friends at IAM)

  6. The Serious Implication of Controversial FTI Consulting Contract: Every Press Article About EPO Could Have Been Paid for by EPO

    With nearly one million dollars dedicated in just one single year to reputation laundering, one can imagine that a lot of media coverage won't be objective, or just be synthetic EPO promotion, seeded by the EPO or its peripheral PR agents

  7. EPO: We Have Always Been at War With Europe (or Europeans)

    The European Patent Office (EPO) with its dubious attacks on free speech inside Europe further unveiled for the European public to see (as well as the international community, which oughtn't show any respect to the EPO, a de facto tyranny at the heart of Europe)

  8. What Everyone Needs to Know About the EPO's New War on Journalism

    A detailed list of facts or observations regarding the EPO's newfound love for censorship, even imposed on outside entities, including bloggers (part one of several to come)

  9. EPO Did Not Want to Take Down One Techrights Article, It Wanted to Take Down Many Articles Using Intimidation, SLAPPing, and Psychological Manipulation Late on a Friday Night

    Recalling the dirty tactics by which the European Patent Office sought to remove criticism of its dirty secret deals with large corporations, for whom it made available and was increasingly offering preferential treatment

  10. The European Private Office: What Was Once a Public Service is Now Crony Capitalism With Private Contractors

    The increasing privatisation of the European Patent Office (EPO), resembling what happens in the UK to the NHS, shows that the real goal is to crush the quality of the service and instead serve a bunch of rich and powerful interests, in defiance of the original goals of this well-funded (by taxpayers) organisation

  11. Microsoft Once Again Disregards People's Settings and Abuses Them, Again Pretends It's Just an Accident

    A conceited corporation, Microsoft, shows not only that it exploits its botnet to forcibly download massive binaries without consent but also that it vainly overrides people's privacy settings to spy on these people, sometimes with help from malicious hardware vendors such as Dell or Lenovo

  12. When the EPO Liaised With Capone (Literally) to Silence Bloggers, Delete Articles

    A dissection of the EPO's current media strategy, which involves not only funneling money into the media but also actively silencing opposing views

  13. Blogger Who Wrote About the EPO's Abuses Retires

    Bloggers' independent rebuttal capability against a media apparatus that is deep in the EPO's pocket is greatly diminished as Jeremy Phillips suddenly retires

  14. Leaked: EPO Award of €880,000 “in Order to Address the Media Presence of the EPO” (Reputation Laundering)

    The European Patent Office, a public body, wastes extravagant amounts of money on public relations (for 'damage control', like FIFA's) in an effort to undermine critics, not only among staff (internally) but also among the media (externally)

  15. Links 27/11/2015: KDE Plasma 5.5 Plans, Oracle Linux 7.2

    Links for the day

  16. Documents Needed: Contract or Information About EPO PR/Media Campaign to Mislead the World

    Rumour that the EPO spends almost as much as a million US dollars “with some selected press agencies to refurbish the image of the EPO”

  17. Guest Post: The EPO, EPC, Unitary Patent and the Money Issue

    Remarks on the Unitary Patent (UP) and the lesser-known aspects of the EPO and EPC, where the “real issue is money, about which very little is discussed in public...”

  18. Saving the Integrity of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Some timely perspective on what's needed at the European Patent Office, which was detabilised by 'virtue' of making tyrants its official figureheads

  19. A Call for Bloggers and Journalists: Did EPO Intimidate and Threaten You Too? Please Speak Out.

    An effort to discover just how many people out there have been subjected to censorship and/or self-censorship by EPO aggression against the media

  20. European Patent Office (EPO) a “Kingdom Above the EU Countries, a Tyranny With ZERO Accountability”

    Criticism of the EPO's thuggish behaviour and endless efforts to crush dissenting voices by all means available, even when these means are in clear violation of international or European laws

  21. Links 26/11/2015: The $5 Raspberry Pi Zero, Running Sans Systemd Gets Hard

    Links for the day

  22. EPO Management Needs to Finally Recognise That It Itself is the Issue, Not the Staff or the Unions

    A showing of dissent even from the representatives whom the EPO tightly controls and why the latest union-busting goes a lot further than most people realise

  23. Even the EPO Central Staff Committee is Unhappy With EPO Management

    The questions asked by the Central Staff Committee shared for the public to see that not only a single union is concerned about the management's behaviour

  24. The Broken Window Economics of Patent Trolls Are Already Coming to Europe

    The plague which is widely known as patent trolls (non-practicing entities that prey on practicing companies) is being spread to Europe, owing in part to misguided policies and patent maximalists

  25. Debunking the EPO's Latest Marketing Nonsense From Les Échos and More on Benoît Battistelli's Nastygram to French Politician

    Our detailed remarks about French brainwash from the EPO's media partner (with Benoît Battistelli extensively quoted) and the concerns increasingly raised by French politicians, who urge for national or even continental intervention

  26. The Sun King Delusion: The Views of Techrights Are Just a Mirror of EPO Staff Unions

    Tackling some emerging spin we have seen coming from Battistelli's private letters -- spin which strives to project the views of Techrights onto staff unions and why it's very hypocritical a form of spin

  27. Links 25/11/2015: Webconverger 33.1, Netrunner 17 Released

    Links for the day

  28. United They Stand: FFPE-EPO Supports Suspended Staff Representatives From SUEPO

    An obscure union from the Dutch side of things at the EPO is expressing support for the suspended colleagues from SUEPO (more German than Dutch)

  29. Censoring WIPR Article About Censorship by EPO

    A testament to how terrified journalists have become when it comes to EPO coverage, to the point of deleting entire paragraphs

  30. Censorship at the EPO Escalates: Now We Have Threats to Sue Publishers

    Having already blocked Techrights, the EPO's management proceeds to further suppressions of speech, impeding its staff's access to independently-distributed information (neither ordinary staff nor management)


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