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

06.30.09

More People Say “No” to Mono, Including the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC)

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Law, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, TomTom, Ubuntu at 4:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: More opposition to Mono surfaces, detailed explanations offered

AS we pointed out over the weekend [1, 2], the SFLC and FSF are in alignment with Richard Stallman's views on Mono and so are many others. But Bradley Kuhn has just made it more official with a long essay at the SFLC’s Web site. It’s a recommended read.

In an essay last Friday entitled Why free software shouldn’t depend on Mono or C#, RMS argued a key point that I agree with: the software freedom community should minimize its use of programming language infrastructure that comes primarily from anti-software-freedom companies, notwithstanding FaiF (Free as in Freedom) implementations. I’ve been thinking about an extension of that argument: that language infrastructure created in a community process is likely more resilient against attacks from proprietary software companies.

Here is another new perspective:

I think it is interesting that he thinks that it is the “‘best technology’ Linux camp” that is the camp that offers the greatest threat to Microsoft. I can understand why some may think that this is true since this camp is creating flashy and very useful products and features that increase the appeal of Linux. However, mono is not the only tool that the “‘best technology’ Linux camp” has at its disposal. Many view the use of the Qt toolkit as a better alternative, and one that does not have the risk associated with mono. Furthermore, I do not agree with the thought that “‘best technology’ Linux camp” is the one that Microsoft feels most threatened by. I think Microsoft is only threatened by the combination of both camps.

I view mono as a distraction for FOSS developers. Yes, there are some practical advantages in its use, but there are a lot of questions surrounding it. It has the potential of dividing the two mayor camps of Linux contributors. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this controversy.

Since Nokia’s Qt toolkit is mentioned above, here is what KDE developers say on the subject (mind the good comments) and here is what Jack Wallen thinks about Novell’s role.

If Microsoft is threatening patents against .NET, it would seem to me that the Novell/Microsoft relationship didn’t really work out all that well. And now Microsoft is back to their old tricks. And what should the Linux and open source community do about this? Should another deal with Microsoft be made? Is the seamless communication between Linux and Windows worth making a deal with a partner that is only going to turn around and stab you in the back again and again and again?

The Register on the lessons to be learned from TomTom:

Although Stallman frequently speaks about the dangers of software patents on open-source, trust for Microsoft has run particularly thin recently because of the company’s legal attack on TomTom over a FAT patent dispute.

Stallman urged the community to instead distribute and recommend non-C# applications whenever possible to avoid Redmond lawyers from being able to disable major OS functions on a whim.

Microsoft neither retracted nor backed its accusations against Linux. Horacio Gutierrez from Microsoft said about Linux that “there is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed.” He named not even a single one, but Mono is an easy target and also a very unique one.

GNU/Linux users do not want Mono. Well, maybe with the exception of SUSE and Canonical, whose desktop engineering manager comes from Microsoft. In response to the many discussions stemming from Stallman’s essay, Canonical has published yet another statement about Mono.

The Ubuntu Technical Board has been asked for a position statement on the use of C#, specifically the Mono implementation, by applications in Ubuntu.

These applications, as well as the Mono stack, were proposed for inclusion like any other application and underwent the same review process that all new applications and platforms undergo before being accepted into the archive.

With specific regard to the default installed application set, applications have been reviewed and compared against each other on merit and features. These often take place during the Ubuntu Developer Summits, most recently over the default media player.

For those who prefer Ubuntu (like myself), here is a handy new guide: “How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu”

What Microsoft has
What Microsoft has

What Microsoft wants
What Microsoft wants

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

8 Comments

  1. _Mutex_ said,

    June 30, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Gravatar

    Im guessing those blobs are not to scale otherwise the FOSS one would be a tiny dot, and does FOSS believe they owe C/C++ ? or that C/C++ was derived from free software ?

    I know Roy you do not like to let facts get in the way of your case, and that you will not tolerate anyone making reasoned arguments to you that are against your preconceived biases.

    Thats why you will not telerate anyone with a valid counter argument to enter into a debate on the subject with you or anyone in your IRC cult.

    It’s sad, that if you surround yourself with “yes” people you will (and have) gotten a very biased world view.

    It is clear you have such a narrow view, and your refusal to allow any reasonable debate on any subject shows everyone how scared you are of having your cult see you for what you really are.

    What everyone else see’s you as. It’s beyond most sane people to understand how you can be so bitter and hatefull against a business or a company. It’s very pathological.

    Im not trying to make it a personal attack, just pointing out what most people perceive you to be.

  2. vexorian said,

    June 30, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    Gravatar

    Bleh reallly, even ignoring that rather lame personal attack up there (it seems the mono zealots are getting worse and worse with time) this situation sucks

    Did you read the Mono position statement? It is a ridiculous piece of BS.

    For those who prefer Ubuntu (like myself), here is a handy new guide: “How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu” █

    It is non-sense to prefer ubuntu, as it is clear Canonical doesn’t give a damn or is even pro-Mono in these regards, the “statement” you just linked is something I see as my definite sign to move to another distro.

    This sucks as I really like ubuntu, and getting used to other distro’s quirks might be annoying, I am wishing for someone to make a remix without this absurd Mono in the default that I could actually advertize to people and friends without being ashamed of advertizing a FOSS alternative to MS software that heavily relies on MS tech and patents.

    I see this position statement as a rather clear sign to jump off the ubuntu boat, it is absolutely ridiculous.

    The Ubuntu Project takes patent issues seriously

    If only it did.

    The Ubuntu Technical Board has received no claims of infringement
    against the Mono stack, and is not aware of any such claims having been
    received by other similar projects.

    In other words, they are freaking WAITING for MS to begin suing which is actually the most ridiculous strategy ever. It shows clear lack of vision and responsibility from part of the ubuntu project. This makes me feel extremely uneasy to think that ubuntu’s future is in the hands of such irresponsible people.

    PJ at Groklaw the other day implied that Canonical probably does not care as MS is likely to sue users and not vendors. Probably that’s the reason red hat has done so much to avoid Mono recently as they actually are responsible for whatever lawsuit their users suffer. Canonical’s philosophy is now noticeably “screw users, as long as our asses are fine” . So, when the patent attacks come, they’ll just stop shipping Mono, and pretend it is all fine while companies using ubuntu get sued terribly, that’s fine and dandy.

    It is common practice in the software industry to register patents as
    protection against litigation, rather than as an intent to litigate.

    I believe in Fairies as well, lest ignore MS’ freaking patent claims, the damn exclusive patent deal for Mono they have with Novell.

    (While the Ubuntu project wishes to be responsive to patent infringement
    claims, we cannot commit to the assessment and review of claims made by
    anyone other than the registered rights holder.)

    Were these guys living under a rock since 2006?

    The most ridiculous of the whole statement is that their logic is that “they think” Mono is ok patent-wise and completely ignore and disregard the remaining complaints against Mono which are not based on legal issues or fear but because of how terrible of an idea it is to make the default setup depend on MS created, patented and dependent technology. Not to mention the technological downsides of Mono, all very important issues that they are simply ignoring. For them just thinking that Mono is not a patent threat makes it good enough for the default.

    But the worst, most ridiculous and offensive part of this statement is :

    Since the Mono stack is already a dependency of the default installation
    set for many remixes of Ubuntu, including the Desktop Edition, there is
    no reason to consider a dependency on Mono as an issue when suggesting
    applications for the default set.

    ARRGGGGGGG!

    Holy chicken and egg issue we have here, really, this is so ridiculous. Seems ubuntu will keep getting Mono apps and consider it not an issue because it already has Mono apps. They’ll accept Mono in the default because Mono is in the default.

    I have lost of my hopes about ubuntu fixing this. And that’s all while Red hat and other fronts were giving so great signals and working so hard in improving the deal. I really think it is time Linux gets a new flag distro cause the current one is in a hopeless state right now.

    David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:

    I really think it is time Linux gets a new flag distro cause the current one is in a hopeless state right now.

    Well, the process by which Ubuntu is put together is pretty well-understood. It doesn’t, as it happens, involve reading postings from this site demanding that they drop that process and simply accede to your demands.

    Perhaps, rather than spending your time “advocating” (i.e. whining about a well-established process in which you don’t participate, on the grounds that it produces results you don’t happen to enjoy), you folks should put your energies toward creating such a “flag distro”. It’d be a much better use of your time that posting here, I’d thing, and a lot more productive of the sorts of results you’re (pointlessly) demanding.

    It’s the open source way, dude.

  3. vexorian said,

    June 30, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    Gravatar

    Just installing ubuntu and then removing Mono is not a solution. It is a patch. We need to stop using ubuntu or at least try to make a remix that doesn’t ship with it by default. If we keep using ubuntu and just removing Mono what will happen is that the people that we help move to Linux risk not being conscious about this and they won’t remove it. Canonical would also see the amount of downloads as a sign that everything is ok, which is not the message they must receive.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Right, a solution would be a remix or different distro that solves the problem centrally once for everyone. Maybe such a distro can put up a statement about the goals of the distro so that people know what to expect in the future.

    Hopefully, Ubuntu will come to their senses if the SCOTUS rules unfavorably on software patents in the next few months.

    If the ruling goes well, then the story changes some, but I still would not use Ubuntu. I have been moving away from Windows, not towards it. However, maybe Canonical will want to attack Microsoft’s market head on to work at getting MSdotnet users to switch to mono/Ubuntu.

    I don’t see too many positive reasons to jump the gun before the SCOTUS ruling (though it might add only a little clarity), unless perhaps Canonical thinks it can pressure Microsoft ahead of the ruling or else get evidence useful for arguing against software patents.

    Canonical’s attitude of waiting for specific patent accusations might make sense for them, but I’d rather promote other distros while Canonical carries out their little experiments.

    Marcelo Reply:

    I fully agree. I have been an enthusiast of Ubuntu since years ago. It’s hard to believe that they have such thought on these clear attacks against free software. I am very surprised and disappointed.

    I am removing the Ubuntu based distro from my machine and will install Fedora right now. Hopefully more and more people get conscious on what is behind such apparently inoffensive “cross platform” initiative.

    PS: I have nothing against companies or people who wants to make money. I just don’t like companies that don’t want to play a fair game o which all player are under the same rules. I do not like companies that use the “Embrace, Extend and Extinguish” tactic. That’s all.

    Marcelo
    Regards from Brazil

  4. max stirner said,

    July 1, 2009 at 2:16 am

    Gravatar

    So pleased the old garde have finally come up with some statements & put their weight in..

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    People are woken up by it.

What Else is New


  1. Today's European Patent Office Works for Patent Extremists and for Team UPC Rather Than for Europe or for Innovation

    The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states



  2. The EPO is Dying and Those Who Have Killed It Are Becoming Very Rich in the Process

    Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve



  3. Short: Just Keep Repeating the Lie (“Quality”) Until People Might Believe It

    Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone



  4. Shelston IP Keeps Pressuring IP Australia to Allow Software Patents and Harm Software Development

    Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)



  5. Is Andy Ramer's Departure the End of Cantor Fitzgerald's Patent Trolls-Feeding Operations and Ambitions?

    The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents



  6. EPO Hoards Billions of Euros (Taken From the Public), Decreases Quality to Get More Money, Reduces Payments to Staff

    The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks



  7. Short: Calling Battistelli's Town (Where He Works) “Force for Innovation” to Justify the Funneling of EPO Funds to It

    How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves



  8. Short: EPO Bribes the Media and Then Brags About the Paid-for Outcome to Staff

    The EPO‘s systematic corruption of the media at the expense of EPO stakeholders — not to mention hiring of lawyers to bully media which exposes EPO corruption — in the EPO’s own words (amended by us)



  9. Short: EPO's “Working Party for Quality” is to Quality What the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea” is to Democracy

    To maintain the perception (illusion) that the EPO still cares about patent quality — and in order to disseminate this lie to EPO staff — a puff piece with the above heading/photograph was distributed to thousands of examiners in glossy paper form



  10. Short: This Spring's Message From the EPO's President (Corrected)

    A corrected preface from the Liar in Chief, the EPO's notoriously crooked and dishonest President



  11. Short: Highly Misleading and Unscientific Graphics From the EPO for an Illusion of Growth

    A look at the brainwash that EPO management is distributing to staff and what's wrong with it



  12. Short: EPO Explains to Examiners Why They Should and Apparently Can Grant Software Patents (in Spite of EPC)

    Whether it calls it "CII" or "ICT" or "Industry 4.0" or "4IR", the EPO's management continues to grant software patents and attempts to justify this to itself (and to staff)



  13. Links 21/4/2018: Linux 4.9.95, FFmpeg 4.0, OpenBSD Foundation 2018 Fundraising Campaign

    Links for the day



  14. As USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu Gives Three Months for Public Comments on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Software Patenting Impacted)

    Weeks after starting his job as head of the US patent office, to our regret but not to our surprise, Iancu asks whether to limit examiners' ability to reject abstract patent applications citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (relates to Alice and Mayo)



  15. In Keith Raniere v Microsoft Both Sides Are Evil But for Different Reasons

    Billing for patent lawyers reveals an abusive strategy from Microsoft, which responded to abusive patent litigation (something which Microsoft too has done for well over a decade)



  16. Links 20/4/2018: Atom 1.26, MySQL 8.0

    Links for the day



  17. Links 19/4/2018: Mesa 17.3.9 and 18.0.1, Trisquel 8.0 LTS Flidas, Elections for openSUSE Board

    Links for the day



  18. The Patent Microcosm, Patent Trolls and Their Pressure Groups Incite a USPTO Director Against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Section 101/Alice

    As one might expect, the patent extremists continue their witch-hunt and constant manipulation of USPTO officials, whom they hope to compel to become patent extremists themselves (otherwise those officials are defamed, typically until they're fired or decide to resign)



  19. Microsoft's Lobbying for FRAND Pays Off as Microsoft-Connected Patent Troll Conversant (Formerly MOSAID) Goes After Android OEMs in Europe

    The FRAND (or SEP) lobby seems to have caused a lot of monopolistic patent lawsuits; this mostly affects Linux-powered platforms such as Android, Tizen and webOS and there are new legal actions from Microsoft-connected patent trolls



  20. To Understand Why People Say That Lawyers are Liars Look No Further Than Misleading Promotion of Software Patents

    Some of the latest misleading claims from the patent microcosm, which is only interested in lots and lots of patents (its bread and butter is monopolies after all) irrespective of their merit, quality, and desirability



  21. When News About the EPO is Dominated by Sponsored 'Reports' and Press Releases Because Publishers Are Afraid of (or Bribed by) the EPO

    The lack of curiosity and genuine journalism in Europe may mean that serious abuses (if not corruption) will go unreported



  22. The Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Complain That They Are Understaffed, Not Just Lacking the Independence They Depend on

    The Boards of Appeal have released a report and once again they openly complain that they're unable to do their job properly, i.e. patent quality cannot be assured



  23. Links 18/4/2018: New Fedora 27 ISOs, Nextcloud Wins German Government Contract

    Links for the day



  24. Guest Post: Responding to Your Recent Posting “The European Patent Office Will Never Hold Its Destroyers Accountable”

    In France, where Battistelli does not enjoy diplomatic immunity, he can be held accountable like his "padrone" recently was



  25. The EPO in 2018: Partnering With Saudi Arabia and Cambodia (With Zero European Patents)

    The EPO's status in the world has declined to the point where former French colonies and countries with zero European Patents are hailed as "success stories" for Battistelli



  26. For Samsung and Apple the Biggest Threat Has Become Patent Trolls and Aggressors in China and the Eastern District of Texas, Not Each Other

    The latest stories about two of the world's largest phone OEMs, both of which find themselves subjected to a heavy barrage of patent lawsuits and even embargoes; Samsung has meanwhile obtained an antisuit injunction against Huawei



  27. The EPO Continues to Lie About Patent Quality Whilst Openly Promoting Software Patents, Even Outside Europe

    EPO patent quality continues to sink while EPO management lies about it and software patents are openly being promoted/advocatedEPO patent quality continues to sink while EPO management lies about it (the article above is new) and software patents are openly being promoted/advocated



  28. SCOTUS on WesternGeco v Ion Geophysical Almost Done; Will Oil States Decision Affirm the PTAB's Quality Assurance (IPRs) Soon?

    Ahead of WesternGeco and Oil States, following oral proceedings, it's expected that the highest court in the United States will deliver more blows to patent maximalism



  29. Links 17/4/2018: Linux 5.x Plans and Microsoft's 'Embrace'

    Links for the day



  30. The European Patent Office (EPO) Grants Patents in Error, Insiders Are Complaining That It's the Management's Fault

    The EPO has languished to the point where patents are granted in error, examiners aren't happy, and the resultant chaos benefits no-one but lawyers and patent trolls


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts