Comments

• Needs Sunlight

  2010-03-02 08:23:09

  "how long can canonical ignore the bad feeling they generate?"
  
  Mono is not about providing software that works, it is about providing Microsoft dependency, bad quality, poor engineering and dominance. So, if Jono is unable or unwilling to address the staffing problems among either the paid staff or the 'volunteers' then the answer is it will go on until they have achieved the goal of breaking Ubuntu completely.

• powered_by_tux

  2010-03-01 18:45:25

  That gbrainy injection is an interestingly new matter. It is not part of the default GNOME desktop, which previously was a reason for Ubuntu to include Mono apps such as F-Spot and Tomboy (correct me on this). Furthermore, a bunch of GNOME games are now removed from Ubuntu, probably in favor of gbrainy. Somebody tell me where is the choice here? Where will this end?
  
  Btw: I doubt that Mupen64 is based on Mono as the former is way older. Anyway, it has a successor named Mupen64Plus, which has several frontends (CLI, Gtk, Qt, C#).

• Roy Schestowitz

  2010-03-01 18:54:27

  I've received an update from "Goblin" and he says it's tied to Mono.

• Needs Sunlight

  2010-03-02 08:26:44

  Alan at the Open Sourcerer will need new instructions for Ubuntu 10.04. I hope he's learned to ignore the sabotage dressed as help like with what Jo Shields tried by telling Alan to break other packages by removing sqlite...

• dyfet

  2010-03-01 18:41:39

  Related to this, I just completed a fresh install of Debian Squeeze (testing). Though I did not select any non-free (or contrib) repositories, and choose a purely default (this was a netinstall iso) install of desktop and laptop, I still received a bunch of mono things, including Tomboy. Why is it even in Debian main and part of default Debian installs now??!
  
  Since Mono relies on a conditional and term limited agreement with Novell, in the form of a patent promise with no sublicensing "rights", it very clearly violates the Debian social contract and belongs in non-free, with things which are free but that depend on it, like say Tomboy, in "contrib", at least if I understand Debian policy correctly. Now in the case of Ubuntu, they only assert a behavioral "code of conduct", so I do see the problem differently and at least less hypocritically there than I do in Debian, where it makes a mockery of said social contract and hence of Debian itself.

• PauGNU

  2010-03-09 06:57:01

  Hi again,
  
  What's exactly the threat according to the mono licesnse because of which we could be sued by Microsoft?.
  
  I think we're are focusing so much on the "threats", and we should be more precise when explaining what the problems of using mono are. I'm no saying that it is not dangerous at all, but saying this:
  
  "The best analogy I’ve seen is that using mono is like sticking your head into a lion’s jaws"
  
  It's not really a good explanation. We need to explain the facts, and these facts are the terms of the mono license that could be a problem for developers.
  
  I would like to ask: what are the terms of the mono license that might be a threat?.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-03-09 08:11:40

  There is no "mono license". The problem is different, it's not the licence.
  
  Also, here is the quote referred to:
  
  "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

• PauGNU

  2010-03-08 20:55:31

  I don't think Mono is that bad... Mono is under free licenses and was created basically to produce free software. One could think that Mono is "potentially dangerous", but when it comes to licenses, the whole free software is potentially dangerous.
  
  Related to Ubuntu and Mono, Ubuntu developers have already explained their position about it: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-June/000584.html
  
  Basically, 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. Given this, the Ubuntu Technical Board sees no reason to exclude Mono or applications based upon it from the archive, or from the default installation set.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-03-08 21:31:19

  The #1 issue is not patents but control. To whit:
  
  "Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat."

  --James Plamondon, Microsoft Technical Evangelist. From Exhibit 3096; Comes v. Microsoft litigation [PDF]

• your_friend

  2010-03-09 06:45:09

  Richard Stallman and the FSF have repeatedly warned people against writing new software with mono. The best analogy I've seen is that using mono is like sticking your head into a lion's jaws. There are better, free and alternatives that don't have the same patent threat Mono does. When Microsoft decides to sue users of Mono, they will do so with all the weight of a creator. There's not anything original in Mono but Microsoft will be able to play the wounded victim of free loaders. Everyone is better off investing their time and efforts on the many alternatives that have nothing to do with a company that has been trying to destroy and tax free software for the last decade. If you want freedom, avoid Mono for anything but legacy applications. If what you say about Ubuntu's technical board is true, the board has made a mistake they will regret.