A few days ago, legal threats that loom over Mono were demonstrated using a timely news article. Therein, Novell explained that it has some form of legal immunity, which others do not have. It was an implication that .NET technologies had Novell covered for the next 5 years. What does this mean to Ubuntu GNU/Linux users whose desktop contains Mono software? What does this mean to Novell clients who may still depend on Mono after 2011? But wait. It could get worse.

In a new interview with Miguel de Icaza you will find some interesting bits. For example:

derStandard.at: Rumour has it, that Novell is substantially staffing up its Mono-team, any chance you'll put this into numbers?

Miguel de Icaza: We are doing a big push for Mono.

derStandard.at: Where will these increased resources go to?

Miguel de Icaza: We will try to staff up all the areas in Mono that need better support, it is still something that we are discussing internally.

Mono getting the boost at the expense of Microsoft-independent programming? Promotion of the Microsoft API? Remember: it's all about developers. It seems obvious that the Novell marionette is once again having its strings manipulated by Microsoft's agenda.

"Discussing internally"? Are you not an Open Source company? Where is the client, the developer, and the volunteer? How are decisions being made and to whose advantage do they work? This is not the first time that users, including Opensuse contributors, are being left in the dark.

In another mind-boggling part of this interview, there is admission that wordings in the deal were deficient. Consequently, the community is not being treated the way it deserves and the way it should.

[Miguel de Icaza:] Also, another thing that rubbed people the wrong way [in the Novell/Microsoft deal] was the promise to the community. And part of the problem with the current promise is that it was an important consideration as part of the deal but they did not get the right wording in place on time. Folks on both companies are trying to improve this to actually mean something meaningful.

Why not just admit that the community was not a factor in this deal? There is little or no room for misinterpretation. There was betrayal.