thelinuxlink.net

I've read in the past, and read again today about possible problems with Mono. The whole Mono thing confuses me.

The unholy quad: Miguel, Mono, Moonlight and Microsoft http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17069/1090/1/1/

And Mono is not just any other open source project. One more item of interest from the discussion is a quote from the FAQ on Mono - to which de Icaza refers people during this thread - that "When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms. This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code. Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release those changes back."

Which, as another post on the same group points out, "would essentially preclude anyone from protecting their contributions, to the core of Mono, from being exploited in such a way that destroys the intended freedom of that contribution. Effectively, this is a GPL circumvention device, in the vein of Tivoisation ."

But, Gnome is part of the GNU project...

GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.

So, given that fact, wouldn't Stallman have influence to prevent Mono from being used in GNU if it really was problematic? I'm confused.

P.S. Dann, as you suggested, I looked to make this Topic/Poll a sticky, but I can't find the option to do that.

greggh wrote:But, Mono is part of the GNU project...

GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.

Mono is not part of GNOME though, so it's not a part of GNU. And also, the GNU project has their own stuff going: http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/
"The DotGNU project aims to be for webservices and for C# programs what GNU/Linux is rapidly becoming for desktop and server applications: the industry leader and provider of Free Software solutions."

greggh wrote:So, given that fact, wouldn't Stallman have influence to prevent Mono from being used in GNU if it really was problematic? I'm confused.

First of all, let's review history a bit. Novell bought Ximian, the originator of Mono, put Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman in decision-making positions, went on to purchase SuSE LINUX AG. Because the founder of GNOME being in a decision-making position, it does not surprise me that Novell picked GNOME for their SUSE Linux Enterprise distribution. So Mono is associated with GNOME, because it was created by GNOME people. During all this, KDE is sitting there going "huh", and then just chugging along with C++ as they always have done (Bindings for Perl, Python, Ruby etc.), and all that great stuff.
Novell has developed applications such as F-Spot, Banshee, Beagle, Tomboy in Mono, and those are quite popular amongst GNOME users, so naturally people have suggested whether Mono ought to be an integrate part of GNOME, but what is Mono? Well, it's an implementation of the specifications Microsoft released as an EMCA "standard". But as we know, ECMA and ISO are both a big farce in terms of openness, because you might have to pay a hefty patent licensing fee, which is the case with MPEG 1/2/4, MP3, AAC etc. etc. (And this patent license is incompatible with free software). Well, who is to say that Microsoft does not have some patents on their .NET technology that they could start suing people with? Even the threat of that is enough to put people off. That's one of the reasons Red Hat has not included Mono in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it is in Fedora though, but that was only after they got some sort of patent framework set up.

As it is right now, Mono is not a part of GNOME, I think it be dumb for it to be, as it would eventually become inseparable if people just use it all over the place. One of problems it creates for GNOME is less portability across UNIX/UNIX-like operating systems (Mono is not on OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFly BSD, and AFAIK support for FreeBSD is somewhat stale), and the threat and risk of violating Microsoft's patents, which are most likely batshit patents, but the whole patent system is a retarded mess, so it can't easily be dealt with.
It's up to GNOME whether they want to take up this gamble, I personally would not if I were them, but I am not, and I'm a KDE user anyway, so what do I know!

this is a tough one to call so I elected for the Im confused. I see some benefit in mono and think it's a worth while project, yet at the same time I also see the potential patent issues with the technology. I do believe it is important that anyone contributing to the compilier be aware of the licensing limitations. So will MS come after Mono users? I don't think they will for a while, and only if .net takes off to the point of gaining a significant, controlling market share. If .net and silverlight ever get entrenched enough and hold a huge market share I could see MS exercising their patent muscle on this.

I can also see the exercising their patent muscle as FOSS gains more marketshare. A share to the point that MS could spin that they are no longer in a monopoly position and thus not garner too much legal flack for starting their attack (of course whih would flex their monopoly muscle even more in the long run.)

Tough call indeed.

I no longer use MS Mono. I really could not get into python, but bash, php, and good old 'C' seem to do the job well enough for my small projects. I have built functions and constructs that have almost replaced all the basic language routines i used to use.

I voted for I'm Confused, which means I stick to PHP, Python, and more recently, Perl. It's not that I don't agree with the developer's right to choose which license they use, but I think the wording of the Mono license is deliberately confusing. Naturally, Microsoft and Novell don't understand open source, so they proceed to exploit it's gray areas. I think that in their own little world, they believe they can divide and conquer by casting a fog on licensing issues. The hope is probably that everyone tosses their hands in the air and buys the next release of Visual Studio for their commercial stuff. The benefit is that they weed out the customers that, (once again) in their eyes, want a free ride and profit from the ones that really want to buy their products.

I really oppose manipulative business practices, and if my interpretation above is correct, Miguel is being made into a stooge. I think Jeremy Allison saw this angle and moved on before they could do the same to him.

I downloaded one of the packages from Microsoft that was supposed to be free for non-commercial use and in the copyright notice, it said all rights reserved. That does not sound very open to me.

This is a great post because I never knew about the encumbrances of Mono. Was even thinking of developing with it. So in the light of Mono not being clear cut for use in FOSS...what do people suggest for developing cross platform GUI apps with Gnome and GNU/Linux as the first target?

Personally, I don't understand programing. I also don't understand the encumbered nature of Mono. I was under the impression that Mono is GPL from this page http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing. Gnome also gives the impression that Mono programs are part of Gnome as their projects website seems to indicate http://www.gnome.org/projects/.

I come at this from a user perspective. I have never heard that using Tomboy or F-Spot is taking away my 4 freedoms. I will say that Tomboy and F-Spot are great pieces of software, and Fedora is including them. Fedora tends to avoid any software that is clearly not free or open source. That is the little information that I have to go off of, so for now I think I will keep using Tomboy and F-Spot. Never really got into the Beagle thing.

Mono is based upon Microsoft technology. The fear is that at some future date hidden patents or the like could surface and make using mono illegal. Now if you were dependant on mono you would be pretty screwed.

So it doesn't seem to be matter of taking away your 4 freedoms. It's more the fear that Microsoft could in some way really screw with the open source community if it became too dependant on mono.

I had a perverse thought today that patent trolls may serve a useful purpose. If enough large companies are sued successfully by patent trolls, those large companies may start wanting patent reform. The only issue with that is that the somehow try to change patent law in such a way as to allow them to keep patents but to deny such lawsuits. I'm sort of sick for having thought this but I had to put it down here anyway.

They talk about the Mono issue on the latest LugRadio episode.

http://lugradio.org/episodes/#episode96

The Mono Worm Turns: Stuart, a past critic of the Mono project, explains how his views have changed and why he's less concerned than before (3.14) [What do you think of Mono? Discuss in the LugRadio forums]

weex wrote:This is a great post because I never knew about the encumbrances of Mono. Was even thinking of developing with it. So in the light of Mono not being clear cut for use in FOSS...what do people suggest for developing cross platform GUI apps with Gnome and GNU/Linux as the first target?

GTK runs on Windows (That's how Gimp has a Windows version). There has also been a strong push for QT on windows, so you do have options. I'll go ahead and say it, as a user I would trust something based on these toolkits over Mono any day of the week.

I avoid Banshee and Beagle like the plague because the times I tried them, they felt like I was running a Windows app (bloated, slow moving code).

I program in Mono everyday, and have been for about 3-4 years.
We have to remember that Mono is a runtime, has languages like c#, vb, etc
and class libraries.

The use of C# is untouchable by MS do to it being a standard, and even according to MS, clear to be used.
Much of the classes, even thou based on MS classes, are for generic things, like regex libs, sockets, etc,
no of which has IP to sue over.
Where there is an issue is just in the graphics windows forms part.
But you can use other graphics libs in Mono, you don't have to use MSWF.

Naturally if MS wants to sue over use of MSWF used in a Mono app, they can try,
but as we have seen recently, RedHat is getting sued by someone because of virtual desktops,
so if you produce a piece of software, and sell it commercially, deploy it on a Linux desktop,
and that desktop comes default with "virtual desktops", then you can be sued, even if you write it
in bash, C, C++.

If MS sues over MSWF use, then hopefully that would start the patent WWIII ... ibm goes to the closet and presses the nuke button, as well as Novell and others.

Now if you are deploying a small piece of commercial software that uses MSWF, even if the lawsuit happens (to mono), the down side is buying rights to that MSWF
on each deployment. Win98 has MSWF rights, and it can be had for about 40$ (even less in bulk), so a judge might have issue allowing MS to sue for too much damage,
but it would depend on how much you use MSWF .
IF a few hundred people use the app, and if deployed on win98 its legit, but on linux its not, then 40$x100's = 8000$+ .. even 20,000$, MS will not be suing you for that.

You could equate this to what you might have had to pay for a QT license in years past before they opened it.
If you are doing a big deployment, and its a commercial product with a price, then an eventual (if ever) MS IP suit against mono win, would mean forking over some relatively small amount of $.
If you are using Mono and MSWF to develop a free client to a commercial back end, and that free client has a large user base, then this one scenario is problematic.

Just like with the SCO or MS statement of IP infringement of Linux, and the Linux community says "Show us the infringement", with the intention of detouring the infringement,
one would have exactly the same 'chance' with Mono. You would be able to rebuild your app. with another GUI lib.

Also there is the Statute of limitations too, and MS is getting awfully close to, if not already past that, so it all might be a moot point.

MS is FUD'ing

If you are new to .Net/Mono and you don't know MSWF from the MS-windows side of things, consider using another GUI to write your Mono/.Net apps, like gtk# or wxNet.
If you write a mono App. and it uses gtk#, MS can't do jack shit to you.

In general the worry of using Mono for IP infringement (and a lawsuit) is give or take, the same odds as an IP suit against something in Linux that would just as easily shut you down,
so in the end there really is no issue, if Linux is a target platform for your app and/or it uses Mono .. someone out there, whether its MS, SCO, joe-blow, is saying they might sue you
irregardless.

Again, if you are writing something with a large deployment, and that application itself is commercial, or Mono is used in a free client tied to a commercial back end,
or the app. is just free and you are a large company that MS would want to invest Millions of dollars suing, then you should probably use Mono with gtk# if you want total piece of mind.
Myself, i use Mono and Ajax for the GUI in something I deploy to the masses.

-bigEd

bigED wrote:Now if you are deploying a small piece of commercial software that uses MSWF, even if the lawsuit happens (to mono), the down side is buying rights to that MSWF
on each deployment. Win98 has MSWF rights, and it can be had for about 40$ (even less in bulk), so a judge might have issue allowing MS to sue for too much damage,
but it would depend on how much you use MSWF .
IF a few hundred people use the app, and if deployed on win98 its legit, but on linux its not, then 40$x100's = 8000$+ .. even 20,000$, MS will not be suing you for that.

You could equate this to what you might have had to pay for a QT license in years past before they opened it.
If you are doing a big deployment, and its a commercial product with a price, then an eventual (if ever) MS IP suit against mono win, would mean forking over some relatively small amount of $.
If you are using Mono and MSWF to develop a free client to a commercial back end, and that free client has a large user base, then this one scenario is problematic.

I think equating mafia patent racketeering, to standard licensing is a but narrow-minded. If you want to write a proprietary application using Qt, you still have to pay Trolltech a license fee. The reason is that the free software version of Qt is under the GPLv2, GPLv3 or QPL (Triple licensed), neither of which allows you to write proprietary software using it. In addition, Trolltech's "commercial license" states that you cannot use any code written using the free version of Qt in a proprietary application. I personally think that this is why people seem to prefer GTK for proprietary applications, because 700 Euros per developer gets expensive when scaling up. Personally, I think Trolltech's licensing is completely fine, because it's under the GPL and that's all I care about. Again, I think comparing this fee of Trolltech's, to a patent attack fine is non-sense, because you're not being forced to use Qt, heck you're not even being forced to create proprietary software using it (If you release your code under an open source license, then you don't have to pay anything, yes you can even use the BSD license), but in the case of a patent fine, you're forced to pay because somebody is pointing a gun to your head, while in the case of Qt, Trolltech simply states "If you're gonna use our code, you must do XYZ, otherwise ... write your own code!", which is legitimate, compared to a software patent which is completely stupid.