This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2008/03/24/mono-danger-to-linux/.

● 03.24.08

●● Summary of Mono’s Danger to GNU/Linux and the Free Desktop

Posted in Debian, Formats, Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNOME, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Open XML, Patents, RAND, Red Hat, Samba, Ubuntu at 3:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A look back at evidence may be more compelling a proof than yet another explanation

We have received some mail recently from developers who are concerned about issues that are covered here, including OOXML and Mono. One person, for example, was concerned about pressure on KDE to implement support for OOXML (a big no-no). Coming from Debian, a concerned developer spoke about the problems surrounding Mono. Together, we ought to at least try to inform. Maybe we can help in pushing Debian to reduce its dependency on Mono, which is already present there. (correction/clarification: Mono is not there by default)

=> a big no-no | dependency on Mono

Let us quickly accumulate pointers to posts which summarise the problem and use this page as somewhat an index that makes it easy to understand for those unfamiliar with it. The list below is chronological, so better understanding has been formed by the time later posts were published, which makes them more accurate.

Here (2006) we explained why Mono might be a legal minefieldHere (2006) Shane showed that Mono’s demise would be good news for Free softwareHere we showed Novell’s impact on the ‘amplification’ of audio/media codecs from MicrosoftHere (2007) we commented on Mono’s effect on the cost of GNU/LinuxThen came great suspicionsBruce Perens expressed his objections to MonoNovell then marketed .NET (Mono) as a programming framework to young minds without prior experience in the field (i.e. starting afresh with the Microsoft mindset)More signs of Novell’s fascination with .NETNovell's helping hand to a ‘Mono-based’ WWW was spotted a year agoMicrosoft is then seen actually helping Mono and Moonlight, which merely mimic (or ‘steal’) its ideasIncreased .NET focus at Novell (and only Novell)A Fedora/Gobuntu developer and maintainer decides that he wants to purge Mono from the projects, centrallyGNOME is seen becoming more Mono-dependentSpeculations arose about a Windows framework/environment built on top of LinuxNovell's great risk to free Linux became more apparentNovell's direction with Mono raised further questionsMiguel de Icaza commented on software patents and Mono, not denying their relationship, but generalising and making excuses insteadThe role of Mooonlight was then revisitedThe Moonlight/Novell dependency is confirmedNovell's PR director, who recently quit the company, tried to defend Moonlight from BoycottNovell’s remarks, but he shot himself in the foot instead and revealed even more legal uglinessSoftware patents aside, Mono is said to be a loss of Linux’s identity (assimilation to Windows)Red Hat gets a hard time due to Novell’s set precedenceNovell uses its exclusive Mono 'protection' to market itselfMicrosoft reveals .NET source code, exposing Mono to SCO-like allegationsAttempts are made to sneak Mono into telephones (embedded/standardised, i.e. cannot be uninstalled)Some notes on Mono and JavaMore 'Monopendencies' (Mono dependencies) are found in GNOMEJeff Waugh denies Mono problems by comparing it to CIFS (Samba)Another alert about Mono soon cameMiguel thinks about putting Mono on Google's Android platformQuestioning Mono because of software patents a route to personal attacks (peer pressure/’shoot the messenger’ tactics)IBM's Standards Vice President does not want Mono on his PCsMono's licence not so different from Microsoft licences after allThe relationship between Mono and Microsoft's OOXML explainedMono's software patent promise a non-promiseMono becomes a prerequisite to watching the Olympics onlineAttempts to put Mono on Linux-based phones, courtesy of a Windows ISV that initiated thisOther sites see a problem with Mono, as wellUbuntu gets filled with Mono, reveals a small studyMark Shuttleworth responds to this concernThe identity loss revisitedMono disdain becomes more prevalentRemark from a former Microsoft evangelist confirms that Microsoft reserves the right to sue over MonoA Mono-based application is confirmed a part of GNOME's coreMono selfishness: its use as a trapMono becomes more analogous with NovellA development tool from Novell encourages the use of Mono

The presence of Mono alone should not be the key issue to address. There are legal issues. Upon attempts to demonstrate just loss of identity we were told that it would not be an issue as serious as patent-encumbered (and truly proprietary) elements like OOXML, WMV, etc.

That is indeed an issue. It also makes them more widespread, for all to suffer from.

Further throughout this discussion, the OOXML issue came up. The reader told us:

…what’s your opinion on OOXML support being added to OOo 3? Do you think rubbing it with the GPLv3 [1, 2] might yield some interesting results?

=> 1 | 2

The reply is quoted verbatim:

It works badly for Novell, which is already building ‘Microsoft OpenOffice’ in a sense [1, 2, 3, 4]. Novell hates it when people use the “F” word in this context (“fork”), but it’s becoming more of a reality.

=> works badly for Novell | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Microsoft hates the GPLv3. In fact, it turns out that GPLv3 got thrown out of Microsoft’s CodePlex. All of Microsoft’s smear campaigns against GPLv3 (through proxies in disguise, such as paid academics) show that Microsoft’s lawyers understand the ramifications.

“They, along with biased journalists who deceive, are totally falling for it.”The company works quite secretly, but understanding the strategy is not hard. Getting the word out and warning developers is another issue (PyCon, Ubuntu, OSI). They, along with biased journalists who deceive, are totally falling for it. It’s like a Big Lie campaign.

Many people are conveniently naive and it was frustrating to find that Michael T agrees with Matt Asay as far as the stance on Bruce Perens goes. He has posted about this to the OSI’s Web site. In other words, they see nothing wrong with Microsoft in the OSI, despite the fact that Ballmer sort of stuttered in an interview last month where he was going to name ‘open source’ as his number one threat. He eventually said “Open.. Linux”. He hesitated and changed his mind as he spoke. He knows that they have to pretend to like Open Source, as long as they can replace and subvert the licences to make them work Microsoft’s way (see notes above about Mono licence). Folks like Walli might already be doing a lot of legwork for Microsoft, trying to convince developers to embrace the Microsoft way, restrict openness, ownership, maybe even apply for software patents, etc. █

=> the stance on Bruce Perens | legwork for Microsoft

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink  Send this to a friend

=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend

=> Techrights

➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.