Bruce Byfield has a long article on the mono debate. Mr. Byfield  has written on mono before, and while I don’t agree with everything he writes, he doesn’t simply parrot press releases and is worth reading. Since this is a long piece, I suggest reading it first, and I’ll just raise a few points of my own in response! Enjoy!

Mr. Byfield gets a minor things wrong at the very start: Debian is not including Mono in its “base install”, as a Debian developer takes great care to explain. To be fair this point is obscure to those to knowledable about Debian packaging, and it is not unfair to say the status of mono in Debian has changed slightly to be more favorable for “default inclusion” in some instances.

Soon we see a recycling of one of the mono apologists’ favorite tidbits: the Jim Miller email. This email comes up a lot – even on the mono FAQ – so first let’s take a look at exactly what it says:

As one of the inventors on that patent as well as the person heading up the standardization efforts for the CLI, I’d like to explain why I’ve never felt the two are in conflict.

The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that are essential for implementing its standards are available under “reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms” for the purpose of implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a “royalty-free and otherwise RAND” basis for this purpose.

Furthermore, our release of the Rotor source code base with a specific license on its use gives wide use to our patents for a particular (non-commercial) purpose, and as we explicitly state we are open to additional licenses for other purposes.

This is nice enough, but there are a few problem with accepting (or presenting) this email as some sort of proof mono is protected:

  1. It is an email to a mailing list at an Italian university – and a 3rd party web archive copy.
  2. It is clearly the non-legal opinion of a single individual. He does not, nor does he purport to, speak for Microsoft here. It is his personal opinion.
  3. He may well be “one of the inventors”, but all 10 of Mr. Miller’s patented inventions related to C# are assigned to Microsoft, as would be expected. Microsoft has the property rights of these patents. Corporate inventors basically think it up, assign the rights and get a plaque of thanks from the company.
  4. RAND is not Open Source or “Free-as-in-freedom”. That doesn’t mean it’s worthless, evil or anything like that, just that RAND (or RAND-Z) alone doesn’t tell you that the conditions will be acceptable for Free and Open Source development. They might be, or might be. RAND-Z is necessary, but not sufficient.

Think on just this point for a moment. This is the quality of reference and legal underpinning the mono project itself advertises on its own FAQ. Not a copy of a court document, or signed statement, or hell even a press release on official letterhead. People are being asked to gamble on the word of what some dude shot off to a mailing list. Which – if you want to really be funny – might not even come from where it claims.

Mr. Byfield covers the scornful attitude of mono supporters well enough, if a bit sympathetically. It’s understandable that some mono supporters are frustrated. But they are the ones that are unable to answer questions. They are the ones that can not provide clear and convincing proofs. I understand the frustration of Team Mono, but I do not sympathize.

I will say that Mr. Byfield does hit one nail squarely on the head when he realizes “what is missing from the pro-Mono side is any serious effort to assess the legal threat.”

In covering the “Anti-Mono” arguments, Mr. Byfield rightfully recognizes that there are some real nutbar assholes out there (my words not his). One of the things I hope to do on this blog is provide mono critique without my name becoming synonymous with some of the more violent critics. Of course, pro-mono folks can get dirty too when it suits them; however, I really wish some ” on my side” would tone it down a notch or two.

Mr. Byfield comes to a strange conclusion, though: he asserts that the FLOSS community needs to take action. That we should produce a competent legal opinion on Mono, and that some group should request permission (because he thinks Sam Vargese attempt was invalid as it was from an individual, despite the “upon request” language that mono apologists love to point to.)

I understand what he is trying to achieve, but the real issue is that Microsoft could very easily silence honest critics on all legal issues, by doing something like putting mono under the Open Specification Promise, or hell why not have Microsoft join the OIN? They are forever going on about how thier patent portfolio is only defensive anyway. There are easily a half-dozen ways Microsoft could resolve the mono controversy. (Don’t forget about Moonlight here, too, which is on even shakier ground than mono).

Microsoft is unlikely to take action of course, because they couldn’t hope for something better to be happening in Open Source right now. The entire onus of “proof” is on those promoting mono – especially Novell. The burden is on them  – not the community. Until they do – clearly, unambigiously, and to the majority of the community’s satisfaction – the proper course is just as Stallman has said: discourage the use of C#.