It can be a tough time tackling some of the originators of mono apologeticia: they know how to take a small kernal of truth and wrap it up in a big ball of disinformation, fry that FUDsucker up and dish it out to hungry converts. However, the repeated arguments get weaker and weaker; take for example the comprehensive analysis offered up by Alex on Mono is here to stay:

Microsoft, on several occasions, proclaimed that they are not going to sue Mono for whatever reason. Furthermore, there has been some sort of cooperation between Microsoft and Mono project. So in theory it shouldn’t be a problem, but, as expected, this doesn’t impress the fundamentalists.

I LOL’ed. Read it again. It’s good for 2-3 LOLs, depending on time of day.

I know. I know. You read that, and you immediately thought to yourself: “Damn, why would mono-nono take on such a well-argued and detailed defense! Doesn’t he know that way lies madness!!!!one!” Well let me oil up my flabby pectorals and slip on into the kiddie pool. Pedobear is intrigued.

Alright, first off Microsoft has never ever ever promised even a little bit not to sue Mono. What they did do was submit a sub-set of the .NET framework (mostly C# and the CLI) to a couple of standard bodies. Those parts are safe. Not even the most insane mono critic, Dr. Rufus L. Crapongates, is arguing that the stuff in the standard is the great patent suing risk.

As far as the risk in that immediate area it is two fold:

  1. Could the “RAND-Z” terms include requirements that make mono unacceptable. This does not have to be royalties (which the “-Z” part prevents). There could be an issue here. This is a reasonable, but unlikely concern in my opinion. I don’t think this would be a line of attack – but some do.
  2. Mono implements ever more parts of .NET that are not part of the standard. There is some degree of risk that these parts violate one or more Microsoft patents. This is a reasonable, and likely concern in my opinion. I think that mono infringes on multiple Microsoft patents I have read, but I am not a patent lawyer. Many people agree this could happen, but disagree on how much of an impact it would have on mono.

There are lots of other issues, but these are the two most closely related to Microsoft patents. Also, most people do not think Microsoft would actually sue. They are much more likely to pressure Novell for some sort of out-of-court changes, spread FUD with the patents, tie it in to royalty requirements, and so on. Microsoft can do a lot of damage without having to take you to court. This is a little trick of the mono apologist – they like to talk about how risky it would be for Microsoft to go to court, as if there is no other way for one company to hurt another.

As for the “some sort of cooperation between Microsoft and the Mono project”, that is so vague I’m not sure what you are trying to say. I would remind you that the public urinals at One Microsoft Way are formed out of the dust of the bones of companies that had “some sort of cooperation with Microsoft” right up until cooperation turned into having your throat slit while being stabbed in the back.

“Cooperating” with someone doesn’t idemnify them in any way. If anything, in the business world, it increases the changes the two entities will come to blows, much like the suspects for violent crimes are always people close to the victim. It is unlikely that Microsoft will ever train its guns on Jolly Fats Weehawken’s Coney Dog Stand in Walla Walla, Washington. It is much more likely that it will do something nasty but just within the bounds of legality to whoever it signed a partnership agreement with last night.