Miguel de Icaza has posted on the Microsoft Community Promise announcement.
Here is the most relevant bits (in my opinion):
Astute readers will point out that Mono contains much more than the ECMA standards, and they will be correct.
In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions. One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others
This is probably the best solution. Right now, unless I am missing something - I don’t think you can work up a strong argument against the standard parts.
Clearly separating mono into standard and non-standard parts further removes a lot of the valid criticism – assuming that we don’t get in a situation where mono gets popular and the non-standard parts start getting “required by necessity” or something like that.
Wow. Sure you can hate on Microsoft and think mono is dumb or inferior to other approaches or whatever, but that’s not productive if the product is on safe legal ground. Mark my words, this will separate valid mono critics from nutbars and, by extension show at least some of the past mono criticism was valid (though I doubt it will be acknowledged as such).
#1 by C.J. Adams-Collier on July 7th, 2009
> Clearly separating mono into standard and non-standard parts further
> removes a lot of the valid criticism – assuming that we don’t get in a situation
> where mono gets popular and the non-standard parts start getting “required
> by necessity” or something like that.
Take a look at the Debian packages (upstream of Ubuntu). Already split up thanks to the hard work of Mirco Bauer.
#2 by jon skip on July 7th, 2009
It was never really valid because it’s obvious that Microsoft never intended to sue (they didn’t just change their minds overnight). They’ve been singing the RAND-Z tune since at least 2002 when Michele Herman made an official statement about offering it under royalty-free RAND.
The arguments about the non-ECMA portions were never valid either because none of the Mono-based applications in Ubuntu, Debian, etc use those pieces and packages have always been split, even if the Mono code-base has not been. The work necessary to split the source code does not require any hacking (other than Makefiles).
#3 by Jason on July 7th, 2009
And lots of people have explained why RAND-Z was not strong enough assurance. Of course, as I see it, the Community Promise renders those concerns moot now.
I disagree about the non-ECMA stuff, I always saw that as a major concern. But, I do acknowledge if they are split up like C.J. points out (and Miguel is saying they will be) then that is probably the best solution. This is because – assuming the behavior doesn’t just become “we will include standard and non-standard mono bits every time” or that this renders mono worthless without the non-standard bits, then that non-standard mono stuff is not trying to become foundational parts of any distribution.
I have no problems with that. I like lots and lots of potentially patent infriging projects. I just don’t want things to rely on them. If mono can do that, then hooray for mono. I don’t think that was the case before, but let me be the first mono critic to confess it looks like that is changing.
#4 by nachokb on July 7th, 2009
Largely irrelevant — the mere ability to do so gives a single entity too much power to damage Free Software. Let’s hope this Promise is properly analyzed and it comes out clean…
Nobody said so. Yet, assuming that this (hopefully) positive outcome would have been reached without the meticulous critique of Mono is, at the very least, naïve.
#5 by jon skip on July 7th, 2009
“Yet, assuming that this (hopefully) positive outcome would have been reached without the meticulous critique of Mono is, at the very least, naïve.”
Instead of badmouthing Novell, Microsoft, Mono, Miguel and other developers, it would have been much simpler, more respectful and certainly better for everyone if people had simply worked with Miguel to get this to happen.
What many in the anti-Mono crowd did cannot be considered criticism, it was outright personal attacks, FUD, and trolling to the ultimate degree.
Take this as an example of what I’m talking about:
http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html
Same with childish articles like this one that attack Mono over what a GSoC student said (while trying to portray said student as a Mono developer which is utterly dispicable behavior):
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26075/1090/
Note also that this student had published an apology before Sam published his personal attacks which were nothing more than an attempt to soil Mono’s name for what someone unrelated to the project said. Pathetic.
#6 by Jason on July 7th, 2009
Jon,
I guarantee you I can match you example for example of FUD and personal attacks. Both sides are guilty as hell of it.
In fact, your second example is a perfect case in point: it is a pro-mono flame followed by an anti-mono flame.
Is that really a road worth going down?
#7 by Jason on July 7th, 2009
Actually let me answer that:
NO. It’s not a road worth going down. Let’s not get into that back and forth here.
The comments post-announcement have been pretty constructive, and I’m willing to take a little beating, but let’s not turn in to BoycottNovell part 2, alright?
I told Miguel I would give them the benefit of the doubt based on this new news, and temper my future criticism in that light.
Let me ask you to do the same here. Fair enough?