Dan Serban :

OK, my point is this: Mono is not copyleft. Why? Let me explain these three factors, one of which I mentioned above.
Mono is really a Microsoft invention and the only legal document truly covering it is Microsoft’s Community Promise. The GPL it’s formally under is legal wishful thinking.
Microsoft is mocking the GPL by stating “[it] is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone”. Fact: the GPL is universally understood by everyone as protecting the four basic software freedoms, i.e. freedoms 0 through 3. Also, the GPL is the non-negotiable part of being copyleft. Microsoft FUDdying the waters about the GPL is a red flag, but not solid enough evidence.
Microsoft’s Community Promise isn’t protecting the four basic software freedoms, therefore there is nothing copyleft about it. When applied to Mono, Microsoft’s Community Promise gives you the freedom to build software on top of the current-version-only of a complete-implementation-only of a carefully-selected-subset-only of the .NET stack. Call it what you want, but it’s not copyleft. I’d like to call it “a half-hearted, shackled attempt at open source”
Mono is not copyleft, therefore it should not be included in live CDs and default install sets.

It’s incredibly hard to argue against points which appear to be, well, mad. My favourite Jefferson quote springs to mind. However, I’ll make an attempt.

The license a piece of code is released under is NOT in any way indicative of any other concerns you may need to have in using it. As an example, ripping an audio CD to Vorbis using Sound Juicer is illegal in the UK under the Copyright, Designs & Patents act. That does not mean Sound Juicer is not Free Software. The Linux kernel apparently infringes on hundreds of patents. This does not mean that Linux is not Free Software.

With me so far? Good.

Now, the next thing is to consider “patent pledges”. The existence of a global patent pledge, as an aside to the license a piece of third party code is under, does not in any way affect the license of the code. Specific pledges (e.g. “your customers are safe, general people are not”) does not affect the license of the code – but the license of the code DOES specifically prevent this kind of pledge, if it happens after a specific date.

So. Let’s take a further example. Oracle’s OpenOffice.org implements read support for Microsoft OOXML, and read-write support for Microsoft Doc 97-2003. Implementations of these file formats MAY involve use of patented methods. That fact does not affect the copyleft status of OOo, which is LGPLv2. The specifications for those file formats are provided alongside a global patent pledge (as mentioned previously), the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, which includes muddy language regarding GPL compatibility. The existence of this pledge does not “override” the LGPLv2, it’s orthogonal to it. Whether or not OOo actually makes USE of the patents which Microsoft feel they own on OOXML/Doc, and therefore whether or not the OSP is actually “in use”, the LGPLv2 is still the license for the software, and the OSP is still entirely orthogonal to it.

Still there? Right.

The next thing to say is “OOo supports these technologies, and Microsoft claim to own (and license globally for free) some patents related to these technologies, which may or may not be *actively* infringed by OOo. Should OOo be removed from all default installations and live media?”

How would you answer this question?

Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone

What are *they* talking about?

OK, my point is this: Mono is not copyleft. Why? Let me explain these three factors, one of which I mentioned above.

Mono is really a Microsoft invention and the only legal document truly covering it is Microsoft’s Community Promise. The GPL it’s formally under is legal wishful thinking.
Microsoft is mocking the GPL by stating “[it] is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone”. Fact: the GPL is universally understood by everyone as protecting the four basic software freedoms, i.e. freedoms 0 through 3. Also, the GPL is the non-negotiable part of being copyleft. Microsoft FUDdying the waters about the GPL is a red flag, but not solid enough evidence.
Microsoft’s Community Promise isn’t protecting the four basic software freedoms, therefore there is nothing copyleft about it. When applied to Mono, Microsoft’s Community Promise gives you the freedom to build software on top of the current-version-only of a complete-implementation-only of a carefully-selected-subset-only of the .NET stack. Call it what you want, but it’s not copyleft. I’d like to call it “a half-hearted, shackled attempt at open source”

Mono is not copyleft, therefore it should not be included in live CDs and default install sets.

Jo Shields :

Does the use of, say, Vorbis in proprietary games (Unreal series, Grand Theft Auto series, Singstar series) mean Vorbis is bad by association? No, that would be silly.

It’s interesting that you mention Vorbis, because it’s a hell of a good example of how we’ve sometimes gone to great lengths to fight patent-encumbered standards, and at the same time (and for the same price!) a hell of a good example of RMS being pragmatical (something that many people don’t think is possible).

Patents are the whole reason we free software advocates see the spread of Vorbis among proprietary software as a good thing, despite that we oppose proprietary software in the first place. This situation is a perfect example of compromise and sacrifice.

And as for you open-source folks, whatever makes your technology more popular is a great thing. Don’t ever let those prejudices about ethics or morality get in your way!

LSL itself is a relatively simple language – strongly staticly typed with a limited set of types available, no classes or objects, no namespaces, no libraries aside from the standard LSL library used by all scripts, every program consists of a single source file. It was basically designed to be something they could implement easily in-house as a custom VM. Not much of a stretch for Mono.

Oh, and the features they really needed from it were microthreading with the ability to migrate threads between machines and save and restore their state while running, and per-thread memory limits. Both of these are modifications they made that aren’t available in standard Mono, and their modifications aren’t publicly released. (They don’t have to, since they only run it in-house.) I seem to recall they got Miguel de Icaza to assist them with adding these custom features, so it doesn’t even show that Mono is easily modified.

zekopeko :

Let me quote it for you:
Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Community Promise apply to me?
A: Absolutely, yes. The CP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The CP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

Better yet, the GPL itself contains a suspension clause

Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Community Promise apply to me?
A: Absolutely, yes. The CP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The CP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone

What are *they* talking about?

Asking for Mono not to be included in live CDs / default install sets isn’t attacking it any more than asking for Skype not to be preinstalled is an attack on Skype. Mono is really a Microsoft invention and the only legal document truly covering it is the Community Promise. Even if Novell releases Mono under the GPL, which is copyleft, there is a clash between that and the non-copyleft Community Promise. There are 2 ways out of that clash:
- If you are a paying Novell customer, the GPL prevails;
- If you’re not a paying Novell customer, good luck trying to defend against Microsoft asserting their patents

What are you talking about?
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
Read the last part of the FAQ.

And if you want informed choice then we should put a big EULA the first time you try installing any FLOSS software (including the kernel and DE’s) that states: “This software may or may not have patented technologies implemented inside it’s code in order to function. By clicking the OK button you are exposing yourself to lawsuits for patent infringement. Have a nice day”.

Please listen to SFLC’s podcast where they differentiate against patents which are evenly distributed amongst the community versus all patents being held by one single company.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2009/jul/07/0×11/

This would be far more honest then constantly attacking a single platform because it has ties to the “big bad wolf”.

Asking for Mono not to be included in live CDs / default install sets isn’t attacking it any more than asking for Skype not to be preinstalled is an attack on Skype. Mono is really a Microsoft invention and the only legal document truly covering it is the Community Promise. Even if Novell releases Mono under the GPL, which is copyleft, there is a clash between that and the non-copyleft Community Promise. There are 2 ways out of that clash:
- If you are a paying Novell customer, the GPL prevails;
- If you’re not a paying Novell customer, good luck trying to defend against Microsoft asserting their patents.

Dan Serban :

I just finished watching the 80-min presentation and no, I don’t think he wants to damage the community, although at some point during the presentation he did acknowledge that the free software community “had a heart attack” when Novell signed the agreement with Microsoft. He stopped short of saying “… but that’s part of the cost of doing business”, which is the undertone I sensed.
Other than that, good technical info and I appreciate his sense of humour.

I think that he is more of a tech geek then businessman by far. He saw a platform he thought could help Linux and he invested his time and money into it. Why? Well because he thinks that bringing more apps to the Linux desktop is a good thing and not a bad one.

Now, back to our discussion: can we have a Linux ecosystem where live CDs and default install sets are Mono-free? Please?

But beware, to watch it you need patented codecs.

That’s OK, mplayer did the job just fine. (On my system, I installed mplayer explicitly, knowing full well what I’m getting into – I made an … you know … informed choice.)

You already have a Linux ecosystem that doesn’t ship mono on livecd or by default. It’s called a distribution and there are plenty of them around that fit right with your wishes. I think that your problem is that you want Ubuntu to stop shipping mono app by default since they are the biggest around. Well guess what? It’s not going to happen until there are viable alternatives. And for now there aren’t any. When there is one please make a request for it’s inclusion and show the Ubuntu developers why this app trump the one included by default.

And if you want informed choice then we should put a big EULA the first time you try installing any FLOSS software (including the kernel and DE’s) that states: “This software may or may not have patented technologies implemented inside it’s code in order to function. By clicking the OK button you are exposing yourself to lawsuits for patent infringement. Have a nice day”. This would be far more honest then constantly attacking a single platform because it has ties to the “big bad wolf”.

P.S. I hope my tags are OK and this post doesn’t shatter into a million pieces. Fingers crossed!