The FSF speaks again on Mono, to include the Community Promise issue, and renders a verdict: The “promise is full of loopholes, and it’s nowhere near enough to make C# safe.”

One thing I really like about this article is they hit one of the mono apologists’ favorite distortions right out of the gate:

It’s true that all software patents are a threat to developers—but that doesn’t mean that all software patents are equally threatening. Different companies might have patents that could be used to attack other languages, but if we worried about every patent that could be used against us, we wouldn’t get anything done. Microsoft’s patents are much more dangerous: it’s the only major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and stated its intention to attack our community with patents.

Now I’ve been preaching this gospel since Day 1. It is pure dishonesty to pretend like every company present the same risk and hostility to Linux, Free Software, or Open Source that Microsoft does. Microsoft’s hostility and desire to destroy Linux is not the fevered imaginations of wild-eyed zealots. It is documented. It is proven. It is inarguable.

Now, you may want to advance the idea that Microsoft has changed. That is a possibility, sure – but it is not documented, proven or inarguable. The safe and sane position towards Microsoft is suspicion and wariness. Microsoft made it so, not wild-eyed zealots. It also becomes on open question on what type of change it is.

You may also want to advance the idea that Microsoft’s hostility is overstated. That is a possibility, as well – but you run into a real problem with objectivity there. That is, there is no way for us to know the limits or true intention of Microsoft’s hostility. We can only know that we have more proof and evidence for Microsoft’s hostility to Linux, Free Software and Open Source than any other other entity in existence – with the arguable exception of SCO – and that we have evidence they systematically lie and disguise their intent.

What you can not honestly do, though, is to pretend like Microsoft does not have a long and documented history of unfair, illegal, and highly questionable tactics against Linux, Free Software, Open Source and even commercial competitors. You can also not pretend like it is “ancient history” or that the very same people that participated in such tactics are not still active within Microsoft.

Nonetheless, it seems if you find any discussion of Mono you will eventually run into some Mono/Microsoft apologists pretending like doubting Microsoft is irrational, if not downright cheese-eating surrender monkey cowardice. You know those hillbillies that handle snakes because they think Jesus will protect them? They aren’t brave, they are deluded. You know those guys that don’t handle snakes? They aren’t cowards, they are rational.

Offering solutions

Another nice thing that the FSF has done is to offer up an acceptable solution, as well as an invitation to Microsoft to work together to reach a real and inarguable solution.

There is an interesting point within: just as “Only Nixon could go to China”, only the FSF has the credibility to assure people that Microsoft’s offerings are valid. Novell does not have that credibility. Team Mono does not have that credibility.

When you mock the core principles of Free Software, embrace “pragmatism”, and compromise your ethics a little bit here and a little bit there, you might profit in the short term; but long term, when you go to make a stand and ask people to trust you, things are different then. In one light that is unfair, but the reality is that is what happens when you enter into anti-community and secretive deal and take $400+ million dollars from Microsoft.

Oh, and continuing to fight the FSF or rms with whatever flavor of scandal or slander you can grab doesn’t add to your credibility either. Just in case you thought it did. No, it only spreads the taint of your lack of credibility. Like a single rotten apple spoiling the barrel, so does one dishonest hateful apologist spoil a “movement”.

Sadly, this works on both sides. Which is why my arguments are always only the Purest of Logic and Reason, and I constantly refrain from personally attacking The Lying Slanderous Bastards in the Opposition.

More to come

I encourage everyone to read and think on the FSF statement. There are some interesting arguments in there, and I would like to see a much longer and detailed essay forthcoming.