In what is probably the most Microsoft-fan-boy post so far from Miguel de Icaza – one which he signs off literally “drooling” over Microsoft’s latest Silverlight – Mr. de Icaza has an interesting new mission:

Now that this technology is available, perhaps it is a good time to start a movement to create a suite of Silverlight-based desktop applications.

[...]

For the Moonlight team, this means that there is a lot of work ahead of us to bring every Silverlight 3 and 4 feature. I think I speak for the whole Mono team when I say that this is exciting, fascinating, challenging and feels like we just drank a huge energy boost drink.

I’ve said many times before that Team Mono indirectly promotes Microsoft, but this here is direct and unambigious promotion of closed-source, proprietary Microsoft technology by the head of Team Mono in the name of the “whole Mono Team”.

Team Mono and their apologists can’t hide behind their usual smoke and mirrors here: there is no partial ECMA standardization to quibble over what bits are “safe” – no Silverlight bits are safe; there is no “Community Promises” to worry about if you are “covered” – if it ain’t Microsoft or Novell, it ain’t covered; and there’s no arguing that “at least it is open-source” –  there is nothing Open Source about Silverlight;  nothing to hide behind but base sycophany:

There are many other great features in Silverlight 4, but none as important as Silverlight becoming a universal runtime for the CLR. This is a revolution.

So there you have it, folks. Mr. de Icaza speaks for Team Mono in direct support of the Microsoft Silverlight “Revolution” – encouraging development with Closed Source, Proprietary Software. People have been constantly raising flags that Novell / Mr. de Icaza / Team Mono have lost sight of Free Software as they grow ever closer to Microsoft, and this is a startlingly black mark proving warnings come true.

Apple Rejects Mono

Apparently, the Unity engine – which is built on Mono – uses some API calls that Apple disapproves of, cause apps to be rejected left and right.

Here’s the story on Touch Arcade, and here’s a thread on the Unity forums about it.

Part of the problem is because the Unity engine appears to allow some naughty behavior:

Storm8, developers of iMobsters and Vampires Live were recently accused of harvesting players phone numbers using private API’s and uploading them to their servers– A gross violation of the iPhone developer SDK agreement. The Unity engine currently uses the two private API calls that Storm8 allegedly exploited to steal user data, _NSGetEnviron and exc_server.

Moonlight Marching Orders

Look for ever more of this sort of thing as Team Mono attempts to expand Mono and Moonlight. Team Mono is already getting marching orders to start pushing Moonlight harder, the first plan being a video editor.

A video editor is a beautiful infection vector for Moonlight, because:

1. Moonlight itself only safe to use for direct Novell customers,
2. All those nice proprietary video codecs that Novell has licensed from Microsoft are only safe for direct Novell customers as well.

So, Novell sees a great opportunity to spread Moonlight and the fruits of its Microsoft collaboration, while pretending to develop a “Linux” application.

So long as your “Linux” comes directly via Microsoft-approved Novell-only channels, of course – other Linux flavors need not apply – or redistribute.

In this corner…

So, RMS has a new blog entry “Lest CodePlex Perplex“, where he insightfully analyzes the CodePlex situation. Among the clear points he makes:

1. There is reason to be wary, but we can not know at this time that the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation will be “bad”.
2. One day we can judge the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation by its actions, but right now all we can do is anticipate based on best available information

He also lays out concerns about how Microsoft may intend to subvert Free Software to the greatest degree possible through actions such as:

1. Emphasizing Open Source “practicalities” over Free Software ethics. This is quite a success already, with many  Fauxpen Source supporters gleefully assisting Microsoft efforts directly or indirectly to downplay any “Freedom talk” at all when discussing FLOSS.
2. Restricting FLOSS to Open Source additions/extras to a Proprietary and Closed Source core – increasing dependence on the Closed base, and greatly limiting the real value of such FLOSS.
3. Making sure Microsoft Windows or other Microsoft platforms are the preferred/only platforms for development.

This is illustrates not only some of the problems with the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation and the current debate in the community, but it also shows RMS is perfectly “in touch” and still foresightful about Free Software issues (refuting a common baseless attack that he is a “dinosaur”, “out of touch”, etc.)

There is a bit that will get all the attention though, and I predict it will not only overshadow the deft summary RMS plots, but also will spur a new round of the same old ad hominems against RMS and the more generalized fallacious arguments against Free Software supporters.

RMS calls Miguel de Icaza an “apologist”. Presumably a Microsoft apologist, although he didn’t explictly use that phrase.

And, In This Corner ….

Now, Mr. de Icaza has posted his reaction. As always, it is good reading because you can really see where the dangerous mindset is coming from; not only from the “top”, but also from the “ground troops”. Just read the blog entry and see – it’s right there for anyone who cares.

For example, you ask?

Mr. de Icaza leads off with:

Richard Stallman does not seem to have anything better to do than launch personal attacks against me.

This is a light ad hominem, and hints at the common theme that any criticism is invalid because there are better things to be doing, or the critic makes no other contributions, or that criticism in general is without worth. This is an extremely common theme for Team Mono.

Continuing we have this:

In his last piece he has decided to call me a Microsoft apologist because I do not participate in his witch hunt.

Um, no. He called you an “apologist”, because you are one. An apologist is ”one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something“. Mr. de Icaza has an enormous output of spoken and written defenses of his actions. To go further than RMS explictly did, I will state that Mr. de Icaza has an enourmous output of defenses of Microsoft specifically. He does it in the very response under discussion, when he talks about how ”great people” inside Microsoft are steering the company into becoming a “community citizen”.

Disapproval is not Fear

This is a bit of a funny point. Mr. de Icaza loves to imply or outright state that those people critical of Microsoft are afraid of Microsoft.

This is so foolish I can scarcely understand why Mr. de Icaza loves this line of argument so. Understand this, when I criticize Nickelback, it’s not because I am afraid of them. It is because they suck.

When people criticize Microsoft, it is not because of fear. It is because they are tired of vendor lock-in, overpriced and insecure software, hindering the industry, illegal behavior, lies and slander against projects they devote time and effort to, and so many — many — other offenses that Microsoft has committed, and continues to commit.

“Fear” is not even a factor.     

But, I guess the desire to attack the opponent by hinting he is a coward (or fear-monger) is too strong to overcome.   

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything” – Mark Twain

One thing you will notice if you pay attention to Team Mono rhetoric like I do, is that it is rarely even logically consistent with itself.

For example, one of the big defense points that came out when the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation was announced is that it was an independent body, it was only because things needed to be set up so quickly that it was so heavily staffed by Microsoft people, and so forth.

But, in his blog entry, Mr. de Icaza defends — dare I say apologizes — for his participation by saying:

Working at CodePlex is a great way of helping steer Microsoft in the right direction.

Eh? If it is an independent Foundation, then how will it be “steering” Microsoft? Lots of multi-billion dollar international monopolist corporations being steered around by independent foundations that I’m not aware of out there? Who knew?

Disregarding Intent

Finally – because this is already too long – Mr. de Icaza reveals his naive disregard for intent by casually dismissing Microsoft’s recent patent sell:

As for the patent sale, they are now in good hands: the OIN, so they are not a problem.

This absolutely ignores the fact that Microsoft locked OIN out of the orginal bidding, that Red Hat (among others) expressed concerns about Microsoft targeting patent trolls as buyers, and that the general agreement is that OIN simply “outmaneuvered” Microsoft.

The director of the OIN himself said that “the open source community lucked out“. (My emphasis).

But, Mr. de Icaza breezily passes this off in a footnote, as if saying “Well, he may have shot at you, but he missed, so why all the concern?”

Summary

I’m sure this is far from over, but I think it is worth it to carefully read both RMS’ and Mr. de Icaza’s statements here, and for color pay attention to the comments on Mr. de Icaza’s blogs. Not only will you be ahead of the talking points power curve – but more importantly I think the clear contrast between then rational analysis based on fundamental principles and historical actions by RMS and the logical fallacies and wide-eyed naivety of Mr. de Icaza’s defense is quite striking!

This article was also posted at The Source.com!

I’m just wondering when Team Mono is going to comment on Microsoft bringing Silverlight to Moblin?

I’d also be interested in why a .NET developer would target Moonlight if developing for Windows/Moblin, rather than Genuine Microsoft Advantage Silverlight?

I know it’s easier to compose fact-deficient rants, attack RMS (again), or plan your appearance at the next Microsoft-sponsored conference (or two), but I sorta thought the Moblin development might at least rate a brief comment?

Just a bit odd the noise machine that absolutely leaps into action at the smallest criticism of yon holy artifact hasn’t been cranked up yet. Talking points not finalized, I suppose.

So, the news is out that Microsoft is bringing real Silverlight to Moblin. This is not Moonlight, this is the real-deal Silverlight 3 in a joint effort with Intel for Atom-based platforms.

A very interesting development.

Carving out a niche

The only “chance for survival” that Mono/Moonlight has is to grow in a niche where:

1. Enough developers want to use .NET/Silverlight that the project is viable, but
2. Microsoft doesn’t think there are enough developers to support

It is painfully clear that as the former increases, the latter decreases. Yet, this is where Novell and the Mono/Moonlight project has staked its claim.

Which .NET developers are going to develop for Moblin using Moonlight, now that the real-deal Hollyfield Silverlight has made the scene? I’ll give you a hint, unless the email address ends in @novell.com – zero.

And You Can Have It All … My Kingdom of Dirt

Here’s a pro-tip for Novell: the very instant Microsoft decides they may profit by releasing .NET for the iPhone, MonoTouch is dead in the water.

 That Microsoft has not done so yet, only shows that they do not think it profitible. Which means you are betting on making money with a knock-off, where the original thinks it’s not worth it to bring in genuine goods. Yet.

Is .NET on Moblin far behind?

The Register nails the question:

If it’s that easy to port Microsoft Silverlight to Linux, why does the Moonlight project exist at all?

It reinforces the point that if Microsoft determines it is worth-while to bring .NET/Silverlight to a space that is currently Mono/Moonlight it will do so.

One of the favorite arguments of Mono apologists has been since Moonlight is basically only Mono+XML it was just as “safe” as Mono itself.

So, what I’m now wondering, is that if that is true – and I’m sure no Mono apologist has ever done anything but speak the truth – does Microsoft delivering Silverlight on Moblin means it could just as easily roll out .NET for Moblin if it so desired? Does the existence of Silverlight for Moblin mean that .NET for Moblin must exist?

Not Exactly the Royal “We”

I love this quote from the Silverlight blog announcing the move:

We see this is a clear extension of our current efforts with Novell where we are building an open source implementation of Silverlight called “Moonlight” that is targeted at the broad range of Linux–based PCs.

Note Microsoft claims ”we” (meaning Novell and Microsoft) are building Moonlight. Microsoft says Moonlight is a Microsoft project.

I whole-heartedly agree that it is a “clear extension” of Microsoft’s current efforts. That is phase 2, after all.

This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.

How does one measure success?

The success – roughly defined as “popularity” – of C#/Mono/.NET is something we’ve kicked around in comments here. Now, there are numbers from Black Duck that have got some blogs picking up on some “harder” numbers.

C# squeaks into 10th place, with a 1.24% share – virtually equal to assembly language (1.23%)!

There’s no question that .NET is a “success” on the Windows platform – it is all but mandatory there. Of course, if Microsoft had settled on LOLGOCODE in the same manner, I suspect Team Mono would be talking up the virtues of code like:

HAI
CAN MOVE FORWARD 100?
KTHXBYE

And it would be enjoying about a 1-and-a-quarter-percent share as well.

 The image that C# or .NET is an interesting technology for Open Source non-Windows developers begins to develop: it seems that there is a small core absolutely promoting something that just isn’t being used very much.

Checking out the Projects

You can also look at the top Open Source C# projects (according to the Black Duck Koders search engine):

1. Mono
2. GPE
3. Mono (Winforms)
4. Excel Components for BizTalk
5. Convert C#/Visual Basic to JavaScript, Java, PHP

I downloaded #5 to check it out. The core is all .dll/.pdb in a bin directory, no source code actually included for the conversion engine as far as I can tell. The examples/templates have source. Maybe there is more source somewhere else that I missed in one of the “depreciated” releases or something?

So, of the top 5: we have 2 that are Mono, 1 that appears to stem from code from the other non-Microsoft signatory to the ECMA standard, 1 that is strictly for Microsoft Office and Server products and 1 that apparently doesn’t even come with the source but the whole point is to convert away from .NET? Impressive.

Of course, all this is putting a lot of faith in Black Duck information and methodology.

Is it worth it? Rant starteth

This is what people are getting all up in arms about? I just don’t get it.

I have a perfect right to promote the most offensive spin-off of whatever distro you can imagine – *cough*Hannah Montana Linux*cough*- but say it got all Twisted and I got out there and go crazy talking up how awesome my respin is, and how I really needed strike a deal for a rootkit from Disney to ensure I had Disney interoperability support so we can get videos working right out the box, and that everything’s going to be alright… you’re OK so long as you get the distro directly from my web site because I have an agreement you can check out most of it online – just not all of it -  and anyway just shut up and use my distro because it works and Disney is promoting Hannah Montana big time, so we will benefit from that too because her fans will be coming over to Linux just to use this distro, and it’s just this one distro … I mean I’d like to get that rootkit in other distros too so they can share those interoperability feature with Disney; you want everyone to be able to download Hanna Montana videos straight out the box, right? Who wouldn’t want Hannah Montana songs to start playing on startup by default?! But it’s up to those distro’s really… I mean yes we are going to get “our people” in place and promote this thing, and we might ridicule and demonize critics just a smidge, but it’s totally each distros choice. Plus, it’s easy to disable that music by default if you want. It’s not like users leave the defaults in place anyway, that’s just silly.

Oh yea, they are flying me out to Disneyworld this weekend to speak about how Disney is better “engaging” Linux distributions, they are really coming around to seeing the Free Software point of view, I’m sure of it. I hope they will begin pushing for shorter copyright terms, most of the Disney animators are really cool dudes, I don’t know why people are so down on Disney anyway – it’s just the management, executives, shareholders and corporate culture that are jerks about things. Tony down in Cubicle 17 even runs Linux on his laptop at home, he’s a righteous dude, man, so quit hating on Disney.

Plus Disney is totally providing me with these test suites to make sure that the DRM is 100% up to Disney standards, so you know that will be exactly what the users want. When I say users, I might not actually mean Linux users, but hey, users are users, right?

It seems to me Mono is the Twisted Hanna Montana Linux of development platforms.

That goes for you too, Moonlight

People focus on Mono a lot, but I like to keep the word out there that Moonlight is three times as offensively anti-community and six times as pointless.

Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols absolutely puts the new Moonlight release in perfect context in a new article up on Computerworld: Moonlight 2 arrives and falls flat on its face. I like this article because it puts aside any philosophical issues and just points out that Moonlight is full of fail on many different levels:

1. It doesn’t have the feature set of the “real” Silverlight.
2. What it does have doesn’t work reliably.
3. It is a near certainty points 1 and 2 will never stop being true.

Rant endth

Fin.

Here is a quote that I like:

“You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.”

- Ben Franklin

If you are in an argument with someone, and you ask them “Well, what would it take for you to change your mind, then?” And they answer “Nothing!”, then walk away. No amount of rational discourse will reach that person.

I like to think I have reasoned myself into my current position; I certainly didn’t get up one day and throw a dart at a board and decide to hate on Mono for a while. So, one of the things I have to do is to challenge myself by asking “What would it take for me to change my mind?”

Not one thing is either necessary or sufficient, but more list of solutions to problems I see.

On Trusting Microsoft

This is the big one, because a lot of the concern is that Microsoft has it in for Linux and will do something, sometime to hurt it. What we need is some assurance that prevents Microsoft from unfairly crippling Linux. That is, if somehow Microsoft released a Windows so glorious that the whole earth’s population desired it, that’s one thing. But if Microsoft gets down to about 40% market share, falling fast, and calls in Darl McBride, that’s another thing.

Microsoft joins the OIN.

Yeah, that would be undeniable proof it is a new day. We see all up and down in Microsoft internal emails that Microsoft considers how to use patents against competitors. That doesn’t necessarily mean dragging them into court – threating and waving them around and then coming in for some sort of “agreement” is aggressive use of patents, too. Joining a patent defense organization like OIN would be a major signal Microsoft is ready to compete on merit and not legal trickery.

Microsoft talks honestly about Linux and Open Source

People specifically hired to spin Open Source do not count. I mean Executives, the kind with a golden toilet on the Lear Jet. People that matter and have a real say in Microsoft strategy. I don’t doubt that Joe McCoder, the new hire, thinks Open Source is nifty. I do doubt Joe McCoder, the new hire, has bumbley-squat to do with Microsoft policy.

Microsoft replaces Ballmer with someone non-psychopathic

On a related note: with Ballmer in charge, it’s just hard to really believe that Microsoft is doing anything more than being cold and calculated (poophouse crazy is an alternative). Get respectible people in charge.

Microsoft releases some interesting code, GPL style for bonus points

We almost got there with this virtualization code. There’s nothing really wrong with Microsoft releasing code they benefit from, it is to be expected. Except now it turns out it might be something they had to do because of a possible GPL violation. Which poops all over the whole thing.

Still, if they released some code that was useful all around, and it was GPL, each bit would move me that much closer to treating Microsoft less hostile. This is because the more Microsoft has invested in the Open Source community, the less likely it is they will turn around and attack us. Some people think Microsoft is already at, or closely approaching that point. I don’t think so.

Microsoft releases a linux distro

Why not? They had XENIX right? And they might even be able to make a business case out of it: “If you have to use Linux, use Microsoft Linux!”. This is because I believe the GPL protects us well enough that even such an … unexpected … move by Microsoft would only reap benefits in the community. Plus, with Microsoft Linux, Ubuntu users would finally have a distro to look down on! It’s a win-win!

Time passes peacefully

One of the problems Microsoft faces is that they have such a long and rich history of hostile behavior. How does one realistically trust an entity like that? Say they were “evil” for 10 years, then say “Oh, we changed!”. Do you trust them on year 11? Year 15? Year 20? What if they keep doing things that are offensive? Year 25?

Microsoft keeps doing things that are offensive. It’s a sort of 1-step-forward, 2-steps-back thing. More steps forward, less steps back, please.

Also it would help if people would stop pretending that distrusting Microsoft is some sort of irrational response. Here is another saying I like:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

-Marcello Truzzi

Claiming that Microsoft is “Open Source Friendly” is an extraordinary claim. Just saying it is not enough. It will take time, actions, and words to get people to accept that. Don’t pretend like people are nutbars because they feel the burden of proof hasn’t been met yet – especially since those people probably aren’t all that interested in what Microsoft is offering anyway.

Let me just expand on that a bit: a lot of the “give Microsoft a break already” people have a financial or other ulterior motives. Hearing it from them doesn’t help a whole lot – it can even backfire. Hearing it from people who are unrelated to anything Microsoft helps a lot more.

On Trusting Mono / Moonlight / Novell

A Credible Endorsement

This really applies all around, but I’ll stick it here.

One of the reasons I don’t go on about the Open Specification Promise is that Red Hat indicates they are alright with it. I figure Red Hat knows what they are doing, so drive on. That’s the advantage of retaining your integrity, when you say something people believe you.

This is also why I think Stallman has been attacked so fiercely. If he were to speak approvingly of C#/Mono, I think most people would accept that and move on. I would certainly relax – in fact, I had relaxed and “given up the fight” until he came out and explicitly called for it to be discouraged.

Novell comes “back into the fold”

Novell does not renew its deal with Microsoft, and competes as Red Hat does. Drop all that “piece of mind” and any similar talk. Do not accept or promote exclusive Microsoft-Novell arrangements. Yes, yes, I know they aren’t the only company to strike deals with Microsoft. But they are who we are talking about here.

Mono focuses on OpenSuse or a new distro

One of the things that bothers me is how much focus there is on getting Mono into Debian/Ubuntu/GNOME. I think I understand why, but it seems that Mono is trying to “ride the coat tails” of the most popular distros/DEs, and leverage Miguel’s relationship with GNOME.

We see a number of Windows titles come to Linux via Mono

On a practical note, I like cool software just as much as anyone. If I saw a lot of cool Windows software coming over via Mono, I’d be inclined to look a little more favorably on Mono. As it is now, Wine is much better in this particular area, and doesn’t have the nasty promoting Microsoft vibe that I dislike about Mono.

Which is strange, because Mono apologists seem to love to point out how Mono/Wine are similar, while ignoring that Wine isn’t in the default install, nor are people seriously suggesting using Wine as an important development platform.

If Mono was a good as they say it is

This is a tough one, but if Mono was as good as it is talked up by the promoters, then it might be worth the risk. That is, if it helps developers become crazy productive, then it might be something worth the fight if it should come to that. A much much weaker version of this would apply to the individual apps themselves.

Not to put down the hard work done by mono developers, but lynchpinning Mono inclusion on a note-taking app and then arguing about comparative features makes the whole shebang look weak. It’s a freaking notetaking app, not a cure for cancer.

If I didn’t think the promotion/defense was dishonest

There is still a little bit of this – the original reason why I became anti-mono – but I think most of it has been hashed out. It doesn’t mean I agree with all I’ve heard, but I used to think there wasn’t any honesty at all! I don’t mind disagreeing if I think both people just have a different view on things; I just don’t like feeling like I am being lied to.

One thing that helped me in this area is after the Community Promise event I changed my strategy for this blog. I promised that I would not go back in time and pick apart past arguments, instead I tried to post my reasoning and answer direct questions. I found that made me try a lot harder to articulate my position and also struggle to answer some mono defenses. If I had just focused on finding old fallacious arguments, I think things would have went in a very different direction! (They would have been much easier on me, for one thing, I can tell you that.)

Work on presentation

I sympathize that one grows tired of defending something. The best response I can have to that is people had to know what they were getting into by “embracing” Microsoft. To be honest, I really think the Mono PR badly badly stumbled from day one, and has never really gotten much better.

Consider this: Mono apologists like to compare Mono and Wine. Lots of people “hate” Mono. Not lots of people “hate” Wine. Look at it just from a PR standpoint. How is Wine presented compared to how Mono is presented? Perhaps technical-minded people don’t think presentation matters, that a technical argument towers over everything. That belief is wrong. Think of all the technically superior products and technologies that “lost”. Technical arguments go a long way, but they don’t go the distance.

What about you?

Can you even consider what it would take to move you to the other side? Can you even acknowledge the other side might have a point?

For example, I would ask the pro-mono contingent, exactly how aggressive would Microsoft have to get with patents before you think it is a real concern? Obviously more than internal emails, normal Microsoft FUD, Tom-Tom and Buffalo. Is there any patent action that Microsoft could take that would alarm you in this area?

Or, how about anti-community, exclusive agreements? Mono is not too bad in this area. Moonlight is much worse. What if Novell struck a new deal with Microsoft that was even more “Novell-only”? Would you protest, or just shrug and accept it?

Or, how about what level of disagreement do you think is appropriate for something you just don’t approve of? Is any level of public criticism acceptable? Is it ever acceptable for people just to say “I don’t want that”? Is it ever acceptable for people just to say “I don’t want that, and I don’t want it in my distro, and I’m going to let people know”?

We throw around “zealot” and “shill” like it is nothing, but some people on both sides genuinely hold the point of view they espouse. Yeah, yeah, the internet is serious business, I know – but if you are intellectually honest, you need to examine all sides of the argument as best you are able. If, on the other hand, you are in it for the lulz, fast cars and supermodels, well then …. you have chosen poorly.

In which zekopeko makes a proposition

In a comment to my Totally Awesome Rocks and Excellent article “Ubuntu Free Speech Zones”, zekopeko makes a very interesting proposition:

MS position certainly is “entrenched” on the market, but as we can see it’s slowly but surely being eaten by FLOSS solutions. And in part thanks to Mono, whether you like it or not.

This is a powerful proposition, and deserves serious consideration.

In which a zealot who is not part of the real community zealously expresses his zeoltry with zeal

BEWARE! Crazy zealot beliefs coming up. This is what I think when I’m not eating babies and trying to destroy Freedom single-handedly:

1. Microsoft has a much larger influence than FLOSS on the computing industry.
2. Microsoft influence needs to be reduced.
3. Microsoft influence is likely to decrease over time, for many reasons.

I know that is some crazy juice negative hateful talk, and I can only hope you are seated for the next part, because I’m really going to let the freak flag fly:

1. FLOSS has a much smaller influence than Microsoft on the computing industry.
2. FLOSS influence needs to be increased.
3. FLOSS influence is likely to increase over time, for many reasons.

I know that is some insane stuff there, and I probably deserve to be roundly condemned for such “faux community” ideals. Why it’s almost if I had …shudder… principles!  Here are some logical extensions of my belief:

1. I am generally opposed to those things that help Microsoft.
2. I am generally supportive of those things that help FLOSS.
3. I am generally supportive of those things that hurt Microsoft.
4. I am generally opposed to those things that hurt FLOSS.

Well, now that you have seen how irrational I am, I can only hope you will read on.

In which a few facts are established

1. .NET is a key Microsoft technology / initiative / mouthwash / salad topping.
2. Microsoft discussed standardization before doing it.
3. We can know some, but not all, of Microsoft’s motives.

From these facts I think we can derive some logical conclusions:

1. Microsoft is aware that .NET is a valuable technology for Microsoft.
2. Microsoft did not standardize portions of .NET for no rational reason whatsoever.

Am I going to fast for anyone? You in the back with the gnome cap and the drool, pooping in your hand and flinging it at that poster of Richard Stallman, still with us?

In which some insight is given

Let us look directly at what some people in the Microsoft camp internally thought about the release of .NET to the Unwashed Masses:

Bill Gates (2001):

We have to spend a lot of money to make sure the openness of C# is well understood and that it is accepted at a level that allows our innovations to have traction. [...] The strength of this platform and the innovation around it is the key element in preventing commodization by Linux, our installed base and Network Appliance vendors.

It is important to understand when Bill Gates says “well understood” he means “thought of the way Microsoft wants”. He uses this exact euphemism frequently. He also likes to say “innovation” when he means “proprietary closed extensions”.

Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft GM (2001):

[Working on cross-platform .NET CLR] is terrifying. A x-plat strategy is not a winning strategy.

[...]

[The .NET CLR cross-platform strategy is] potentially worse than that – we both validate x-platform and then demonstrate conclusively we not prepared to deliver on it.

Srivats Srinivasan, Microsoft PM (2001):

We understand the need for DMD to proliferate the format … however, if it is at the expense of our embedded OSs, I fear that it can hurt us in the long run. Especially when you consider that part of enabling the .NET vision is to embed our OSs in devices of all forms going forward – hence our apprehension.

Graham Clark, Microsoft GM (2001):

I would like to understand the x-plat strategy, because I don’t get it and nor does anyone in the field. It doesn’t seem to make ANY sense.

By putting CLI into ECMA, we are inviting x-plat implementations. With Rotor we are even doing some work on Linux and Solaris.

For enterprise customers/partners, wanting to build enterprise apps, all this is meaningless as there is no mechanism to provide transaction (and other core services) support on these non-Windows implementations. J2EE clearly has a mechanism, albeit faulty, to enable these x-plat services.

I can think of four explanations for our current strategy (as I and the field see it):

1. There is something happening to provide these applications services x-platform that I don’t understand (based on Joe [Long]’s proposition, I doubt it is this).

2. We think that our customers/partners/analysts are stupid and that they won’t see our approach as insufficient for real enterprise apps.

3. We are going to evangelize to IBM and others to plug their own transaction services under CLI on Linux (without specifying how). Joe’s proposal is to tell them how.

4. We haven’t thought thru a strategy that will make sense after anything more than a superficial inspection – if so why are we doing all the Rotor work?

If the answer is (2) then we have learned nothing from the past 5 years and J2EE will continue to kick our butts. I would rather see Microsoft say x-plat is BS rather than make a half step (Rotor, CLI) that will confuse everyone and lead to continued distrust of our motives for doing it.

Dan Neault, Microsoft GM (2005):

Maintaining Gap vs. Linux

1. Keep network effect with Applications

• Migrate applications to .NET framework
  • BUT keep framework proprietary to Windows
  • Patents required to implement clone

[...]

Maintaining Gap vs. Linux

• The .NET framework contains the latest developer platform for the future, and it must be licensed like Windows. Subsets have gone about as far as they should go in the standards bodies, but we need a compact subset for phones and TVs. It was noted that we have to be careful because once the horses are out, they are out forever. At the right royalty, we can have discussions around technology beyond this.

[...]

• The plan in that images, inks, and still formats will not go to Linux like some of our digital media formats will. This would mean that if someone downloads images, it might violate patents. There was a discussion of a new format where as one takes pictures, the pixel resolution compresses.

[...]

[...]Strategy Axioms
Technical Axioms

• Invest in formats/protocols (ensure we are not blocked; gather IP advantage if possible)

Eric Rudder, Senior VP (2005)

As many of you may know, we’ve actually kind of broadened the product portfolio of Visual Studio, targeting all the way from the low end with students and hobbyists, kind of competitive in that Linux space, making sure that every developer has a copy of .NET and is trained in writing .NET solutions. We introduced the low-end version we call Visual Studio Express, so we have Visual C# Express, Visual Basic Express, and Web Developer Express. These products are still in their beta phases, but we actually had more than a million downloads of Visual Studio, which is quite healthy for a developer tool. I think it will really help us in our competition with open source.

These are all court exhibits or public statements made not by janitors or interns or mouthpieces hired to spin doctor Microsoft’s image; these are decision makers. They are Microsoft, and this is discussion that went on for years surrounding the relase of parts of .NET for standardization.

No matter what level of supervillian-like nefariousness you care to read into such quotes, you will surely agree that the decision to standardize parts of .NET was throughly considered by Microsoft before doing it.

In which a point is made

Why exactly do you think Microsoft decided to standardize parts of .NET?

There can be no doubt they discussed the ramifications of such an action. Do you think that Microsoft would act against its own best interests?

Then it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft thought standardizing parts of .NET was in Microsoft’s best interests.

We should be able to stop there, but I know my Gentle Readers clamor for ever more elucidation. Plus, I’m not leaving until the poop-flinger in the back does.

Alright, one may say, Microsoft released parts of .NET because it was in thier best interests? So what! Mono still helps Linux and Open Source development! So neener neener to you, Mr. Mono-Hater!

Fine, Mono may indeed help FLOSS to some degree. The question is, does it help Microsoft more than it helps Linux? This is an important question, because if you help your competition more than yourself, you are in effect harming yourself.

What is Mono doing?

We know Mono must help Microsoft. Microsoft would not have allowed for the ECMA standardization if they did not come to the same conclusion.

Here are some ways Mono helps Microsoft:

• Spreads Microsoft standards
• Spreads Microsoft mindshare
• Increases FLOSS dependency on Microsoft
• Good PR value for Microsoft
• Mono apologists are often obliged to defend Microsoft
• Mono evangelists are often obliged to be Microsoft evangelists
• Divides, distracts and delays the community
• Makes it easier for FLOSS developers to develop on Windows
• Provides some nice FLOSS applications for Windows
• Provides developer tools
• Helps in Microsoft’s fight against Flash
• Helps in Microsoft’s fight against Java
• Decreases effort in general for non-Microsoft tools

Think on that. When a Mono developer stands on stage with a huge slide that says:

“Moonlight is an Open Source implementation of Microsoft’s Silverlight technology … and it is awesome”

They are evangelizing Microsoft. They are promoting Microsoft. They are increasing Microsoft’s mindshare. That is good PR for Microsoft. Microsoft actually pays some people money to do that! That is actually a career for some people!

Now, here are some ways Mono helps Linux that are unique to Linux (i.e. not covered in the above list):

• Provides partial compatibility with some Microsoft offerings

There are almost no unique benefits to Linux from Mono. Microsoft enjoys almost every benefit that Linux does from the Mono project, as well as some unique ones. I think it is quite clear that Mono benefits Microsoft more than Linux.

A difficult question

Consider this: Say that Microsoft released .NET for Linux in the same manner they did for Windows. Do you think that it would enjoy the same adoption, enthusiasm and support that Mono enjoys?

If you answer is not “Yes. Absolutely”, then you are acknowledging that ideals and ethics do matter. Quit pretending like people that have them are some sort of embarrassment holding Linux back.

That is the problem with a purely “pragmatic” approach. That is the problem with preaching that “users just want something that works”.

An easier question

And now, I think we can return to zekopeko’s original thesis: Microsoft’s position is slowly being eaten away in part by Mono.

I reject that. I do think that Microsoft’s position is slowly being eaten away; but I do not think Mono is playing a significant role there. I think that Mono helps Microsoft at least as much, if not more than it helps FLOSS. So, it can not “eat away” at Microsoft’s position, because it is in fact bolstering Microsoft’s position.

So I ask you, should the community support something that harms it?

It looks like Adobe is opening up the Open Source Media Framework (OSMF) and the Text Layout Framework (TLF), both using the Mozilla Public License (MPL), and a nice simple patent statement:

By releasing OSMF under MPL 1.1, Adobe is granting certain patent rights to this code. Adobe may seek patents for innovations in OSMF to defend its technologies against patent assertions.

Note that this is a positive statement, that is Abode is explictly granting rights. Contrast this with the various Promises offered by Microsoft where the promise is negative: “we will not sue”. That is one of the issues that the FSF also has a problem with, as mentioned in the recent release on C#:

The Community Promise does not give you any rights to exercise the patented claims. It only says that Microsoft will not sue you over claims in patents that it owns or controls. If Microsoft sells one of those patents, there’s nothing stopping the buyer from suing everyone who uses the software.

Food for thought there, especially considering the proxy battles Microsoft has waged against Linux in the past; $86M to SCO, for one example.

Maybe it’s worth explictly telling those people that say things like: “Microsoft would be suicidal to sue” that that is simply not true. Microsoft could easily sell off one patent to any patent troll company to attack Linux with – then what? It’s not like Microsoft doesn’t spawn patent troll companies.

Industry Media Reaction

The most interesting analysis I’ve seen so far is from InfoWorld, who place this move in the context of both Silverlight and Mircrosoft’s recent virtualization code contribution.

Anything released by Adobe to open up Flash is great, and Adobe seems to be recognized the value in capturing Open Source developers.

Additional Thoughts

I think it’s clear that Adobe and Microsoft are the two main competitors in the so-called Rich Internet Application (RIA) arena; we don’t have a real Free option here.

Given those two choices, it’s clear that to the extent that FLOSS development needs to be done in that space, I feel it should be focused on Adobe’s offerings, but they don’t seem to have a whole lot of resources put on the Open Source side of things just yet.

Check the Adobe Open Source site to see what Adobe is doing there – it’s not very slick, not very community oriented. Microsoft is doing everything they can to emulate and fake “community” because they rightfully saw community as one of the great strengths of Open Source. I don’t think Adobe fully sees that yet.

What is Free Software?

Forget that “Open Source” stuff. I’m talking about the good stuff here. Good old “Free-as-in-Freedom-Fries” Free. How do we define Free software?

There are two common checklists: the “Four Freedoms” of the Free Software Foundation, and the Debian Free Sofware Guidelines. Let’s take a look at each one first:

Here’s the thing

We generally consider software Free based on the license under which it is released. Basically, if it falls under a GPL- or BSD-like license we call the software “Free”. This is because the entire implementation of Free Software is built upon the very clever use of copyright law that Richard Stallman saw. However the foundation of the concept is not restricted to the license alone. It is a lazy shortcut to determine if software is Free based solely on its license.

Consider this: Say I create a small bit of software and I get a clear patent on it. Assume there is no prior art and software patents are being upheld. I release the code under your favorite OSI-approved license while at the same time publicly stating I will sue anyone who distributes modified copies of the code for violating my patent. Is that software Free?

If you define your software as being Free based solely on its license, then yes it is. If, however, you define your software as being Free based on the ideas of the Four Freedoms or the DFSG, I would say it is not Free. This not just a silly thought experiment, there have been some creative attempts at parsing licensing in the past.

Consider this: Say in the future, there exists some new sort of legal classification of ideas. Call it “mindright”. Courts uphold that creators of a work control the “mindright” to a work, and if someone violates that “mindright” they can be sued. No existing license today speaks to “mindrights”. If I release a small bit of software under your favorite OSI-approved license while at the same time reserving “mindrights” for myself and publically stating I will sue anyone who violates my “mindrights”  with the code, is that software Free?

Again, if you only consider the license, you may say yes. But if you consider the whole picture, you probably will say no.

This is because it is not the license alone that makes software Free. The license is a way in the existing legal system to try to realize the concept of Free Software. If something in our legal system (or business practice) changes, then it could become true that the existing licenses are no longer sufficient to enforce or permit the necessary freedoms, and therefore software so licensed is no longer Free.

That’s where GPLv3 comes in

Agree or disagree with it, but that is why the GPL often says “or any later version”, and that is also much of the reason for the GPLv3. At the time of the GPLv2, software patents were not a consideration. Now they are. So the text of the GPL had to be updated to stay effective in the changed business environment. Understand clearly that the principles behind the GPL never changed. Because it is not the license that makes Free Software, rather it is what the license enforces that makes Free Software.

Consider this: Say the GPL was found in court to not do what we all think it does. The judge decides some clause or two is wrong and so the GPL is invalid and not legally binding. The GPLv4 will have to be introduced to deal with this new development. Software that is released under the old versions of the GPL will no longer be Free Software, because the license can not enforce the requirements of being Free Software.

Whither now, Mono?

Because we know Microsoft holds patents over C#, the CLI, and other parts of .NET, it becomes risky to think that a license alone makes Mono Free Software, because the licenses Mono is released under are silent on the point of patents. We need some additional assurances. International standard bodies requires RAND licensing, but that alone is not enough for Free Software. A one-time payment of $5 is reasonable and non-discriminatory if required of everyone, but that certainly is not Free software in any sense of the word. No-royalty helps, but again there could be other terms that prevent RAND-Z technologies from being Free.

You could promise not to sue, but the problem with a promise like that is there are all sorts of doubt about what a promise actually covers. Companies go to court all the time for differences of interpretation in legal documents, and Microsoft making up a Community Promise or Open Specifications Promise mitigates, but does not eliminate all risk. (All risk can not be eliminated, of course, so that alone is not a failing of the Community Promise.)

The question then becomes: Do you think that the licensing of the software, when combined with the patent assurances Microsoft has given are sufficient to meet all the requirements of the Four Freedoms? Of the Debian Free Software Guidelines?

Think on that in great detail and see what answer you come up with – think on it first trusting Microsoft to do the “right” thing, and once again assuming Microsoft will do the “wrong” thing. Can software be conditionally Free, depending on the intention of Microsoft? It is a sort of Schrödinger’s Freedom – how Free the software is depends on how Microsoft decides to act!

Perhaps you think that the assurances of the ECMA/ISO standard and the Community Promise are sufficient when combined with the licensing terms to consider Mono Free Software. I do not think that is an unreasonable conclusion. Now, read Microsoft’s Moonlight Covenant, and see if you get the same answer about Moonlight.