Image released under the mono-nono.com Community Promise. Patent sharing secretive deals also available. We do not offer GPLv3, so quit asking you smelly hippies.

I like his “10 Commandements” points. Most of that is pre-CP stuff, which I’ve said I’ll go easy on, but it’s still true.

I won’t say there isn’t some zealotry on the anti-mono side, but there is plenty of quasi-religious belief on the pro-mono side as well.

Not everyone can be perfectly logical like Mr. Spock and myself, Gentle Reader. Every logical fallacy, no matter how small pains me – every false premise offends, every jump to conclusion obscene. Whoa unto us great debaters. Whoa unto us master debaters. Whoa unto – alright I’ll stop there.

 The comments are actually worth reading.

Allow me to digress

There is a comment from Mr. de Icaza – parts of which you know I must take issue with:

People like to point out to Microsoft’s actions in 1998, a decade letter the company is a different entity, all you have to see are all the specs that they have granted patent-free access (like the binary file formats and the XML file formats for Office, the crown jewel of the company).

I’m not sure why people undermine thier own arguments. Implying that 1998 is the year Microsoft got religion only hurts the argument. Microsoft has done plenty of evil since 1998 – a nice long overview of it is in Microsoft: A History of Anticompetitive Behavior (PDF).

Here’s just a taste of well-past-1998 stuff:

In 2003, the DOJ discovered that Microsoft had built a feature into Windows that invoked Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser, rather than the user’s chosen default browser, contrary to the clear obligations of the Final Judgment. 

Similarly, in 2004, Microsoft attempted to require licensees of its middleware offering, the .NET Framework, to obtain Microsoft’s prior consent before publishing any benchmark testing results for the software.

 In 2005, Microsoft demanded that manufacturers of portable music players sign exclusive deals if they wanted integration with Microsoft’s Windows Media Player. 

And in 2007, Microsoft made changes to allow consumers limited choice of desktop search products in Windows Vista only following an extensive government investigation and pressure from a number of U.S. States. While Microsoft eventually made changes to its conduct in each of these instances, these incidents all demonstrate Microsoft’s willingness to use its monopoly products aggressively first and make changes later only when confronted about its behavior. This is particularly striking coming, as it does, within the very limited range of issues covered by the Final Judgment.

 In fact, the district court overseeing the Final Judgment extended the decree for two more years, to November 12, 2009, because Microsoft still has not come into compliance with its obligations regarding communications protocols.

There’s a lot more than that, in the report and even more not in the report. So yeah. You can make the arguments that “Microsoft is a big company” or “That’s business” or “Microsoft is changing, things take time”, “There are decent people in there” and so on. But don’t pretend like Microsoft stopped being a big ball of evil-ness 10 years ago, or pretend like people don’t have very good reasons even today to treat Microsoft with extreme distrust. We all know that is not true, and it weakens your position to assert it.

Just like it would weaken my position if I asserted everything Microsoft does is evil. But I don’t. I think Microsoft does do some non-evil stuff.

By accident. /rimshot

Microsoft earned every bit of disdain, trust and wariness they recieved. And they will have to earn trust – they don’t just get to say it’s a new day, they have to prove it. It’s sad for them that it takes much longer to earn trust as it does distrust, but they thought it was worth the tradeoff.

In which I continue to digress because I am waiting on Dave to freakin’ show up

In another place, de Icaza says “working with Microsoft has been an absolute pleasure”. I’m sure it has been. For you. Microsoft must positively love the mono project. It’s the absolute single best thing that could happen to Microsoft in relation to Open Source, short of Linus killing Stallman and then going to work for SCO.

Of course those other Open Source projects that don’t line up quite so nicely with Microsoft’s interests might have a different take on the “working with Microsoft” experience.

In which I summarize because Dave is finally here

Anyway, all that is a little off-topic, but I can’t help but to address it, because it always seems so odd to me that de Icaza would even want to bring that stuff up. It’s not really germane to the debate, and seriously dude no one cares that Microsoft is “nice” to the mono project, because everyone sees it as a catspaw anyway (speaking in general terms of the criticism of mono).

It’s worth a read only if you want to see yet a tossed salad of misconceptions and poor arguments mixed in a bowl of misunderstand.

You’ll often hear mono incorrectly compared to Wine or Samba. This is the first time I’ve heard moonlight compared to Samba:

Others might argue that several of these programs, Moonlight/Moonshine in particular, make it easier to Linux users to use Microsoft-based, hence anti-open-source, software. True, but let’s get real. Samba, one of the purest of the open-source products in the long Microsoft/open-source war, has always been able making it possible for Linux users to work with Windows file servers. Microsoft’s dominance in many areas of computing is a fact. It only makes sense to me that open-source developers should work on projects that help with Windows/Linux interoperability.

There’s a lot wrong here, but the two simple points to make is that Microsoft’s Silverlight is nowhere close to the necessity that Microsoft’s file systems are; and two you do know the main man of Samba quit Novell specifically because of the Novell deal? It’s like you are crapping all over his moral stand by missing the large toilet bowl of point just to your left.

There are lots of other reasons why Samba is not like Silverlight – for example: The Samba team didn’t get all sorts of Samba-only test suites from Microsoft. The EU courts didn’t force Microsoft to release Silverlight documentation. Samba has done incredibly hard work reverse-engineering Microsoft filesystems and networking protocols, Moonlight not so much. Samba doesn’t have some sort of Novell-only “covenant” with Microsoft. And on and on.

Another reason why people grumble about Mono is that it’s backed by Novell, a company that some people in the Linux community hate because of its Microsoft partnership. But, Novell isn’t in Microsoft’s back-pocket. Faced with a dominant player in the Linux server market, Red Hat, Novell has elected to try to play the interoperability card with Windows to gain market share. It hasn’t been a rousing success for Novell, but, I’d argue it’s kept them in the operating system game with their SLE (SUSE Linux Enterprise) line.

Microsoft has given Novell about what, $542 million, now?[1] You take that much cash from someone and you are not just in thier back pocket, you are in whatever pocket they want, playing whatever game of pool they want.

Of course, Microsoft could threaten lawsuits with patents relating to Mono as well. After Peter Galli, a Microsoft support manager, publicly announced on the Microsoft Open Source blog that Microsoft wouldn’t go after developers using the “C# programming language … and Common Language Infrastructure (CLI),” in short the heart of Mono, I can’t see any court letting Microsoft’s lawyers even get their seats warmed up before tossing any patent lawsuit against Mono programmers out the door.

Consider this scenario:

Microsoft decides for whatever reason this mono experiment has gotten out of hand. It’s time to shut it down. They go into court.

“Your honor, we have tried to work with the community. We submitted a core technology to international standard bodies. However, that was not enough for some – they insisted on copying ever more of our intellectual property, expanding far beyond the standard we generously committed to, abusing our efforts of interoperability. It is unreasonable we are expected to donate every bit of our technology to our competitors, and we seek relief against this out-of-control clone project.”

Mono is done. Not only does Microsoft have a perfectly valid attack, but they get to look like the victim while doing it!

In other words, chill about Mono already people. Trying to turn Mono into some kind of free software political litmus test is a waste of time and it’s just getting people ticked off for no good reason.

I don’t think mono is much of a litmust test about Free Software. Mono supporters are almost proud of thier collective disdain for the GPL, FSF, and rms. They are much more in the Open Source camp than the Free Software camp. The watchword for most mono supporters is “pragmatism”. Every so often someone pays a little lip service to freedom or some other hippie ideal.

There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s perfectly alright to place your priorities where you see fit. I’m just saying the idea that mono is splitting “Free Software” is strange. Mono is more a wedge between the “Free Software” and “Open Source” sides of the tent.

So, to sum up, we should not be turning Mono application support into some kind of religious test for what should, or shouldn’t, be in Linux. The notion that Mono developers are somehow wicked for using the platform really needs to be dumped once and for all.

Finally, something I can agree with. So long as Mono can be shown to be safe from potential Microsoft attacks, then drive on. I think mono developers are helping Microsoft as much if not more than Linux; I think they are obnoxious and over-enamored with .NET; I think there is some wierd ass self-hating need to get validation from Microsoft in there; I think it is a tragedy that all the effort going into mono/moonlight is not going into non-Microsoft enabling project; and lots more things — but none of those are valid reasons for keeping something out of Linux.

[1] $442M in original deal. $100M more in later update. I would like to see a better, more accurate breakdown of exactly how much money has flowed from Microsoft to Novell.

Tolimar first posted a correction to rms’ understanding about the tomboy/gnote change in Debian packaging.

Now, about a week later, he has a correction to that correction, and attempts to explain what the change means a little better!

Heh.

It looks like the current situation is flexible and mono may or may not come it yet, depending on exactly how the developers decide to use CD space and package recommends.Boy, I bet that process is going to be nice an focused on nothing but technical issues! Where can I watch from?

And yes, yes I know the actual problem is the fault of the Gnome project. I lurve you, Debian!

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.

The main thrust of the argument is that the community needs clear and comprehensive assurances from Microsoft; which is something I think everyone should be agreeing on.

Again, to come back to one of my favorite mantras: it is the poor quality of mono apologists that moved me from apathetic to active on the mono question.

Another of my PATENTED analogies:

The mono recipe

1 part wide-eyed innocence: “Oh my, people are upset we cut a secretive and exclusive deal with Microsoft. No one could have forseen this! Leave Britney alone!”

1 part 3rd-Grade Lawyering: “But Mom! Everyone is violating patents! Why can’t I!”

1 part vicious personal attacks: “Mono critics are stupid zealots who eat babies and listen to Solja Boy”)

3 part straight up lies: “Every technology is equally risky. Microsoft is just like every company. Steve Ballmer has a full sleeve tattoo of the GPL.”

2 part overwhelming conceit: “Mono is awesome rocks. This API is brilliant. Gorgeous. Oh Christ, I just came all over this debugger. Jesus take me now…this namespace!! /squirt squirt squirt

Combine into one big stew of I don’t trust you.

Mono apologists love this one! Basically it boils down to “software patents suck because your code might infringe anyone’s patent, so every project is just as risky as mono, so don’t sweat us over patents.” Now, like all really good propaganda, this has a some core of truth: it is indeed true that software patents suck.

I despise it because not only is it dishonest, but because how easily it is tossed around by mono apologists.

I guess it’s because the argument starts of with some truth – explaining how idiotic the software patent system is in the United States – that people just disengage their brain, nod along, and agree with the entire argument.

Of all software projects, not all are equally likely to violate patents.

Both of these statements are true:

1. Project A, a large open source networking project may infringe on one or more Microsoft patents
2. Project B, a small open source ping implementation may infringe on one or more Microsoft patents

Microsoft has an Open Specification Promise on a wide swath of technologies that they promise not to sue anyone over, so long as you don’t sue them first. Implementing parts of .NET that are not part of the standard may infringe on Microsoft patents, because Microsoft was careful to limit how much of .NET they gave to the standards body. Internal emails from Microsoft show a careful deliberation over how much of .NET to standardize, and how much to make sure was protect by patents, specifically mentioning Linux and preventing the commoditization of the .NET platform.

This is true in a more general sense as well. Any software project covering a common technology like ping or telnet is much less likely to run into patent issues for many reasons: length of time technology has existed, the number of similar projects having worked in the same area without patent issues, etc.

Of all possible patent holders, not all present the same risk in likelihood of relevant patents

Both of these statements are true:

1. Mono may infringe on one or more Microsoft patents
2. Mono may infringe on one or more Dunk the Clown, Inc. patents

It is more likely that mono infringes on Microsoft patents, considering Dunk the Clown, Inc. is not the that has over 150 patents referencing the .NET framework. It is unlikely that any of Dunk the Clown, Inc. patents apply to mono.

Of those patent holders that do hold relevant patents, not all present the same risk of enforcement

Both of these statements are true:

1. Mono may infringe on one or more Microsoft patents
2. Mono may infringe on one or more Red Hat patents

It is more likely that Microsoft will attempt to use its patents against the mono project, than it is that RedHat will. Sure, Red Hat might go crazy insane and declare some sort of war on mono. Also, I might get invited over to Scarlet Johansson’s place for drinks and a night of passionate lovemaking tonight. /brb

Of those patents that are enforced, not all are as likely to be valid

Both of the statements are true:

1. Mono may infringe some random “one-click-shopping” patent, and it turns out that patent is valid in a court of law.
2. Mono may infringe some Microsoft patent, and it turns out that patent is valid in a court of law.

There are some things you can do to defend yourself if someone goes after you for patent violation. You can show prior art, for example. However, .NET is unquestionably a Microsoft technology. It is not unlikely that Microsoft holds valid patents covering .NET technology. While Microsoft certainly holds many patents that are invalid for a host of reasons, it is foolish to think that they don’t have some valid patents, especially on a technology they created!

Of those patents enforced and upheld, not all are as easy to workaround

Both of these statements are true:

1. Mono could be found infringing a minor Microsoft patent, easily worked around.
2. Mono could be found infringing a major Microsoft patent, required substantial changes.

I don’t know if you could say which of the two is more likely, but it is true that we know Microsoft carefully considered what to keep out of the standard, and discussed preventing the commoditization of .NET. It is not unreasonable to assume that patents underlying important concepts that would require substantial changes protect those areas that Microsoft considers crucial to keep proprietary.

Summary

I would love to think this would put this argument to rest, but I know it won’t. The truth of this argument is that although all projects do face some risks, all projects do not face the same risks. Anyway, at least next time Team Mono whips this one out you’ll be ready.

Wow – lots of interest in patents going around lately! Anyway, here’s C.J. Adams-Collier message:

Roy,

Would you like to work with me to fix the US patent system? I sure would like it if you’d stop saying mean things about the most active and effective Free Software developers I know. If we have to fix the broken patent system in order for you to stop giving F/OSS a black eye, then let’s do it, k?

A bit loaded, but a fair enough question.

I was disappointed to find the author already followed it up with an IRC log that he asserts shows “Roy and friends” were not interested. The log looks like it was back in Sep of 2008. It’s a mixture of hate and crazy on both sides – the IRC conversation is absolutely pointless, and the blog comments are basically vilification and point-and-laugh-at-the-crazies.

So, it looks more like a swipe at BoycottNovell than an actual call for rational discourse.

Anyway, worth a read if you want to see the bit of then bad on both sides, I guess.

It is just getting started, so it is too soon to tell how it will shape up.

One of the things I have often heard (from both sides) is that non-patent lawyers can not fairly assess a patent. I have a list of patents I think mono might violate, but I also realize I don’t have the technical ability to speak to the issue. To be perfectly honest, I am going very slow on bringing out individual patents, because I don’t want to make an ass out of myself pointing to a patent and being way off base.

I’ll be keeping an eye on the Linux Patents blog and seeing how things develop. I think “one-a-day” is too ambitious – I’m not sure that’s enough time for people to discuss what they are reading. I have read a lot of Microsoft patents. It ain’t Dick and Jane in there, I’ll tell you that.