Following up on Mono patent issues

You should remember every time you write an article about that supposed Mono patent danger, that software is only patentable in a small portion of the world (not in Belgium or the rest of the EU, for example). You are confusing a lot of people by making them think this could be a GLOBAL problem, when it only could be a LOCAL one.

In my opinion, you should use more energy fighting against software patents, and less ranting about a formidable framework like Mono.

If I know them correctly, I already try to ask this kind of question on a french website, they will soon use some old and dirty tecnics and try to put you on defense and naturally they will never answer any difficult questions. Good luck.

Guy,

First, I agree with you. I also commend your stance. It's logical, articulate and reasonable.

Largely the answers to (a) and (b) that you posed in your original post are:

1) Vested interest - The developers that have worked so hard on the applications built on Mono (C#) need to keep the community from abandoning those applications.

2) Ego - The developers that have worked so hard and have built apps that truly show their talents risk a 'demotion' in status. If Mono is stigmatized some of that sticks to them. If FUD swirls around it, that also sticks to them.

3) Indifference - Everyday users of applications aren't exposed to (or don't care about) the 'nuts and bolts' of how their computers work, the reasons development decisions are made, and the politics of control.

These are not criticisms of the people involved. It is human nature to want to be respected and to feel that one's work is meaningful. Nor is it reasonable to expect the 'everyday user' to understand or care about obscure technical (or political) issues.

As for patent protection (licensing) and the potential use of that as a weapon against the FOSS community. It's nearly a mathematical certainty and one that the community needs to inoculate itself against immediately. The license 'flavour' is in my opinion a red herring. No amount of legal promising can change the behaviour of an entity that has engaged in illegal (at worst) and unethical (at best) business practices, with impunity. Until there is a change in the software patent landscape (i.e. abolition) making attack impossible we should choose our dinner guests and our software buddies *very* carefully.

Saying "Pretty please" and "I promise to be nice" doesn't get the invite.

Thank you, this bothers me a lot as well.

From what I can understand from the article. The CP allows Mono developers a method to get out of the entanglement of their implementation should Microsoft decide to exercise their patents on technologies that pertain to .NET and C# specifically.

A) Am I reading this correctly? Does Microsoft commute the ability to the community to abandon Mono should it get "too hot" in the kitchen? Should litigation occur can the Mono team avoid it by promising to give up all efforts toward a .NET implementation?

B) If I am correct on this, does this ability extend to companies that distribute Mono? Such as Canonical who distribute Mono with Ubuntu, if they drop Mono do they forgo any litigation?

I am not asking this as an excuse for developing in Mono. As we all know, their are some out there that, despite all things considered, will continue to develop in Mono and add that contribution into community projects that will be distributed by third parties. It is seemingly futile to reason with these people about the dangers that is present with this technology. Thus, without "solid" evidence of a "clear" danger they continue to provide software to supplant other software within the community. It is their choice to go such a reckless path but, should our worst fears come to pass what residual effect would their actions have on the community in a broader sense? What recourse will we all have?

The actions of so few place so many into needless danger. We should consider what barriers there are available to us to blockade the tide let loosed by those few who find a need to open the floodgates.

I applaud your effort.

Many people will throw up their arms and say "I'm sick of this debate". Well, so am I, but until there's a proper resolution, the debate must continue. We can't pretend that the issue has been resolved just because we're tired.

This may be a tangent, but I would contend that many of the so-called "anti-Mono" voices are actually the most pro-mono of all; they actually care about establishing legal security for the future of Mono, rather than ignoring what are very real concerns.

Just the same as any public debate, there will be some nonsensical voices on all sides (let's not pretend that there are only two positions, here). But none of those invalidate the genuine concerns that are yet to be addressed.

And as I commented on Jono Bacon's blog, I find the popular “I AM NOT AFRAID OF PEOPLE WRITING CODE” graphic more than a little troubling. Can someone suggest how this should be read other than as an ad hominem attack on anyone who expresses concerns about the legal status of Mono? Is mocking other members of the community really the right way to make a point?

What I don't get is why people want to use C# and .NET so badly. It's not the only garbage-collected, mature GNOME-friendly platform out there. There's at least Python, Ruby, Java and recently Vala. There's no feature of C# that you don't get with Python/Ruby+C or Vala. Some features are missing from Java, but it's not that much of a deal-breaker in the end.

For all we know, Python, Ruby, Java or Vala might be covered by someone's patents, but we know for sure that C# is covered by the patents of a patent-troll. Why bother?

Why would you even bother to type "sic" regarding the use of the term "intellectual property". Almost all companies use that term, putting a "sic" after it seems as silly as calling DRM digital restrictions management. Everyone know what the DRM acronym stands for, there is no need to change it. Everyone knows IP means patents, copyright and trademarks (and any other hypotetical ownable rights that is not property).

Regarding Mono, before the community promise I did not believe it was more risky patent-wise to use that similar software such as Java or Python. Right now, (if it's Microsoft patents you are afraid of) it is probably among the safest pieces of open source software.
The fsf seems to think that it's so horrible that there even exists libraries which aren't covered by the Promise. Sure, it would have been better if they had been covered. But they aren't part of the ECMA/ISO standards, so it would be kind of odd if they were protected.
That said, Microsoft has less incentive to sue Mono users that users of other similar technlogies (because they want to push their standard).

But the FSF are mostly crazies anyway so that is a reason not to trust them. They push crazy licenses like the GPL, AGPL and so on, when they are obviously less free than MIT-like licenses or MIT-like licesnes with patent protection (like Apache, MSPL(!), etc). Also they seem to think that it is "unethical" to use proprietary software, and so on, so that just proves they are not perfectly sane.

Congratulations for the post. A good exercise of common sense! I am longing to see what the pro-mono "trolls" have to say, and if they will have just a half glimpse of that common sense. It's time to see people acting accordingly to their ideas and beliefs; anybody without ideas nor beliefs is surrendering at other's mercy. Perhaps it is time for some developers to develop some political and critical attitude on this issue, that won't hurt them, I suppose :) Long live FLOSS!