Stallman warns of Mono 'risk'
Richard Stallman, speaking at MIT in 2006.
(Credit: CNET)GNU project founder Richard Stallman has called on developers to pull back from Mono, arguing that increasing use of the open-source toolset could prompt legal action by Microsoft.
Mono is a .Net-compatible set of tools designed to allow applications based on Microsoft's C# programming language to run on platforms including Linux, BSD, Unix, Mac OS X, and Solaris. A number of popular open-source applications, such as the note application Tomboy and the photo manager F-Spot, depend on Mono to run. As a result, Linux distributions such as Debian have said they are considering including Mono in the operating system's default install.
But this is a "risky direction," Stallman wrote in an article published by the Free Software Foundation on Friday.
"It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use," he wrote. "The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground someday using software patents. This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger."
Stallman said writing and using applications that depend on C# is "a gratuitous risk," and called on developers to write alternative applications that do not depend on C#.
"We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible," he wrote.
Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.
Stallman's article is part of an ongoing controversy around Mono, an open-source project sponsored by Novell. Some, such as Stallman, have argued that Mono presents a legal risk for the open source community, while others have downplayed this risk.
Mono project founder Miguel de Icaza said in a 2006 blog post that developers intended to continue following policies designed to minimize the risk of any legal threat from Microsoft.
For example, the Mono project includes a Microsoft compatibility stack that implements proprietary Microsoft technologies such as ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms, but this code is kept separate from the main Mono stack, de Icaza said.
"We will... continue to keep the Microsoft and Mono stacks separated, as there is no need to add dependencies between them," de Icaza wrote.
Stallman said that his Friday article was inspired by the possibility that the popular Debian Linux distribution might include Mono by default. Debian developers have said in recent weeks that the distribution may include Mono by default simply because it is necessary for certain high-quality applications, such as Tomboy and F-Spot.
"As long as Tomboy and F-Spot are best-of-breed, they should be included--and with that, whichever libraries they happen to use," wrote Debian developer Jo Shields in a blog post earlier this month. "Mono is not a threat."
Correction, July 1, 5:04 a.m. PDT: This story has been edited to clarify Miguel de Icaza's position on Mono and the risk of patent infringement.
Matthew Broersma of ZDNet UK reported from London.
The closest they ever came? Google for Microsoft's "Open Specification Promise", and note the complete lack of any statement saying that they will not sue over patent issues (just copyright, and even then under very limited circumstances).
Maybe they've got better things to do than deal with this BS?
Until there is any substance to these rumours its just scare tactics and fearmongering.
Mono allows us to build our application on Windows and simply copy to Linux without having to recompile the application. You don't get that with C or C++.
I also agree that Microsoft should come out with an opinion on this right now instead of waiting until lost more software is using the .net framework and tools like Mono.
Perhaps the courts should take this into consideration when lawsuits are launched. Microsoft had ample time to object before it was widely in use. Maybe they should put "use it or lose it" into law, or even "you snooze you lose".
I agree with Mergatroid. I think Microsoft is trying to "MP3" Mono users (ie: be lax with enforcement and wait for wide adoption and then demand royalties).
_______________________
Got to agree as well. I think Microsoft is trying to MP3 people (put out something for free) and then tell people later "Oh, you have to pay for this!"
Frankly, the courts need to get MUCH more harsh on these copyright issues and tell patent and copyright holders "If you don't sue IMMEDIATELY when you find out that something is using your things, and I mean WITHIN A WEEK...... you cannot sue period and done with!"
He can apply to Java the same issues he has with C#.
The OpenJDK, JRE has been open sourced. The language and VM specifications are still exclusively the property of Sun.
C#, on the other hand is a standard(ECMA-334 - C# Language Specification)
Please take a little time to inform yourself. Or is it easier to just lie and hope no one notices?
hint: you can get OpenJDK (std. Java), Mobile Java (Java ME), or Glassfish (Java EE) - download the source for any of them from that page up there.
Meanwhile, where can I get open-source C#? (oh, that's right, you can't).
So, you were saying something about lies? I backed my statement up - can you? (and no, weaseling into a confusion of "standard" vs. "open" doesn't count ;) ).
If you haven't heard of Mono, you shouldn't post on this article.
no, I simply feel that a standard, where everyone can participate and shape the outcome, is better then something 'open' and proprietary, where you can sit on the side, shut up, and do it the way they tell you.
You seem to feel different. It isn't 'weaseling', it is simply the truth. Hope you like your masters whom you have no choice but to obey. I prefer to join and make things happen.
First, we need to distinguish between the VM and a particular language, which Penguinisto (uh, I mean "Random_Walk") doesn't seem to understand. The VM behind .NET is called the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI). CLI is an international standard, ECMA-335 aka ISO/IEC 23271.
There is NO actual patent issue with the CLI, just a bunch of FUD from certain parties. ISO standards require all relevant patents to be available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms for commercial use. For non-commercial use, Microsoft goes even a step further and provides the complete and open CLI source code under the terms of the Microsoft Shared Source CLI license. Mono:Runtime is an Open Source implementation of ISO/IEC 23271.
Second, C# is only of many languages which can run under CLI. Like the CLI itself, C# is an international standard (ISO/IEC 23270).
There are NUMEROUS open source implementations of C#, contrary to Random_Walk's attempted FUD. Examples include the 'cscc' compiler from DotGNU, and mcs from Mono.
Sorry, I misunderstood, and need ot amend. you feel 'open', like the sewers of 16'th century Europe, is better then 'closed', because you can see it.
You can't change it, you have no say in it, but you certainly can smell it.
So that alone makes it 'better'
So no, no 'open' c#. No argument there
Sun has open sourced Java. However, Sun has also made it impossible for anyone else to create an open source version of Java by not releasing the Java Compatibility Kit.
Unlike Java, C# and the CLR are truly open standards and protected from patents. However, much of what Mono implements is not part of the standard. Those parts are risky.
He is also the guy who contributed a mere 1 or 2 Mb (one floppy disk) of code (GNU Tools) and demands 1 CD (Ubuntu) to 4 DVD (SuSE) Linux distros to be called GNU/Linux 'cause he contributed "essential" tools for Linux to become "successful".
Let's ignore this sucker and let Linux go on without his FUD. Sometimes your "best friends" become your worst enemies.
Incidentally, Stallman wrote and released something a lot more useful to programmers than HURD; he wrote gcc... now guess how often that gets used? ;)
So before you write the guy off as a nutcase...
LOL... WOW.
Never mind being one of the first to encourage an open philosophy, pioneering the concept of "copyleft" and writing the most widely used free software license in existence.
Nah, these are minor in the grand scheme of things...
Maybe not computer games and computer movies, music, etc..... but everything else will be.
Because farmers give their crop our for free and cars are just given away at dealerships and nobody in the computer business has kids to feed, right?
Don't you see that this obsession of free as in "free beer" is not the way the world runs? I have no issues with free as in freedom, but this nonsense about monetary freeness has to stop. I write software for a living and my sweat and tears are at least conceptually worth a payment (provided the software I write is worth something) whether or not a bunch of lunies want to hold eachother's virtual hands while sitting in their basements singing kumbaya.
Do you write software? Did you pay for your computer? Do you think intel wil be handing out free chips and dell free computers? No! Then you have a econ 101 mismatch between your idea and the real world: You write software and give it our for free on a computer that you pay for.
C# is all about control and taking choices away from developers. Use C# and .net and you put yourself in a box from which escaping is very difficult and expensive.
Stallman is an idiot. Has always been an idiot. He always will be. He certainly knows better than what he he is saying here. He is just jealous of Bill Gates and enjoys hating Gates.
The only "closed" aspect of Java is the compatibility test suite which has not been opened - yet.
Stallman = /ignore
He personally developed or was instrumental in the development of tools like vi, make, gnu c and emacs just to name a few. I'll bet that some of you still use some of these tools.
And he still has a valid point about Mono as the ramifications concerning its use are unclear. And I concede that that same point could also be used to argue against using Java.
Incidentally I like and use both Java and C# and I will continue to do so wherever feasible.
Emacs was based on the work of numerous people including Guy Steele, Fred Wright, Dave Moon, Richard Greenblatt, Charles Frankston, and others.
The GCC compiler was also based on the work of other people. The only reason it was written from scratch is that no one would simply give him their compiler code.
Make was created by Stuart Feldman.
Stallman is not much more than a leach, only repackaging what other's have done and slapping his name across the top. I've never seen him give credit to the people who's ideas he used. The closest he ever comes is whining that they didn't give him their source code.
I have seen Mr. Stallman's name attached to so many pieces of software over such a long period of time that I failed to actually research who the originali authors were.
Thanks for the clarification...
But I still believe that Mr. Stallman has contributed to the world of software development in ways that most of us have not.
*eye roll*
Cody
I did not say that there is no risk of patent infringement in Mono. Saying so makes no sense as any non-trivial piece of code is likely going to infringe on a software patent. Owned by Microsoft or owned by someone else.
What my blog entry states is a rough outline of how we plan on dealing with patents in the Mono space which is not any different than how any other software project would deal with patents. I would appreciate a correction to your article which is misleading.
Richard Stallman has written on the problem with software patents in the past for example here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html
Another trivial patent that Microsoft owns today is a patent on VisualBasic's "IsNot" operator. A trivial patent that probably caught the clerk at the patent office asleep and it obviously can be worked around.
The merit and value of other patents is a different matter.
If you are going to continue with Mono, then there has to be a program in place that would invalidate the patents.
IsNot shouldn't be patentable in the first place.
Why develop in C#? Because time is money. And C# and the .Net/Mono libraries allow you to get things done extremely fast.
Money talks, BS walks....
What you are saying is pure BS.
What about when your .NET application is down due to some crash or worm infestation? sometimes having all your eggs in one basket is not a good idea ...
Stallman may be an MIT grad, but he's not as bright as one would suspect. Open Source is a pandora's box.
Micrsoft can sue is someone uses a C# patented idea in something besides C#. This makes every modern language besides C# more dangerous to use.
BTW...Don`t be paranoid. Microsoft won long ago.
RMS is actually THIS GUY
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/shoko-asahara/
in hiding !!!!!!
RMS is another of those wastes of space and oxygen you see, good brain shame he never used it for good (or evil).
Which in itself is the bigger crime. "oh im really smart, so ill spend my life and energy being a weirdo."