Novell's Mono team continues to improve its "Microsoft Silverlight on Linux" story, now with the release of Moonlight 1.0, an open-source implementation of Microsoft's Silverlight rich media technology for the Web, as CNET reports. It's a major upgrade to Moonlight and brings it closer to parity with Microsoft's Silverlight. Novell's Miguel de Icaza, the developer behind Mono and Moonlight, relied heavily on working in partnership with Microsoft to deliver the upgrade.
Therein lies both the promise and the peril of Moonlight. Well, one of them. For one thing, due to Microsoft-imposed restrictions, Moonlight still doesn't work with a great deal of the Silverlight content on the Web, a fact pointed out by Computerworld.
An even bigger problem, however, is the fact that Microsoft Silverlight is still far behind Adobe Flash in terms of market share. Microsoft, for its part, claims Silverlight is "not dead yet," but Adobe is probably right to stifle a yawn at its efforts to date. Flash has long worked with Linux because Adobe hasn't had the same anti-Linux fetish that has long plagued Microsoft's Jekyll-and-Hyde attempts to be both a platform company and an application company, with the former competing with Linux but the latter (should be) embracing it.
But the biggest problem is the patent encumbrance that comes with Microsoft-blessed Moonlight and Mono. As Mike Schroepfer, formerly the vice president of Engineering at Mozilla (and now serving that role for Facebook), pointed out at Mix'08 and reported by The Industry Standard:
During the discussion, de Icaza explained that while anyone who downloaded Moonlight from Novell was protected by the company's licensing of Silverlight codecs from Microsoft through the company's own cross-licensing agreement....Schroepfer...then raised the question that if he downloads and then distributes the code for Moonlight, would he get the patent protection?
"There is a patent covenant for anyone that downloads [Moonlight] from Novell," answered de Icaza, who then acknowledged that "as to extending the patents to third parties -- you have to talk to Microsoft."
This answer led Schroepfer to point out the inconsistency between having products that are called open source but are "patent-encumbered."
I don't fault Novell/de Icaza for this, but Microsoft can and must do better. If it actually cares about having Silverlight run on Linux through the Moonlight project - and, frankly, I don't think it does - then it should allow Novell to release Moonlight in a patent-unencumbered manner.
Microsoft's current policy puts Linux users in an uncomfortable position if they actually want to exercise their development rights under Moonlight. The only way to safely do so is under Microsoft's watchful eye/patent covenant.
Microsoft continues to struggle with how to interoperate with open source, but it's larger stumbling block is interoperating with the openness of the Web. Moonlight and the patent encumbrances thereto serve as a constant reminder that Microsoft really doesn't grok the Web, which is about freedom of access and open protocols.
Perhaps Microsoft should read more Lessig [PDF], and less Ballmer.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.
I had to laugh when I read The Register's title of a recent post:
Mono man accuses Mac Gtk+ fans of jeopardizing Linux desktop
Umm...I don't think the Linux desktop faces any real threat from a group of developers advocating for change. I'm not sure a group of Mac fans could possibly do the Linux desktop more harm than it has done to itself. The Linux desktop is already in serious jeopardy, and it has nothing to do with which developer kit people use to build it, or changes to Gtk+. Miguel de Icaza disagrees:
According to de Icaza, developers working for Gtk+ specialist Imendio pushing the proposal have "given up on the Linux/Gnome desktop." Having switched to Apple's OS X as their main desktop, they are focused on source code compiling to Macs with some changes, instead.
The Linux desktop isn't broken, per se, but it needs a shot in the arm. Miguel is concerned about what a shift away from Gtk+ will do to the ISV ecosystem. What ecosystem? Novell, Red Hat, and...?
... Read more
In the past I've criticized Miguel de Icaza, Novell's rock star open-source developer, for getting too cozy with Microsoft. Even so, I've never doubted Miguel's commitment to open source.
All the worse for him, therefore, that he has to live with Novell's mistakes. Microsoft convinced Novell to go along with its strategy to create a walled garden of "safe open source" (meaning, all open source that pays Microsoft a fee) versus "risky open source" (meaning, all open source that doesn't pay Microsoft a fee). Red Hat was right to resist and push Microsoft to open up. Novell was wrong to capitulate.
I've long known that Miguel didn't have his heart in that tie-up, so it was refreshing to see him go on the record at Microsoft's own conference about Novell's mistake in entering into the agreement:
I'm not happy about the fact that such an agreement was made, but [the decision] was above my pay grade; I think we should have stayed with the open-source community.
For once, I have nothing to add.
A few days ago I crossed the line between corporate and personal. I criticized Miguel de Icaza, a developer for whom I have significant professional respect. I suggested that he use his considerable talents on other projects with (in my estimation) more market impact.
That's not my place. Miguel writes code that he loves, and has the added bonus of getting paid to do so. I apologize. Sincerely.
I'm writing this not because anyone asked me to (Neither CNET nor Novell suggested a retraction). Rather, I'm writing it because I've felt uneasy about it since I hit "Publish" on the blog tool. I felt that I had done wrong. I just didn't have a good way to take it back. (CNET doesn't allow deletion of posts. The tool simply doesn't support this feature.)
It wouldn't have mattered, anyway, since Google remembers things forever. So the best I can do is to apologize for crossing the line. It won't happen again.
Before you read this, you should read this. I regretted this post shortly after posting it.
I think Miguel de Icaza is an exceptional developer. He's also a fantastically effective community leader. And, though he's never displayed his best side to me, personally, I understand that he's a quality person that people like to be around.
For these reasons I can't help but wonder why he's squandering his talents on writing largely irrelevant code (Mono, Moonlight) that appeals to himself, Novell, Microsoft, and no one else.
It's not that Microsoft is a bad company. It's that Miguel could be doing so much more for the industry if he stopped cloning the Microsoft experience on Linux and instead drove forward the Linux/open source experience. Sam Varghese writes:
For a long time de Icaza, who is now on the staff of Novell, appears to have been trying to please the people at Redmond. First it was with Mono, his implementation of Microsoft's .NET development environment.
... Read more
OK, so sometimes I'm wrong. Miguel de Icaza called out an error I made in criticizing Novell for its open-source strategy. I admit that I find it hard to see beyond Novell's patent pact with Microsoft but, as Miguel pointed out in a string of emails between us today (which he graciously allowed me to cite), this leaves out a lot that Novell does well. And perhaps better than its open-source competitors (though he was too diplomatic to take shots).
Keep in mind when you read this blog that I never intentionally misrepresent anyone or any company. That said, I sometimes make mistakes. As my daughter said after a soccer game the other day, trying to convey to me just how hard she'd worked in the game (despite her team losing):
But Dad, I played so hard! I gave 80%!!
Sometimes my best, too, is equal to 80%, and that's not good enough. [Btw, I told my daughter to never tell her coach she's playing at 80%. That's a quick route to the bench. :-) ]
So, which Novell does Miguel see? His answers surprised me, because they reveal a lot more open-source work than I would have known to give Novell credit, even despite Justin Steinman once cataloguing Novell's open-source efforts on this blog.
... Read more- prev
- 1
- next
