The Ubuntu Technical Board recently sanctioned continued use of Mono, the legally ambiguous open-source implementation of Microsoft’s C# programming language, as a component of the default software stack on Ubuntu releases. At the risk of complicating Ubuntu’s strategy for the corporate market, this move positions the operating system to take a tough stance against patent trolls, which should serve as an example for weaker-kneed Linux distributions. Here’s why.
Since its release in 2004, Mono’s use by open-source developers has been controversial. Individuals like Richard Stallman have warned programmers to keep away from the tool in the interest of avoiding patent lawsuits by Microsoft, which may be able to make a claim that certain components of the Mono stack infringe on its intellectual property.
Nonetheless, Mono has been used to build numerous open-source applications, including F-Spot photo manager and Tomboy notes, which have been included by default in the desktop version of Ubuntu for several releases.
Risks
While Microsoft and its partners have yet to announce any intent to challenge software developers and end users who run Mono, the risk that this could become a problem has prompted many mainstream Linux distributions to take evasive action. Novell went to bed with Microsoft in 2006 to achieve a guarantee of immunity, while Red Hat and Fedora announced plans earlier this year to phase out the use of Mono in their default application line up.
Ubuntu’s defiant stance against the threat of lawsuit represents a unique position among major Linux distributions. At the same time, it complicates Ubuntu’s image in the eyes of end users, particularly in professional environments, where a successful anti-Mono legal campaign would likely cause the most damage.
The decision to stick with Mono therefore places Ubuntu in a difficult position as it works to capture more of the lucrative enterprise market from competitors like Red Hat and Novell. Disappointment with Ubuntu’s choice is real, as one end user made clear when he threatened to switch his organization to Fedora.
Example to others
While its position on Mono presents some risks and harms the operating system’s image among corporate customers and free-software militants, Ubuntu’s decision should serve as an inspiration to other Linux distributions. Surrendering to a theoretical legal threat before it has any tangible traction is not the way to innovate or advance the cause of free software.
After all, Linux faced numerous similar challenges in its early days, like the underhanded attempt by a malicious individual in the early 1990s to patent the word “Linux.” Rather than cowardly backing away from such attacks by selling out to the transgressors or abandoning the Linux name, the nascent free-software companies at the time pooled their resources and successfully overcame the challenges.
Let’s hope that Ubuntu’s example on the Mono issue inspires other distributions to give developers the freedom to use whichever tools they like, while promising support in the event of a lawsuit. Otherwise, they can expect to be divided and conquered by a bit of sabre rattling from Microsoft.
Read More About This Topic
Share This Post
Tags: Microsoft
Interact: Add a Comment | Trackback Link | Permalink
Subscribe: RSS Feed
Don't miss Charlene O'Hanlon's weekly columns...
[...] http://www.workswithu.com/2009/07/06/ubuntu-sets-example-by-defying-mono-threats/ [...]
[...] http://www.workswithu.com/2009/07/06/ubuntu-sets-example-by-defying-mono-threats/ [...]
Verify your facts. Evolution is not written in Mono and Fedora has said nothing about phasing out Mono either.
neo: some Evolution plugins in other Linux distributions are written in Mono, but as you point out, this is apparently not the case in Ubuntu (at least not with the plugins that are installed by default). Thanks for keeping me straight about that. Post updated.
As far as I know, Fedora is indeed planning to remove Mono-dependent apps (namely Tomboy) from the default installation in Fedora 12, as outlined at http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/06/02/redhatfedora-drops-mono/ If you have evidence to contrary, please let me know–I don’t follow Fedora development as closely as I do Ubuntu’s, and I could certainly have missed something.
The bottom line to this whole Mono debate is that for every Linux user who switches from Ubuntu out of protest over Mono another 10 new users will come to Ubuntu because it has the slickest user experience.
End users have ZERO interest is the technical side of what makes their apps run, all they care about is it does what they want easily and with some style.
Canonical rightly see that taking a hard line approach on this stuff is not going to benefit Ubuntu or Linux’s mainstream ambitions in the slightest.
The whole controversy around Mono is already repulsive to use it as a development tool. Nevermind it’s questionable origins.
The threat that people go on about is to Ubuntu or developers using mono from MS and patnt trolls. Although this is true, the biggest threat is to the users. I may be wrong, but the deal between Novel and MS protected “the users” as well. Surely, distro makers and their developers have a level of responsibility to their users, and as such, should discourage dependence on such items as mono.
Just a thought.
[...] artículo de Christopher Tozzi en WorksWithU es quizás algo exagerado desde el título (como el que hemos puesto, un poco en plan irónico), [...]
Regardless of the potential legal implications — which I believe to be overblown — Mono sucks. Why is the free software community constantly recreating the wheel? What could Mono possibly provide that Java and Python cannot? It’s no wonder Linux on the desktop can’t get any traction: the community wastes its time and energy learning a new language and a new platform every year.
I just don’t understand why anyone would choose to use Mono, much less why anyone would sanction its use. It isn’t as though Mono is necessarily compatible with Windows. The Windows compatiblity layer on top of the standardized .NET stack isn’t even implemented in Mono (and won’t be for fear of litigation), so apps must still be ported to Windows anyway.
And for those of you who despise Microsoft, you should know that pushing Mono on any platform gives Microsoft the political advantage of being able to claim that its technology is superior and that it plays nice with open source.
Just use Python and Java or, if you enjoy pain, C. But then I guess that if we all did this, we’d spend too much time getting work done and we wouldn’t be able to waste countless hours on these ridiculous political debates.
[...] 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm (Linux) (Ubuntu) El artículo de Christopher Tozzi en WorksWithU es quizás algo exagerado tanto en su título (como el que hemos puesto, un poco en plan irónico), [...]
Ubu can include Mono apps in the base install if they want but it’s just one more thing to apt-get Purge.:^)
I disagree about the end user not caring what is used to make their program. People who move to GNU/Linux do this consciously. They are trying to get away from monopoly control and have no interest in jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
I have removed all mono applications and dependencies and installed mononnono. I also enabled the Ubuntu statistics so they can clearly see mono is not part of my system. The more people who do that, will send a very clear message.
The developers can use whatever tools they prefer, doesn’t mean we have to use them.
I’ve looked at the mono software, Tomboy, F-Spot, Banshee, and Gnome Do, and don’t understand how anyone could consider these apps to be critical.
Before analysing the mono debate myself, i never once used these programs and i’ve been using Ubuntu for 3 years. For something so irrelevant, why does it have to fill my hardrive with useless crap i don’t need?
Put the programs in the repositories for people to download if they want. Just don’t shove it down our throats.
Developers already are and long have been free to use the platform of their choice, or even build their own, as Linus did. This isn’t a question of enabling developers, they will use the tools they deem fit, nor is it a question of a distribution accepting encumberment by embracing a technology. It is a question of foisting that encumberment on the users of said distribution. That is much harder to justify.
Including Mono is a good thing… if you are looking for a legal showdown. Have a look at “The elusive, royalty-free patent license for Mono” at http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/ and at some of the statements made by Miguel de Icaza. He doesn’t even know where to find a patent license for it. One would think the founding developer of such a project would have his own legal ducks in a row before exposing users to risk. Maybe I just expect too much of Miguel the Great. No matter, since being on the opposing side of this argument apparently makes me a “free-software militant”, whatever that is.
Regardless, I see nothing compelling in Mono or the applications developed for it. Certainly nothing that would convince me to ignore such big red flags as deafening silence from Microsoft in response to direct queries concerning licensing .NET patents. But again, I’m just a “free-software militant”.
And since you all have a habit of editing out parts of your posts that don’t look good in hindsight (and from where I sit, this one doesn’t), here is the complete context for “free-software militant” from your post:
“While its position on Mono presents some risks and harms the operating system’s image among corporate customers and free-software militants, Ubuntu’s decision should serve as an inspiration to other Linux distributions.”
Yeah, Canonical is a beacon of inspiration, it is. Wow.
Is Canonical trying to produce a product that appeals to customers as an alternative to Microsoft, or is it looking to inspire other distributions with the hope of getting sued? I sure want to know. Because if it is the latter, I have better things to do with my computer than to channel their inspiring message, like use it without having to double-check that none of its software is on shaky legal ground.
They can promote their product without “harming [its] image”. It should be a no-brainer that if they want large, corporate customers, then giving them reason to hesitate is a bad thing. The legal standing of Mono gives them a reason to hesitate. Hello!
It was not that long ago that other names were more synonymous with Linux than Ubuntu, like Red Hat, Debian and even Slackware. Things change. They can still change again.
Christopher Tozzi,
The Mono apps are not in Fedora Live CD and that has been the case ever since Fedora 10 release. This is not a new development and done for space reasons and it is the same reason Gnote is now the default. Read the release notes
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Alpha_release_notes
Gnote easily replaces Tomboy. As far as F-Spot I have not found a decent replacement (even though not open, Picasa is more legally sound than F-Spot). F-Spot is a really great photo management application, but I don’t understand why they chose to use Mono.
Seems like a pretty big deal if your corporate customers have to hesitate and think about it. Most likely if they choose Ubuntu on the desktop they would remove the Mono components anyway.
[...] Linux Distros taking sides, this week’s announcement that Microsoft promises not to make Necessary Claims against anyone [...]
The bottom line to this whole Mono debate is that for every Linux user who switches from Ubuntu out of protest over Mono another 10 new users will come to Ubuntu because it has the slickest user experience.
Horse manure. Ubuntu uses Gnome, which is hardly slick. You want slick, try Kubuntu, Mandriva or Fedora for KDE, Moon OS for Enlightenment, Crashbang for FluxBox, etc.
This isn’t to say that Gnome doesn’t work, it does, but it’s not slick. The new Gnome may change my opinion however.
Since MS is writing MS Office in .net, if they haven’t done so already, mono confers a considerable advantage to MS. 1) Mono reduces parallel development costs for the Macintosh version of MS Office. 2) Mono on Linux opens up a whole potential market for MS Office on Linux systems at little or no cost to MS.
Therefore, I doubt that MS will do anything, legally or otherwise, to impede mono or apps written for mono. If anything MS may help mono development, since mono currently has some problems with late binding.
The Free Software Foundation issued a statement estimating the value of the Microsoft Community Promise concerning ECMA 334 and 335 at http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono.
Their issue with the Promise is that it is too narrow and provides loopholes that allow Microsoft to sue developers and users if they really want to, and that their recent behavior demonstrates that they intend to do so.
From their statement: “If Microsoft genuinely wants to reassure free software users that it does not intend to sue them for using Mono, it should grant the public an irrevocable patent license for all of its patents that Mono actually exercises. That would neatly avoid all of the existing problems with the Community Promise: it’s broad enough in scope that we don’t have to figure out what’s covered by the specification or strictly necessary to implement it. And it would still be in force even if Microsoft sold the patents.
“This isn’t an unreasonable request, either. GPLv3 requires distributors to provide a similar license when they convey modified versions of covered software, and plenty of companies large and small have had no problem doing that. Certainly one with Microsoft’s resources should be able to manage this, too. If they’re unsure how to go about it, they should get in touch with us; we’d be happy to work with them to make sure it’s satisfactory.”