Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th May 2009 22:32 UTC, submitted by lemur2
If there is one technology in the Linux world that ruffles feathers whenever it's mentioned, it's Mono, the open source .Net clone. Since .Net comes out of Microsoft, and has some patents encircling it, it is said to be a legal nightmare. Supposedly, you can obtain a "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" license from Microsoft regarding the patents surrounding Mono. iTWire decided to look at just how easy (or hard) it is to get such a license. Turns out it's kind of hard.
Thread beginning with comment 366125
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by vivainio on Sat 30th May 2009 07:41
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
Member since:2008-12-26
More importantly to this conversation, any other software developers out there in the broader community who choose to use Mono as their runtime of choice have hopped aboard a ship that might be torpedoed at any time, for any reason. Microsoft's and Novell's lack of transparency here is all kinds of scary.
Luckily, it seems to be rather easy to route around the damage. e.g. it didn't take long to directly port Tomboy to C++ (gNote). So, if you like the mono stack, you can prototype your app in it and port it to c++ later to live in the "open" world again.
And if I don't, what benefit does Mono provide me over, say, Java (or Python, or Ruby, or Perl, or...)?
Mono probably has a better ecosystem around Gtk+ than Java, though I can't say for sure. Java is also holding the reputation as too heavy for desktop apps.
I think Mono is a bit of "overreaction" to the suckage of C programming that has been the bane of Gnome for a long time. It's an effort to pretend that C++ doesn't exist, perhaps for the reason that it would slate Gtkmm at direct (unfavorable) comparison with Qt?
As for Python & other "agile" languages, I think the problem for Gnome was that due to lack of static typing they become problematic for large teams doing large apps.
It's a losing proposition any way you slice it. Nice toy, but definitely not worth wasting substantial time or effort porting apps to or writing apps for.
Exactly. I don't think there is much reason to be worried about though - it's not like Mono is capturing any "strategic" position in Linux desktop ecosystem. And we'll always have KDE, so even if they encumbered Gnome to hell and back, it's not like we would end up without a "full" desktop.
It isn't about C# & CLI
by lemur2 on Sun 31st May 2009 11:13
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
Member since:2007-02-17
For example, it's readily acknowledged in one breath that the "extra bits" like Windows.Forms are probably patent-encumbered (Microsoft and Novell won't be too specific over which parts are verboten), but it's quickly explained that you don't have to use them. Then Mono pushers go on to tout the ease of porting from Windows to Linux. Of course, unless you're porting some server software with no interface (rare in the Windows world), you *must* use the patent-encumbered bits.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. C# and CLI are submitted by Microsoft and ECMA as ISO standards, and we can argue all day about them. But other bits of .NET there is no arguement about.
Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are not submitted by Microsoft as standards. These parts of .NET are strictly proprietary, and patented by Microsoft.
But look at the home page of the Mono project:
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
Microsoft Compatible API
Run ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms 2.0 applications without recompilation
Run ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms 2.0 applications without recompilation
Mono includes implementations of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms 2.0. ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms are propriety and patented by Microsoft, and are not standards, nor is there any kind of Open Specification Promise from Microsoft covering them.
Case closed. It doesn't matter if any program made for Linux using Mono does or does not use those parts ... Mono itself includes them, and you need Mono libraries to run any kind of Mono application.
End of story. Avoid Mono altogether. Purge it from your system. Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
RE: It isn't about C# & CLI
by JeffS on Mon 1st Jun 2009 16:15
in reply to "It isn't about C# & CLI"
Member since:2005-07-12
"Case closed. It doesn't matter if any program made for Linux using Mono does or does not use those parts ... Mono itself includes them, and you need Mono libraries to run any kind of Mono application."
Not case closed. The default installation of Mono on any Linux distro does not have the ASP.Net, ADO.Net, or Windows.Forms bits installed. Those are separate downloads. Just open Synaptic (or package manager your disto uses), and see.
The default base installation will typically only include the CLR, C# (the ECMA standards), and GTK# (100% original, LPGL, open source code, based on open source, LPGL, GTK).
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
"Do you think the Mono and Moonlight devs would be wisting (sic) their time doing this if it was pattent (sic) riddled? Thats not the way linux users/devs work."
Yes I do, because that's the way professional software developers work. The people working on Mono and Moonlight are, by and large, paid to do so, so the risk isn't theirs, it's their employer's. The developers get their paychecks no matter how badly Microsoft sues Novell.
More importantly to this conversation, any other software developers out there in the broader community who choose to use Mono as their runtime of choice have hopped aboard a ship that might be torpedoed at any time, for any reason. Microsoft's and Novell's lack of transparency here is all kinds of scary.
For example, it's readily acknowledged in one breath that the "extra bits" like Windows.Forms are probably patent-encumbered (Microsoft and Novell won't be too specific over which parts are verboten), but it's quickly explained that you don't have to use them. Then Mono pushers go on to tout the ease of porting from Windows to Linux. Of course, unless you're porting some server software with no interface (rare in the Windows world), you *must* use the patent-encumbered bits.
So if I want to port a Windows app with a GUI, I'm practically guaranteed to be treading in dangerous waters. And if I don't, what benefit does Mono provide me over, say, Java (or Python, or Ruby, or Perl, or...)? Hell, if you only want the prettiness and ease of C# syntax on Linux, Vala runs your stuff faster than Mono ever could, with the ability to easily use any C library to boot.
And all this stuff is beside the point that the direction of .NET as a whole is decided entirely by Microsoft, so Mono will be forced to play perpetual catch-up if it wants to keep bragging it's cross-platform.
It's a losing proposition any way you slice it. Nice toy, but definitely not worth wasting substantial time or effort porting apps to or writing apps for.