[Nottingham] Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#

[Martin]

Sergiusz Pawlowicz wrote:
> our worries are described also on a fsf page:
> http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono

Good note, thanks.

I think this sums it up nicely (for those who wish to skip the turgid 
detail):

####
The Solution: A Comprehensive Patent License

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.

Until that happens, free software developers still should not write 
software that depends on Mono. C# implementations can still be attacked 
by Microsoft's patents: the Community Promise is designed to give the 
company several outs if it wants them. We don't want to see developers' 
hard work lost to the community if we lose the ability to use Mono, and 
until we eliminate software patents altogether, using another language 
is the best way to prevent that from happening.
####


Cheers,
Martin

-- 
----------------
Martin Lomas
martin at ml1.co.uk
----------------