Ubuntu Technical Board Mono Position Statement

[Technoviking]

[From https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...ne/000584.html ]

The Ubuntu Technical Board has been asked for a position statement on the use of C#, specifically the Mono implementation, by applications in Ubuntu.

These applications, as well as the Mono stack, were proposed for inclusion like any other application and underwent the same review process that all new applications and platforms undergo before being accepted into the archive.

With specific regard to the default installed application set, applications have been reviewed and compared against each other on merit and features. These often take place during the Ubuntu Developer Summits, most recently over the default media player.


A common concern cited about Mono is the patent position, largely it seems due to the originator of the C# language and associated ECMA standards.

The Ubuntu Project takes patent issues seriously, and the Ubuntu Technical Board is the governance body that handles allegations of patent infringement. The Ubuntu Technical Board strives to engage with rights holder openly in terms of the code that we ship. If a rights holder claims a patent infringement applies to said code, the Technical Board will commit to a review of the claim.

The Ubuntu Technical Board has received no claims of infringement against the Mono stack, and is not aware of any such claims having been received by other similar projects.

It is common practice in the software industry to register patents as protection against litigation, rather than as an intent to litigate. Thus mere existence of a patent, without a claim of infringement, is not sufficient reason to warrant exclusion from the Ubuntu Project.

(While the Ubuntu project wishes to be responsive to patent infringement claims, we cannot commit to the assessment and review of claims made by anyone other than the registered rights holder.)


Given the above, the Ubuntu Technical Board sees no reason to exclude Mono or applications based upon it from the archive, or from the default installation set.

Since the Mono stack is already a dependency of the default installation set for many remixes of Ubuntu, including the Desktop Edition, there is no reason to consider a dependency on Mono as an issue when suggesting applications for the default set.

(Other remixes may obviously consider the CD Size implications if an application would introduce the Mono platform to the set.)


Scott
on behalf of the Ubuntu Technical Board

[.Maleficus.]

Sticky! Please oh please sticky this so the Mono threads can stop!


Edit: Nevermind and thank you.

[ghindo]

Thank you for posting this. I suspect anti-Mono true believers won't be swayed much by this statement, but nevertheless, an official, clarifying statement is helpful.

[Dragonbite]

I think this is a great move by the Technical Board, to put down for everybody to see their position. This should help reduce fanning the flames.

I can go either way regarding Mono being pre-installed really, so long as it is all available from the default repositories (not a 3rd party repository somebody has to manually add).

Thank you UTB for your statement.

[aesis05401]

[From https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...ne/000584.html ]

A common concern cited about Mono is the patent position, largely it seems due to the originator of the C# language and associated ECMA standards.

The statement seems pretty balanced, but the portion quoted above was a little befuddling. All the patent talk I have seen is related to the fact that the Novell says Mono infringes MS patents, and then paid for a license from MS.

That is all pretty straightforward, and both companies have public statements posted that the patent protection agreement explicitly includes Mono.

Here is the joint statement which can also be found at Microsoft.com:http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.html.

Am I missing something here?

[directhex]

Novell says Mono infringes MS patents

They specifically say the opposite

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsof...en_letter.html

Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents.

[aesis05401]

They specifically say the opposite

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsof...en_letter.html

You and I have been here before. They then state:
"Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server."

What coverage if there is no violation? I don't believe Novell just decided to fork a ton of cash over to MS.

Something just doesn't seem right.. but I guess I am done talking about it.

[mdsmedia]

That's not exactly the opposite. All it says is that no patent infringements are acknowledged in making the agreement.

That, to me, doesn't necessarily reflect on the position with Mono.

The Ubuntu team's statement is a bit more comforting.

[directhex]

What coverage if there is no violation? I don't believe Novell just decided to fork a ton of cash over to MS.

Do you have insurance on your home?

And Novell didn't pay anything - if anything they got paid courtesy of Microsoft's sales of SLES. Also don't forget how many fundamental patents are owned by Novell and infringed by Microsoft

[directhex]

That's not exactly the opposite. All it says is that no patent infringements are acknowledged in making the agreement.

That, to me, doesn't necessarily reflect on the position with Mono.

The Ubuntu team's statement is a bit more comforting.

Okay, here's the Mono position, from http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing

With the new Novell/Microsoft agreement, will the patent policy change?

Mono is a community project, and as such, we will continue to implement the policy of not integrating knowingly infringing code into Mono.

And we will continue to follow the steps outlined in the previous topic if code that potentially infringes is found: finding prior art, finding different implementation techniques, or if none of those are possible, removing the code from Mono.