How to Advocate for/against Mono Convincingly
By HUNG Chao-Kuei on Sunday, October 11 2009, 22:34 - Permalink
[Several phrasings have been corrected/updated since published. Thanks for all the comments.]
The mono debates [1 and 2] seem to refuse to die down. I have a proposal to settle this -- by voting. But not voting for or against mono. Let each voter put his money [and reputation!] where his mouth is, in a symmetric way. So a mono advocate would vote by a blog post or something similarly public, saying, "I, [insert your name and a link here], recommend my employer, [insert your company's name and a link here], to use software linked with Mono. I am willing to donate one full year's salary to my company if my company ever has to pay for patents directly related to this library, for example by migrating to other libraries as a result of the patent threat, or by agreeing to license the patents when they are disclosed."
And a mono skeptic like me would vote, (by this very blog post by the way) by saying, "I, Chao-Kuei Hung, recommend my employer, Chaoyang University of Technology, to use software linked with gtk and qt. I am willing to donate one full year's salary to my Univ if my Univ ever has to pay for patents directly related to this library, for example by migrating to other libraries as a result of the patent threat, or by agreeing to license the patents when they are disclosed." BtW, one can vote for more than one library, as I did.
Now, the point is not that the employer would really accept the recommendation because of the assurance of a non-lawyer Chao-Kuei Hung. (In fact my Univ completely ignores even my repeated recommendations to use ODF for long term archiving considerations. They wouldn't even know what mono is, and they wouldn't care even if I were a law professor.) And the point is not that anyone would care about me losing one year's salary to my employer when bad things about patents happen. The point is that the voter dares to bet his reputation for the software libraries that he considers safer in terms of legal threats. It doesn't have to be one year's salary -- you can propose any amount you feel comfortable with. Nor is it important how much each voter's reputation counts. The more reputation a voter has and/or the more money he bets, the more he risks, and the more credit/weight his vote would naturally carry. In other words, not all votes are equal.
The world at large can then have a good picture of how (legally)
safe each of these groups -- the mono advocates, gtk advocates,
and qt advocates -- really think and feel about what they advocate.
Now of course, Microsoft employees' mono votes won't carry any significance
since their employer is the very source of these worrisome patent threats.
Novell employees' votes won't carry much weight to the rest of the world either
since their company's legal safety is covered by some controversial
interesting agreement between Microsoft and Novell.
Similarly, [please help me fill in some company names here]
employees don't count for the gtk votes, and Trolltech
employees don't count for the qt votes.
RMS's vote wouldn't carry much weight because he does not receive
salary from FSF (correct me if I am wrong) and because we would not
be too surprised even if he donates his one year's income to FSF for
no obvious reasons ;-)
Anonymous comments about mono would carry exactly zero weight
because it can never be verified whether these people eventually
donate any money at all to any unfortunate company attacked by
some looming software patents.
There is nothing specific against these people;
their exclusion or relative insignificance (in this vote) is simple logic.
Hopefully from now on everyone will declare his/her vote before forcing their opinions about the mono issues upon others, and this will become the most convincing way of advocating for any library -- mono or any alternatives -- to the largely unenlightened public.
Please comment about logic, feasibility, English grammar, spelling, etc. Personal attacks directing at Richard Stallman, Miguel de Icaza, Pamela Jones, Jo Shields, Carla Schroder, or any individual will not be deleted. These comments will receive personalized taunts and ridicules with logic. (OK, I can't promise, but I will try my best.)
Comments
put his or her stake at her mouth == Put their money where their mouth is
MS-PL is incompatible with GNU GPL:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/08/17...
It's a trap!
There is a basic problem with this proposition: the argument against Mono, at least that argument made by people serious about the subject, is not that developers will randomly receive legal threats: after all, if that was the case, then every single Windows developer using .net would be under the same risk.
The serious argument is that Mono, in copying .net, is under risk itself and could be taken away from us: that those people investing time and money developing applications that use Mono would be forced to run their applications on Windows since there is no other available platform. This is what RMS refers to as the "Java trap": the applications might be free, the run-time might not.
Thus the wager ought to be "one year's wages in defence of the Mono Project if they are attacked" or something, but in what circumstances? It's extremely difficult to see how one lawsuit could have the project as a whole forced to close...
I understand the general idea and it's a variation on the famous Solomon's judgement: make the one emitting an opinion have a very expensive commitment to see how much s/he believes the speech given.
It's certainly a good idea -- or at least a good point to start.
But Mono brings more dangers in itself... we're giving M$ a way to become THE authority regarding a lot of standards and interoperability. Who's is posed to gain if M$ controls interoperability?
What if we hire the fox to take care of the hens?
HUNG Chao-Kuei: The premise of your "bet" is a strawman. Mono developers are not bashing KDE or Qt or Gtk with the suggestion that those toolkits will be sued.
So, if you really want to encourage people to make a bet, this is what it should be:
Mono supporters should bet their money like this: "I'll wager $X that Mono will not be sued over patents in Y years"
The Mono FUDers should bet their money like this: "I'll wager $X that Mono will be sued within the next Y years"
Afterall, the whole point is to put your money where your mouth is, right? If you are going to argue that Mono will be sued or that users of Mono will be sued, then that is where your mouth is. Your mouth isn't Gtk or Qt.
Thank you all for the constructive comments and corrections.
Alex Hudson > It's extremely difficult to see how one lawsuit could have the project as a whole forced to close...
It doesn't have to go that far. MS is very good at FUDding without actually suing anyone. So I changed my wording to point out specific situations like "migrating to other libraries as a result of the patent threat" or "agreeing to license the patents when they are disclosed". I would say that even the latter is very unlikely.
An ominous > we're giving M$ a way to become THE authority regarding a lot of standards and interoperability
Exactly. In fact the idea of this article was inspired by my long time struggle here in Taiwan to ask people to either (1) upgrade to odt or (2) stay with doc, instead of going to docx. You would think it's a relatively simple (and incomplete) task since I have given up dealing with doc for now, and since not so many people use Office 2007. But not so. There have been personal attacks on me because I boycott docx. I was portrayed as a "tyrannical wolf disguised as a sheep", to which I decided to confirm with a drawing and using which opportunity I elaborated to emphasize the distinction between open file format 開放檔案格式 and FLOSS 自由軟體 :-) So I proposed to have the docx supporters and odt supporters each publicly recommend their favorite file format to their employers. That seems to work to some degree.
Strawman > Your mouth isn't Gtk or Qt
Indeed my mouth is pretty much at gtk and/or qt. By advising people against mono, we are implicitly recommending the alternative libraries. (You wouldn't think that we can live with plain old X, would you?) So a better statement of the question might be: "which alternative libraries do you think are legally safer?" We mono "FUDers" are betting that gtk and qt are safer than mono. Sane mono supporters refuse to bet, because they believe that all libraries are equally safe. So really, only the "FUDers" have to take the risk of betting. It's fair, don't you think? Now if someone bets that "mono is safer thank gtk and qt", that would be very interesting and very welcomed. It would take another article to analyze what they really believe.
So mono supporters, you are welcome to sit back and relax and ignore the challenge to bet. Who cares about these dirty politics? Code rules. Right? I don't agree with you on this point, but at least you agree with your former self, right? Otherwise, how did you get into promoting a suspicious technology in the first place? So mono supporters, please just keep coding c# without worrying about these dirty politics, and the world will become a better place to live in -- at least for you.
And the uninitiated world at large will decide what to make of the curious situation that some people are willing to bet their salaries against adopting a software library claiming to be legally safe, while the proponents of the software library refuse the challenge to bet.
Interesting proposition, even if you conflate a generic framework with a GUI framework.
Suppose a few people did accept your challenge and commit say a million dollars to the defense of mono, would that change anything. Specifically, would RMS change his opposition to mono, would the current mono opposers drop their objections and accept mono for default inclusion in Gnome 3.0, would mono-based apps become default in distros, would enterprise adoption of mono be encouraged, and would boycott novel go away?
Thought not. In effect it would change nothing. In fact, the existence of such a fund would be portrayed as something wrong with mono.
I will be glad to advocate for additional freedom libraries if you can point out specifically what important groups of functions exist in mono that cannot be easily implemented using gtk/qt functions.
> Suppose a few people did accept your challenge and commit say a million dollars to the defense of mono, would that change anything.
> In fact, the existence of such a fund would be portrayed as something wrong with mono.
It is simultaneous surprising and amusing to learn that mono supporters _ever_ consider it a possibility to defend mono with a fund. I never thought about defending gtk/qt with a _fund_ even as I wrote this article. No, I am not asking people to send money to some account so that such money can be used collectively when gtk/qt are threatened by patent lawsuits. I believe that there will be no patent threats against gtk/qt. I am asking people to _risk_ losing money _individually_ if the library they advocate for ever brings about patent costs. My argument would be equally valid if the money was to be sent to a charity of each voter's choice _in case of_ legal threats. I don't care about collecting money in legal defense of gtk/qt, Of course, mono supporters are welcome to do so in legal defense of their favorite library, but such investment should be considered independent of this vote counting.
> In effect it would change nothing.
Well, it would not change _my_ suspicion about mono, let alone RMS or many other high profile people who are more informed and capable than I am.. The intention is not to change the opinion of anyone already taking side in this debate. The intention is to educate the largely unaware public about the politics of artififacts, about the politics of code.
But then, this is just a vote, which mono supporters are always welcome to ignore if they consider it to be unfair. (I love this idea. "Unfair! Let's boycott this vote!" moans a mono supporter.) That would also be something good enough for me and Boycott Novell and many mono skeptics to demonstrate to the public. Silence speaks about something. Loudly, in this case.
This post's comments feed