As I told a buddy earlier, the piece is below RMS' usual standard: "This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it" - poisoning the well rather than arguing the case properly...
I don't get it. Why is the GNU Project developing their own C# implementation but is seemingly anti-Mono? Hypocritical much? They want to discourage the use of C#... so they're developing their own C# suite? Doesn't make sense to me.
Question to those who may know: If C# is an ECMA standard, how can Microsoft shut down C# implementations legally? Aren't ECMA standards free for all to use?
Still, this isn't making a lot of sense. My understanding is that Microsoft has been very helpful to the Mono project. But what really gets me is "it's a really good thing to have free implementations of C# but a really bad thing to use them..."
Did you read the article? Having a free C# implementation is important because it allows people to run their C# program on free platforms according to the FSF. However, writing and distributing apps in C# is not encouraged as people might get sued. RMS points that he has nothing against mono or any other free C# implementations (proof is that GNU has its own Portable.NET) as it allow people to move to a free platform.
Also, is there anything stopping anyone from writing an open source JIT that compiles C#/VB.NET/F# to Java bytecode? Or, converting .NET bytecode to/from Java bytecode? Then, you wouldn't be locked into a single system.
I'm actually working on a new open source project right now that is written in C# and is going to be released under either the BSD or MIT license (I haven't decided yet). So I probably couldn't disagree more with this article. I think that if more open source were written in C# or Java, it would be much easier to port Linux (BSD, etc.) to other platforms, since most/all of the software that people will want to use doesn't even need to be rewritten for that platform.
True, but letting Mono flourish for as long as it has without taking legal action against it opens up a can of worms that can screw with future action against it. Patent law recognizes the idea that implicitly letting someone infringe and not doing anything about it until it's most profitable for you/most damaging to them isn't the way the game's supposed to be played.
Add to that the fact that patent suits are the global thermonuclear war of the technology industry (the only way to win is not to play), and I'll be surprised if anything serious ever happens.
I cannot be sure they won't sue people for anything they have patented that's used in Mono.
With the current state of patents, you really can't be sure of anything. Even SUN got sued by Kodak for Java.
I have a problem with the arguments for "free software" in general. People say that RMS is usually right, but being anti-Mono because you're pro-freedom, is like saying you're anti-abortions because you're pro-life. The state of affairs is never black and white like that.
As far as I've understood, they were just stances and FUD. They haven't made any specific claims. That's as vague as it can get.
Some info on the latest patent workaround suggested for the kernel: http://lwn.net/Articles/338941/
They claim to have another 250 such patents.
It's obviously possible to port C# applications to other programming languages. One example is Tomboy, which was ported to C++ (the port is called gNote). Also, a GNOME developer once tried to port a C# application to Java: His conclusion was, IIRC, that it's rather easy since both languages are very similar. This shows that even if the community looses all free C# implementations, it would not loose all the C# applications.
Anyway, what I find more interesting: You seem to say that Stallman usually argues his case properly. I find this hard to believe.
Could you show me any important argument made by him that does not rest on a logical fallacy? I'd be deeply grateful.