Consider the recent “busted myth” that Microsoft is involved in Mono development (which even in the myth-buster piece it comes down to “well, yeah, they are, sort of”), with the flat admission here:

So it’s not at all unusual to start supporting a platform without the buy in of the platform owner?
No. When we started Mono with Mono for Linux, we had absolutely no relationship with Microsoft. And I think that some people at Microsoft liked it, from the early days, but that some people didn’t like it from the early days.

Microsoft didn’t have an official position about it back in 2000 or 20001. But today we have a fairly good relationship with them and we collaborate with them on Moonlight, which is our Silverlight implementation for Linux today. We’re hoping to put it into other systems and devices in the future.

Nice to see that Microsoft and Novell are “collaborating” on Moonlight- I’m sure only good can come from that. Worth noting here the funny coincidence that Mono gets all the defensive talking from Team Apologista, but they always seem to go together when the PR spin begins.

(You’ll sometimes hear Moonlight defended as being OK because it is nothing more than a ”subset” of Mono. If this defense were true, then why would Moonlight need a separate, less permissive, “covenant”?)

I also find it interesting how things are prioritized by Mr. de Icaza. For example:

We do have Mono for the iPhone, we will have Mono for Android, we have it running on Meego, we have it on the Playstation, the Wii, on the Mac, on Linux and mainframes. We like to think that we are fairly independent when it comes to which platforms we support.

Always good to see “Linux and mainframes” getting good presentation.

Another example:

What challenges did the .NET Framework 4 release pose to the Mono Project?
The reality is we like what Microsoft is doing in the framework. Whenever they push something we really like, we try to get it implemented. The next release [of Mono] includes a lot of the .NET 4 bits and .NET 4 APIs. A lot of the things are there except really big things like Entity Framework.

That was achieved either by people like my team, people in the open source community helping us out, or this is the best part, Microsoft open sourcing key pieces of the technology to the public.

We already know Microsoft can do no wrong as far as Team Apologista is concerned, certainly not in their beloved .NET, and I’m glad to see recognition that the best part of a so-called community project is Microsoft’s contributions.

I dont’ know what to make of this bit:

What do you say to developers sitting on the fence with MonoTouch today?
It feels like both the iPhone and Android, and the Mac, have had a fairly big resurgence in the last few years. I feel that we no longer have to be convincing developers to move to these platforms. There was a time when we said, ‘Hey, please make your software run on Mono. It will run on Linux.’ There was a little bit of begging going on there.

I’m not sure that anyone ever was looking to Team Apologista to be convinced to move to the iPhone, Android or Mac platforms. Perhaps the meaning is “using-our-.NET-knock-off-instead-of-the-native-developent-platform”?

Also, I’m confused. I was told that bringing software to Linux was not really the point of Mono? But here, it seems like Mr. de Icaza is asserting that Team Apologista was out there “begging” for Mono to be used to bring software to Linux?

I’m sure I just need more context.

According to the Post, the breakdown is SUSE to a “strategic buyer” and the rest to a private-equity firm.

Edited 17SEP2010: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that VMWare and Attachmate are the two buyers.

SUSE

There is hope, then, that the SUSE Linux stuff has a new (and better) life, assuming that the buyer is a legit company. As I’ve said before: anyone would be a better Novell than Novell, so even if the buyer is a consortium of  drunk dot-com millionaires doing it on a dare to try to usurp Ubuntu with Hannah Montana Linux, the FLOSS world will be exponentially better off.

I sincerely hope this happens, because OpenSUSE appears to have a lot going for it. If they don’t have to carry the apologetic water for Novell any longer and are washed clean of the stench of Microsoft-Novell collaboration, then I’ll be the first to welcome them back.

Ximian 2: Apologist Boogaloo

Mono goes on, maybe under a spin-off company with Miguel de Icaza and troops. Team Apologista is large and insular enough to remain divorced from the overall FLOSS community and still soldier on as a Microsoft team. Mono has always been and will always be a niche product in a niche market, but you can make money off of niche products. Besides, the ideological and personal investment of many Team Apologista members mean they are not going to give up on Mono, no matter what.

I have a harder time imagining an existing company taking on Mono, though. The reason is – even if you think Mono is perfectly fine to use, it is still true that a large and vocal segment of your potential user base disagrees. A segment including the Free Software Foundation, by the way.

If you aren’t a desperate company flailing about for some lifeline – any lifeline -  and you know what happens in terms of FLOSS community trust and respect when striking deals with Microsoft – not to mention what happens to companies in general that deal with Microsoft – why would you take on such a white elephant as Mono?

Novell hoped they could ride out a short-attention span outrage of the FLOSS community on a wave of Microsoft money with a Surfboard of PR Spin. Didn’t quite work out that way.

Moonlight

Moonlight is even deader in the water than it currently is, as the Covenant to End Users is Novell-specific through and through (despite Mr. de Icaza’s prevarications to the contrary).

There’s another huge challenge for an existing buyer – not only do they have to judge the FLOSS community hassle worth it, but they have kiss Microsoft lawyer posterior enough to get all that “Covenant” stuff cut-over from being Novell-specific.

Is there another Linux-centric company out there as eager to enthusiastically debase themselves to curry Microsoft favor as Novell was?

If there is a Ximian 2, expect Moonlight to come along with continuing attempts to conflate the  protection an obsolete subset of C# enjoys under ECMA standardization with the vastly more constraining “Covenant” that Microsoft has deigned to grant to Novell for Moonlight.

Other Stuff

Who cares? If any of the other stuff had any real value, Novell would be selling it instead of the company.

I don’t know about “free software”. Even after more than a decade it’s still an alien term for me. I know it is “opensource” for as far as I’m concerned. And that’s all I care about.
- Philip Van Hoof, GNOME Foundation Member

Usually I turn to HBO or Showtime to provide me with my drama fix, but the GNOME Foundation Mailing List is doing a pretty durn good job of spicing it up these last few weeks. It’s so good I might have to break it up over a few entries.

New Thing: Same as the Old Thing

This latest kerfluffle (not to be confused with earlier kerfluffles [1] [2]) started up over concerns for a strategic roadmap on GNOME, the thread got all heated up by names that will be familiar to anyone following such issues (“trollers gonna troll” is how the kids say it in their rap music) , a re-boot was attempted, and now people are  unsubscribing from the mailing list[1][2].

Jump on in, the water’s fine

Like I said, there’s a ton of stuff to comment on, but here’s one to start on:

[Richard Stallman] Implementing a free platform for C# is a good thing to do.  If you would like to promote the use of C# itself, how about explaining to Novell and Microsoft that they need to fully implement said protection in an ironclad way for all the usual C# libraries.

[Miguel de Icaza] I spend a considerable amount of time doing this.   It has taken time, and there would be no Community Promise, and there would be no Silverlight agreement (the one that has no special Novell provisions) without this work.

[Ace Ventura]>Re-he-he-he-eally??
What about the fact that the Covenant defines a “Conforming Host” as either a web browser or a launcher implemented by Novell?

Wat about the fact that the Covenant defines “Moonlight 3” as only those portions developed by or on behalf of Novell?

What about the fact that the Covenant specifically defines the terms “Novell-Provided Copies” and “Novell Distribution“?

What about the fact that the Covenant restricts “by license and technical means” Media Packs to work only with Novell-Provided Copies of Moonlight?

What about the fact that the Covenant specifies test suites that Microsoft will provide to Novell for testing the functionality of Novell’s Moonlight candidates?

A simple request

Now, having read the text of the Covenant, anyone care to tell me exactly how there are no special Novell provisions in the Silverlight agreement?

Don’t get mad and call me a zealot or make fun of how rms uses the internet or engage in whatever distractionary technique Team Apologista has queued up when someone raises uncomfortable questions.

And don’t just attack one of those questions, either. You need to show that not a single one is a “special Novell provision”.

Extra irony

You may appreciate knowing that Mr. de Icaza makes this assertion – that there are no special Novell provisions (when there clearly are) – while calling a FSF article on mono “a package of half-truths” and accusing rms of spreading “half truths”.

I suppose even a package of half-truths is a step up from a package of no-truths.

de Icaza is an enthusiast and long term advocate of Microsoft technologies….

Say it ain’t so! Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza once took great exception to be called an “apologist”, I must wonder if he will take the same line over being called an “enthusiast and long term advocate.” They are quite different, I’m sure, in some way. (Perhaps the fact that the former came from RMS makes all the difference?)

Will we now hear The H’s author decried as a “zealot” or  ”fearmongerer” for pointing out de Icaza’s obsession with emulating and promoting Microsoft technologies? Or, perhaps, a word of apology for painting RMS in such lights for his equivalent statement?

I suspect the latter shall not happen, though some may call me a cynic.

Moonlight can be used, at least in the short term, if you have obtained your software through Novell. Otherwise, you are cast adrift in a no man’s land where it is not always apparent what is permissible and what is not.

Even though I think the author is too kind here, I am also pleased that he is not merely parroting the (failed) attempt by Team Moonlight to pretend that the new “Covenant” is some sort of improvement over the old – which was downright offensive in the first place.

It’s always amusing to me how de Icaza can say things like “We worked with Microsoft to make sure that Moonlight was available to everyone on Linux” or that they are “thrilled to be working with Microsoft” in a “purely open source fashion”, when the reality is they have all sorts of exclusive arrangements and extra-license agreements, covenants, and promises going on.

[T]he Mono developers have appeared to gain strength and unity from adversity and see themselves as united against the rest of the world.

This is the most brilliant insight of the article, and it articulates something I have long found fascinating. Team Mono has a core of supporters that are simply not interested in the truth or discussion. They will adopt (and endlessly repeat) any argument that they think supports their cause, and they will immediately dismiss any argument with any means that they think supports their opposition.

There is a name for that kind of person. A label, in fact. I think I’ve even seen it applied by such people themselves in attempts to discredit criticism. If only I could remember what it was!

This means More Moonlight Covenant problems in addition to the 10 I already laid out.

Moonlight still not acceptable in Fedora

Unsurprisingly, the new “covenant” doesn’t change Fedora’s stance that Moonlight is not permissible in Fedora.

One of the main reasons is a problem with the covenant that I didn’t pick up on initially, but several other people did. Call it Problem #11:

Problem 11: Novell Only, pt. 4

This one is a tricky: in the covenant Microsoft promises not to sue “End Users”; which are defined as so:

“End User” means an entity or individual that uses for its intended purpose a Moonlight Implementation obtained directly from Novell or through a Distributor. An entity or individual is not an End User when such entity or individual resells, licenses, supplies, distributes or otherwise makes available to third parties the Moonlight Implementation. For avoidance of doubt, an entity or individual cannot qualify both as an End User and a Distributor for use of the same copy of a Moonlight Implementation.

Read that closely now – Microsoft is careful to exclude “Distributors” from the covenant. And a Distributor is an entity or individual that makes available to third parties the Moonlight Implementation. You can’t be both. This means that distros like Fedora can’t distribute Moonlight under the protection of the covenant.

But, wait – there’s more! It means you yourself, as an individual, can not share a distro that has Moonlight! If you yourself, as an individual give your friend a CD with a distro that has Moonlight on it at your next LUG meeting, you are not covered.

Such tactics are perfectly in line with Microsoft and Novell’s twisted way of doing business: create an extra-license method of promising something to the “end user”, and then hope no one actually analyzes the deal.

Problem #12: Intended Use

Heh. Seems like everytime I re-read the covenant I find more problems.

Well “End Users” are defined as “an entity or individual that uses [Moonlight] for its intended purpose“. Hmm? What exactly is the “intended purpose” here?

This raises an interesting point: in the Free Software world (that Team Moonlight gleefully rejects), we have Freedom Zero: The Freedom to run the program, for any purpose. Nice thing to have, Freedom.

I don’t see that freedom to use for any purpose explictly laid out in the Open Source Definition (though I suppose you might  infer it by argument from one or more of the points there.)

It’s important that this is made clear, because if the Microsoft-Novell collaboration has shown us anything at all, it’s that they take the letter of the law much more seriously than the spirit.

So, here’s my question: Does “Open Source” mean you have the right to run the program for any purpose? And if so, how is this not yet another way that the Covenant is incompatible with “Open Source”?

Problem #13: Public and Private

The Covenant can be updated/discontinued according to the terms of the “New Moonlight Collaboration Agreement between Novell and Microsoft” but – as far as I can determine – this Collaboration Agreement is not publicly available.

I would be a bit uneasy relying on a public promise that refers to a private agreement.

The New is WORSE than the Old

I have to admit I am surprised that the new covenant is so bad. I expected a new covenant – even Miguel de Icaza hinted that the old one was less-than-ideal (scathing criticism from him as far as Microsoft is concerned) – but what I was expecting was basically the old covenant with a restriction or two removed!

Instead what we have is something that tries to look more “Open”, but is filled with Novell-Only anti-community language stronger than the previous version!

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

What I think we are seeing is this: Mono and Moonlight supporters are so willing to blindly support anything they think helpful while steadfastly refusing to entertain any criticism whatsoever, that there is becoming less of a need for Microsoft and Novell to maintain the facade that their relationship is “good for the Open Source community”.

Take for example Miguel de Icaza’s assertion that under the new Covenant “Novell is on the exact same footing as every other distributor, there are no exceptions made for Novell.” (He then goes on in the very next sentence: “…the only exception is that Novell has a seperate agreement for media codecs…”)

Yet, Novell has several exceptions in the Covenant:

• Only Novell can implement “minimal shell applications”
• Only “Novell-Provided Copies” can use the Media Pack
• Only “Conforming Runtimes developed by or on behalf of Novell” are covered
• Silverlight  Specifications are delivered to Novell
• Novell Distributions are explictly defined

…and so on, and so on.

Let’s play a counting game! In the Covenant and related definitions:

• Times ”Novell” is mentioned by name:  20
• Other Linux distributors mentioned by name: 0

To assert that Novell is “on the exact same footing” as anyone else seems difficult to support indeed.

Here’s the text, to save you a trip:

Covenant to End Users of Moonlight 3 and 4

Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries, hereby covenants not to sue End Users for infringement under Necessary Claims of Microsoft and its Subsidiaries on account of such End Users’ use of Moonlight Implementations to the extent originally provided by Novell during the Term and, if applicable, the Extension or Post-Extension Period, but only to the extent such Moonlight Implementations are used as Conforming Runtimes. The foregoing covenants shall survive termination of the Agreement, but only as to specific copies of such Moonlight Implementations distributed during the Term, and if applicable, the Extension or Post-Extension Period.

Microsoft reserves the right to update (including discontinue) the foregoing covenant pursuant to the terms of the New Moonlight Collaboration Agreement between Novell and Microsoft that was publicly announced on or about December 17, 2009 (the “Agreement”); however, the foregoing covenant will continue as to specific copies of Moonlight Implementations originally provided by Novell and distributed before any such update.

All rights not expressly granted by the foregoing covenant are reserved by Microsoft. No additional rights (including any implied licenses, covenants, releases, or other rights) are granted by implication, estoppel, or otherwise, including no rights under any additional patents of Microsoft and no rights to any technology not included in such Moonlight Implementations, even if additional related or enabling technologies (e.g., operating systems, web browsers, or other platform technologies) are required to use the Moonlight Implementations. Microsoft is not bound by, nor grants any rights under, any third party licenses with respect to the Moonlight Implementations (e.g., any versions of the General Public License).

Now let’s look at a few of the issues – I’m sure many more will turn up as more people analyze this “covenant”.

Problem #1: Novell-Only, Pt. 1

According to the defined term Conforming Host, only Novell can create “launchers” for non-browser applications. You aren’t Novell? You can’t implement it.

Problem #2: No Deviations

Furthermore, such shell applications are quite restricted. Again, according to the defined terms, shell applications can not:

(i) Do anything that a web browser plug-in would not be able to.
(ii) Do anything more or less than Silverlight can do.
(iii) Prevent anything that a web browser plug-in can do.

Problem #3: OS Limitiations

Current and future versions of Windows and Mac are specifically excluded from the Covered Operating System definition. Yes, you read that right. Moonlight can not be cross-platform.

Problem #4: The Killswitch

Microsoft can at any time change or discontinue the covenant. Sure, previously distributed instances will be “safe”, but that does little for future versions.

Problem #5: Overlapping Promises

Microsoft explicitly states that no other licenses, covenants, releases or other rights are granted, even if they are related or enabling. This means that any technologies under the so-called Microsoft Open Specification Promis or Microsoft Community Promise that Moonlight requires can not be covered under both sets of promises/covenants.

Problem #6: Novell-Only, Pt. 2

The definitions of “Moonlight” and the covered portions clearly only apply to “those portions developed by or on behalf of Novell”.

Problem #7: Novell-Only, Pt. 3

The Media Packs are only covered if you get Novell-Provided Copies of Moonlight.

Problem #8: Platform Limited

Only Personal Computers are covered. The covenant explicity excludes, “personal digital assistants (PDAs), Pocket PCs, personal media players (PMPs), or mobile telephones”.

Problem #9: GPL-Hostile

The Microsoft “covenant” is specifically GPLv3 hostile. You are not covered if any portion is under a GPLv3 or similar license, even if every other qualification is met. The sole act of chosing a GPLv3 or similar license is sufficient to void the covenant.

Problem #10: Expiration Date

Not only does the covenant end on December 31, 2012 (it may be extended or terminated earlier), but the covenant only applies during the Term. That is, if the software is covered on December 30, 2012 and the covenant was not extended, then that same software is no longer covered on Jan 1, 2013, even if the prior use was covered.

Summary

There you have it then, 10 problems I see with the new Moonlight Covenant. Some I noticed in the old agreement, and some I didn’t really notice until reading through the new agreement.

Here’s the interesting point to me: I do not think you can develop and distribute Moonlight as “Open Source” and still remain in compliance with the covenant.

• The covenant does not permit Point 3 of the OSI OSD (Derived Works), because it only covers Novell implementations.
• The covenant does not permit Point 8 of the OSI OSD (License Must Not Be Specific to a Product), because the rights attached to the product do indeed depend on the program being part of a particular software distribution.
• The covenant does not permint Point 10 of the OSI OSD (License Must Be Technology-Neutral), because the covenant explicity excluded PDA, cell phone, and similar platforms.

I reject the notion that Open Source-licensed software can remain Open Source if it is under extra-license conditions. The uncritical focus on the-only-thing-that -matters- is-the-license-Open-Source misses a very important point. In fact, the OSI OSD touches on this in Point 2 (Source Code) when it states that obfuscated source code is not allowed.

What is the difference between “Open Source” code restricted by obfuscation or encryption and “Open Source” code restricted by “covenant” requirements?

I don’t think that “Open Source” can be vendor-specific, platform-restricted, time-limited, and modification restricted. Yet, in order to fall under the coverage of the covenant, Moonlight must be all of these things.

How exactly is that  working in a “purely open source fashion”?