There has been a lot of pro-Mono and anti-Mono arguments assaulting the community of late. The debate is not new but both sides have taken up arms since some distrobutions have decided to either remove Mono or include Mono by default. On one side, Ubuntu has proclaimed that Banshee will replace Rhythm box as the default audio player in Ubuntu. Opponents see that as yet another forced requirement to adopt Mono, regardless the fact that F-spot and Gnome-Do are included by default requiring Mono. Fedora has taken steps to remove Mono completely from their repositories for the next release. Opponents decry that Fedora is taking away their choices and spreading FUD.

Now I have made no bones in the past that I am wary of Mono; that is true, but I am coming around to thinking that Mono is extremely important to FOSS, I’ll get to that in a minute.

Opponents of Mono believe that it is a Trojan horse riddled with intellectual property bombs and patent infringements. Their side is bolstered by the comments of Steve Ballmar threatening suite against Linux for violating Microsoft’s IP, including .net technologies. Proponents of Mono point out that c#, cli and other Mono technologies are all published, open standards and that Mono itself is released under OpenSource licenses including the GNU approved LGLP. Furthermore, Mono does not make use proprietary technology and if it was proven to, said technology could easily be stripped out and recoded. Mono proponents proclaim that Mono is no more a risk than using C or Python. Which side is correct? Who knows, push the arguments to the side.

Some opponents of Mono feel it is bloated, has performance issues, and is a poor technological choice. Proponents counter claiming this is not so and in many cases Mono out performs Python or Java. But these arguments are no better than vi vs emacs or kde vs gnome. Push them to the side, they are nice for irc debates or BOFS at festivals.

Mono makes use of technologies developed by Microsoft. Opponents point out Microsoft’s extremely pernicious history, the company’s anti-competitiveness, and the woes that have befallen any company or group that enters into deals with them. Proponents are quick to point out that there are elements in Microsoft that are changing, they are becoming cooperative with FOSS and that we should embrace the good side as the bad side fades into the past. Regardless, again, Mono is based on OpenStandards and is not a complete endorsement of Microsoft technologies. Just because the company that founded the technology, released the standard, and promotes their own version – .net; is a convicted monopolist does not mean we should toss aside this wonderful tool – throw the baby out with the bath water as the saying goes. Is Microsoft evil? Is the use of Mono promoting Microsoft? Possibly, or maybe not. Push that to the side.

We can go through all the arguments and compare them side by said but what is the point. Push them to the side and what is left? Mono is a tool, a tool that is desired by many developers and has produced applications that users love. Furthermore, it has done so while maintaining the philosophy of FOSS. Mono promotes the hacker ethic to build, take apart and explore. In that sense Mono is great and should be welcomed.

But taken in context of the arguments above, Mono can serve an even more important purpose. Let’s say the fears of the opponents were to come true. Let’s say Microsoft did decide to come after a company for using Mono. That my friends would be the greatest thing that could happen. Because that would be the final spark we need to challenge this whole ordeal of patents and intellectual property in software that has caused the whole Mono debate, amongst many other debates.

So if you feel software patents, or patents in general, need reform. If you feel that intellectual property claims are getting out of hand then let’s stop bickering about whether or not we should fear technologies such as Mono and set to attacking the core problem. Until someone fires the first shot and one company takes another to court over these issues, all we are doing is wasting our time on debates as to whether Mono is safe to use or a trojan horse primed to bring GNU/Linux to its knees. The debate is not whether Mono should or should not be included in distrobutions; whether it should be banned. The debate should be what application represents the best of breed and should be included by default. Be it Banshee, Rhythmbox or Amarok as the default Ubuntu media player; the choice should not be based solely on the language it was written in if all three languages promote the ideals behind GNU/Linux, but which one rises to the top functionally.

If you don’t like the choice, then install something else, that is what is great about Linux and FOSS. You have so many choices, but let’s not limit those choices. Let us not bicker amongst ourselves over these trivial, outlying issues, but attack the problem at the heart. Who knows, Mono could be the spark the lights the fuse to bring down this albatross that has been hanging over the FOSS community for so long.