Member Avatar for hbmichael

Does anyone know how much it costs to get a commercial license for mono? On their web site it says if you want to bundle with mkbundle (to make a single exe) you have to buy a commercial licence

Mono components are also available to be licensed commercially if the LGPL/GPL/X11 combination is not suitable for you. For licensing details, contact us.

Heres where it talks about the licence
http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_General

But all it says is 'contact Novell' . I'm interested but if the license is $10,000 or something.. not so much

  • 3 Contributors
  • 8 Replies
  • 243 Views
  • 2 Days Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by hbmichael

Dani AI

Generated

This thread from 2008 is understandable — asked a practical question, posted a price, and pointed out the difference between paying for vendor support and the license you need to ship a single-executable. Technical and licensing facts changed a lot since then: mkbundle still builds self-contained native executables (and can statically link the runtime), but the licensing landscape shifted when Mono’s runtime was relicensed under the MIT license on March 31, 2016. More recently stewardship of the original Mono project moved to WineHQ (August 2024), so the historical “you must buy a commercial Mono license to avoid LGPL obligations” answer from 2008 no longer tells the whole story. See the mkbundle docs and the Mono relicensing and news pages for details. (mono-project.com)

Practical options to ship a single binary without unexpected obligations:

  • Avoid static linking of an LGPL runtime: dynamically link to a system runtime or ship a framework-dependent build and require the user to install Mono.
  • If you do statically link an LGPL runtime (older setups), follow the FSF guidance so users can relink/replace the runtime (for example, provide linkable object files or an unbundled build). Read the GNU FAQ on how LGPL/GPL treats static vs dynamic linking. (gnu.org)

If a true single-file native binary is required today, consider modern alternatives:

  • Use mkbundle for older Mono-based workflows (it still supports --static/--deps and cross-targets).
  • Prefer migrating to modern .NET single-file / self-contained publishing (example): 
    
# mkbundle (legacy/Mono)
mkbundle -o myapp --deps myapp.exe

modern .NET (recommended)

dotnet publish -c Release -r linux-x64 -p:PublishSingleFile=true -p:SelfContained=true


The .NET PublishSingleFile/self-contained workflow produces platform-specific single executables and is covered by the current .NET licensing. ([mono-project.com](https://www.mono-project.com/docs/tools%2Blibraries/tools/mkbundle/))

Recommendation: treat shipping/legal questions as two parts — technical packaging and licensing/indemnity. Verify the current Mono project pages and the steward you will redistribute from (WineHQ / the dotnet/runtime fork), and if an indemnity or commercial license is required for your use-case, contact the project maintainers or seek legal advice. The links above are the authoritative starting points for up-to-date terms and technical instructions. ([mono-project.com](https://www.mono-project.com/news/2016/03/31/mono-relicensed-mit/?utm_source=openai))

Recommended Answers

All 8 Replies

Member Avatar for jbennet

its $12,995

Member Avatar for hbmichael

wow, my interest is suddenly much less now

Member Avatar for John A

its $12,995

Just curious, have you got any references for that?

Member Avatar for jbennet

Member Avatar for John A

Last time I checked, developer support has nothing to do with commercial licensing.

Member Avatar for hbmichael

yes, I think we might be talking about two different things. This is if you want to bundle your exe. I can;t decide if the license means you have to also provide the stand alone exe or if it means source code.

Member Avatar for John A

yes, I think we might be talking about two different things. This is if you want to bundle your exe. I can;t decide if the license means you have to also provide the stand alone exe or if it means source code.

I'm not a lawyer, nor have I studied the (L)GPL extensively, but from what I can tell, you just need to provide an alternate exe that isn't bundled with Mono (i.e. statically linked). In the guide, it does mention:

Be advised that this option will trigger the LGPL requirement that you still distribute the independent pieces to your user so he can manually upgrade his Mono runtime if he chooses to do so.

Which doesn't seem to indicate source code for your program is required. As long as the user has the ability to upgrade their Mono runtime for your program, you should be fine.

Member Avatar for hbmichael

Thats what it seems like. Thanks everyone for your replies.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.