Opening up code can impact security, both positively and negatively depending on circumstance, but outside of those issues I don't mind anyone opening code up for review, only. What I absolutely don't believe in is GPL licensing of that code as designed by leftist fanatic Richard Stallman, especially if that software is nothing more than a freeware clone of an already existing commercial product, that then ends up stealing business from the US when these foreign governments then standardize on the clone. So using your example, I am extremely opposed to the freeware fake of .NET called "Mono".
It would appear that your understanding of the Mono License is less than complete. Perhaps Microsoft should not have submited C# and portions of .Net to the EMCA.
What license or licenses are you using for the Mono Project?
We use three open source licenses:
* The C# Compiler and tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html) (GPL).
* The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0 (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/library.html#TOC1) (LGPL 2.0).
* The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html) license.
Both the Mono runtime and the Mono C# Compiler are also available under a proprietary license for those who can not use the LGPL and the GPL in their code.
For licensing details, contact mono-licensing@novell.com