Ximian to Change License for Mono 318
A Commentor writes: "According to news.com Ximian is changing the license to Mono from GPL to a variant of the XFree license. Apparently this is due to a partnership with Intel." Update: 01/28 15:03 GMT by T : There's a story at NewsForge as well, where RMS weighs in firsthand on the license choice.
Headline misleading? (Score:5, Informative)
This makes quite a bit of sense in terms of acceptance as if the root classes of the implementation are GPL that pretty much forces every application built to use Mono to be GPL. You can debate whether the classes would have been better off XFree-ish or LGPL, but they shouldn't be GPL (IMO), just as the gnu libc isn't GPL.
Re:Headline misleading? (Score:4, Informative)
From Miguel's message to the Mono-announce list:
In behalf of all the Mono contributors to the project, we are announcing that the license for the Mono class libraries has been changed from the dual mode we had (GPL and LGPL) to the MIT X11 license.
Re:Headline misleading? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Headline misleading? (Score:2)
Probably a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have preferred the LGPL, but an X-style license is better than a lot of alternatives.
Of course,
I'm not sold on the whole clone-MS thing. On the one hand, it could lessen MSFT's grip on the market. On the other, MSFT will probably maintain incompatibilities with Mono, making Mono much less relevant. For instance, I doubt that they will ship a ".Net clean" version of Office that would run on Mono. Ditto for other cash-cow programs. However, I'll bet that Minesweeper.NET will be one of the first successes for Mono.
Re:Probably a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Probably a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that, providing Mono is a success, we'll see ".NET clean" versions of Office, etc running on Linux under Mono.
I'd be surprised if there weren't the odd little "foible", a la Office for Mac - sure, it worked, mostly, but it just wasn't as good as the "real" version. What it was, however, was a little extra incentive to Mac users to make their next purchase a PC + Windows, rather than a Mac. I think we'll see the same thing with Mono, ie Microsoft using it to tempt people "back to the fold".
Failing that, it will be another sale of Office, and Microsoft makes far more money from that than they do from selling their OS, especially as most people get Windows "free" with their PC and never actually buy it at full retail.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Probably a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes it seems like many Linux users are so busy being activists that they forget the true state of Linux. Sort of like nazi-feminists are so busy being angry that they do not see that there are a lot of nice men out there.
Linux is sold at CompUSA and Best Buy. Redhat, Suse and Mandrake are all available right next to Windows with plenty of shelf space. Sure you can still be a Linux god and spend 24 hours downloading an entire distro on your DSL but it is really not necessary. Just go to the store a buy it. Go ahead and cough up the 29 bucks... Oh... You never want to pay for it? Not worth it? Then the commercial distros die.
Fact is it is worth it. Have you any idea how much old hardware I have rescued with my Red Hat Pro distro? Fantastic OS, on par with Win 98SE or Mac OS 9.1. for usability and smokes them in reliability.
Notice I left out 2000 and OS X. They have Linux's reliability.
Re:Probably a good thing (Score:2)
Re:Linux is sold at CompUSA (Score:2)
Let's see,
various programming tools,
games (from board to 3D hardware accelerated),
a couple of PIMs with handheld sync. support as well as a dozen email programs,
various Internet and network tools (from serious to trivial),
commercial software demos,
graphics packages,
personal finance,
...and a few office suites and assorted 'office' applications.
The only problem is that after a while, they start to run out of room on the box.
Re:Linux is sold at CompUSA (Score:2)
I agree with you. I was thinking about this the other day as I was in CompUSA staring at the one little shelf of Linux OS offerings. I wondered why they didn't have any applications. Then I suddenly realized that nobody wants to pay anything for the application software. We all expect to download it free from the 'net. I include myself in "we." Maybe if we actually started BUYING some applications for Linux, they would start appearing more in stores.
Of course, we can always start the age old "Dreamweaver" thread again....
I hate to say this, but (Score:2, Offtopic)
- All your code module licensing are belong to us!
Whew.Actually, since they are changing the licensing for their modules only to the XFree86 license and not the entire Mono, I don't think we will see too much trouble. Besides, it's not like the X license is all that bad now, is it?
Re:I hate to say this, but (Score:2)
Re:A question about copyrights (Score:2)
Now imagine an investor comes out there and says, "Nice egg timer. We're ok with the core software being GPLed, but we want to have more control over the LEDs and the shell." So anyone who wants can still develop their own features to hang off the core software device - that still hasn't changed. But to please the investor, who will lend my egg timer a great deal of credibility and exposure, the LEDs and the rooster skin are now proprietary.
What do I do? Again, a question I am glad that I personally didn't have to answer.
down with GPL (Score:4, Troll)
It is clear that Stallman and the GPL are not really about freedom. I want the right to view, port, and tweak code. We agree there. But, I do not want the right to force others to let me view, port and tweak their code. Stallman disagree's there. At one time I had the deluded notion that the GPL was all about making certain that those who contributed to Open Source didn't try to just steal from it outright and wanted to provide more protection than the BSD license. But, it is quite clear that the agenda is bigger than that. It is that there be no closed code at all. The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source. It is there to deliberately attempt to eliminate closed source. That is a foolish endeavor in and event.
Please folks, don't be paranoid. BSD licenses represent true freedom. So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification. It is more likely, you will get credited in that instance whereas a GPL stealer will attempt to hide from GPL responsibilities. I fail to see a single incidence the BSD code modified and closed the has hurt the BSD community.
Maybe some people's feelings got hurt when MS used the BSD code for their networking implementation. But, looking at the big picture it got networking more standardized and interoperable. BSD was not directly hurt at all. With the desktop monopoly of closed software it is almost impossible for one to make headway with a low level GPL innovation. At best a corrupted twisted half assed version will be released by microcrap and everyone will suffer. OTOH, a BSD innovation can easily become a standard in both closed and open source communities.
Please, down with the GPL...
Re:down with GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that the GPL and RMS are inseparable. The GPL is about sharing code, and protecting it. RMS may have an agenda that's beyond that, probably, in fact. But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.
I really wish that RMS would retire at this point and allow some more reasonable and personable people to further the Free Software cause. I think he may be doing more harm than good at this point.
I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it. If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code. If that price isn't acceptible, then they shouldn't look to building on Free Software.
The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source.
Right and wrong. The viral nature isn't a side effect -- it's a feature. The GPL's primary goal is to protect the software from being closed, but it is not in and of itself a means to kill off closed-source software. Nothing about the GPL prevents companies from releasing closed-source software, it only prevents them from using the GPL'ed software in those products. Sure, I bet many developers hope that the GPL would be the dominant license, but using the GPL only harms closed source software by providing an alternative and giving people a choice. If closed source software can't compete, oh well.
So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification.
Just lay back and take it, I suppose. Gee, I didn't know Billy G. read Slashdot. This isn't a trivial matter, so don't trivialize it. Most folks that use a BSD license intentionally use it so that businesses can have the option of using it in proprietary software. If they're comfortable with that, so be it. They're not being ripped off if they intentionally allow this.
However, I see nothing that serves the Greater Good in allowing companies to embrace and extend Free Software and having no obligation to contribute. If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do. They can either pay up to the original developers and convince them to dual-license the software, or write it from scratch. If you went to one of these companies and said "hey, my small business is just getting started and I need 20 licenses for your software to seed my business" they'd tell you "no free lunch. Pay up or fsck off." You should tell them the same.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
Ask yourself these quesitons:
1) Is my goal to make money off of this software?
If yes, then why GPL it in the first place?
If no, then why complain about others doing just that?
2) Is my goal to make a standard with my software?
If yes, then why limit the usage base of the code?
If no, then any open-source license will do.
I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it.
Personally, I don't like "open" licenses which have such strict stipulations. It is similar to having an open bar with a sign saying "No Irish allowed." If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
I see it slightly different: Everyone is allowed to come to the party, but everyone needs to bring a bottle of liquor. You wanna come to the party, but don't want to bring a bottle? tough.
I do agree it's a restriction on freedom.. one which I happen to like. But the BSD licence is more "free". Choose your licence according to your own taste. Each has its own pros and cons.
//rdj
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
I can agree with this.
There are arguments both ways (Score:2)
My preference is that all API's, interfaces, etc. should be under a BSD style (i.e., non-restrictive) license.
For libraries I prefer LGPL.
For programs I prefer GPL (possibly with dual -licensed commercial option, but that does require complete ownership of the code, and thus is often infeasible).
But this is my preference. I see no reason to believe that everyone else should make the same decisions. And it seems to me unreasonable when someone claims that someone else should make the same decisions that they make.
Still, it is a pity that such a basic tool as a compiler is under a bsd-style license. And (as I indicated above) in my mind the libraries should be LGPL. But perhaps the Mono project is getting funding from some of the mentioned companies. That could certainly be enough to change one's mind, at least as far as BSD.
.
Re:There are arguments both ways (Score:2)
For libraries I prefer LGPL.
How are these different assuming both refer to code?
But this is my preference. I see no reason to believe that everyone else should make the same decisions. And it seems to me unreasonable when someone claims that someone else should make the same decisions that they make.
I can agree with this.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
If you said the beer was free for everyone, you could not complain, especially if you had an unlimited amount of beer.
Placing code under closed licenses very much limits who can "join the party."
Remember: they never claimed to be free. I never stated they were either. I am talking about what GNU licenses are supposed to represent.
The only limit to companies using GPL'ed code is their desire to own the code outright.
Or they just want the code they write to be theirs. They may not care about the rest of the code.
Spoken like a true free-marketroid.
Huh? Is this supposed to be an insult?
Get it straight, no one says that Company A has to build products on GPL'ed code. They can either play under the same rules as everyone else, or do their own work.
I have no problems about the rules. I just don't like the idea of claiming something is free when not everyone can use it as they see fit.
Recall the barcode reader that was given away for free (last year?). They said it was free, but they objected to its use outside of their restrictions. In my opinion, it was not truly free.
Re:down with GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Most folks that use a BSD license intentionally use it so that businesses can have the option of using it in proprietary software. If they're comfortable with that, so be it. They're not being ripped off if they intentionally allow this.
As someone who uses a BSD license (and wouldn't use the GPL if my life depended on it), I would say that this is the crux of any licence flame war...
But I will say that most BSD programmers don't care about whether or not their code is used in proprietary software. Mostly, people who code BSD software only care about writing good software - software that they want to use.
But, on the taking over the world lark, BSD software takes a different approach to the GPL. The approach is known as 'raising the bar'. If there is BSD licenced software which is better than your commercial software, then why bother with continued development on your source (especially if your shareholders find out that some geeky schoolkids, who probably don't even speak english ;-), are giving away what your highly skilled engineering department is late delivering, and over budget on nerf guns...)
As an approach, raising the bar has already been very successful:
There are several other places where raising the bar is working too, like OpenGL, where XFree86 is slowly becoming the de facto X/Windows standard. With the slow death of custom graphics hardware, don't be surprised if XFree86 takes over entirely from The Open Group.
Regards,
-Jeremy
Re:down with GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people are more willing to share the valuable things that they have (code) if they feel that it will not be sold back to them at a high price. This is self defense.
The GPL is about a selfish kind of freedom...
Possibly. But for whatever reason GPL based projects have had a tendency to develop (or fail) more rapidly than BSD based projects. This seems to be systematic, so one might consider that it ties into acutal, as opposed to idealized, human nature.
Billy's not sharing with Sally is not excuse for Johnny not sharing with Billy.
It isn't? If I thought your stand were admirable, I would congratulate you. As it is I can only suggest that you donate all your funds to Billy Gates. I'm sure he would appreciate them. You won't? How selfish of you! And how reasonable. People practice reciprocal altruism based on expectations. The GPL attempts to recognize this, though imperfectly successful.
Recent studies demonstrate that people are more willing to contribute to common benefit if they feel that nobody is benefiting unfairly, and that they are even willing to pay extra if that will punish the "freeloaders". I've seen several variations of this study recently (check the recent issues of Science News and New Scientist). Now intuitively, this seems one of those "How obviously true, why did they bother" results. But this thread is an example of why they needed to bother.
Bear in mind that people are frequently quite willing to argue that you should sacrifice for the common good, without themselves being willing to perform the same sacrifice. This is quite understandable, but I find that it is on the same moral level as a stereotypical used-car salesman.
If people want to use the BSD license, it's ok with me. I just don't want them preaching to me that I should use it. (If they want to pay me to use it, that's quite different.)
.
Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft? (Score:3, Redundant)
Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft [microsoft.com]. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.
Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft? (Score:2, Interesting)
What do you want "passed back"? Windows itself? If you're a GPL advocate, the answer of course is, "YES! A small fragement of Windows used our code so now we should by RIGHT have full and complete access to everything that is Windows!".
But that's an even sillier argument then it sounds out loud...
If possibilities like MS using the BSD network stack kept BSD developers up at night, they wouldn't be developing BSD licensed code. If such things do keep you up at night, then you shouldn't consider writing free software, and thus probably use the GPL.
Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft? (Score:2)
Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
This claim is one of those internet myths that has festered on Slashdot that has never been conclusively proved.
However this myth has been debunked in an article by a former Microsoft employee that explains with really happened? [kuro5hin.org]
Secondly, unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities but instead is the optimal way to provide utility to users of software. Even if MSFT uses a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack, this would mean that improved networking has benefitted millions of computer users who use MSFT Windows and couldn't handle BSD boxen. The BSD license is about getting as many people as possible to benefit from your software and not an attempt to bend the software industry to the world view of a dissaffected MIT computer science professor.
Re:Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:2)
Re:Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:3, Informative)
From the cited article (the link to which I was responding): "some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix"
If we're to believe this "Microsoft insider", here, then the conclusion is pretty clear. As usual, MS bought their technology (standard business practice for most large corporations), but they were unhappy with it. They re-wrote much of it, but left the parts that it did not make sense to re-invent. Plus, they largely did not touch the utilities.
None of this should be suprising, nor is it a bad thing. In fact, herein lies the power of Open Source. It also shows Microsoft's true colors, however. They brought a TCP/IP stack to market much faster than they otherwise would have because of OSS (not to mention their browser, which is based on Mosaic), but now you hear them decrying such software as dangerous and "viral" (yes, they paint the whole OSS industry with the same brush, regardless of license).
You may find these facts distasteful. I do too. However, that's no reason to complain about my facts without checking your own.
Re:Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:2)
Quote the AC, "MS never claimed Opensource to be bad, but the GPL."
Sorry, wrong again. Next time, try citing some references.
"But there also are elements to be avoided" in the OSS model, said Mundie, "such as a strong possibility of unhealthy forking, interoperability concerns and significant licensing issues." Forking is when the code base for a piece of software splits into separate directions, essentially becoming two or more different pieces of software. [microsoft.com]
I have not altered a single letter. This is a direct quote from Microsoft.
Please note that only one of the three concerns noted here is related to the GPL. No, Microsoft wants to paint the entire community of Open Source with one brush. GPL=Bad. Source=Bad. OSS=Bad....
They're not only wrong, but their use of OSS (e.g. BSD networking, Mosaic as the foundation for IE) makes it pretty clear that they are being two-faced about this.
Re:Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:2)
Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing.
# strings ftpNT.exe |fgrep -i regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
# strings ftp98.exe |fgrep -i regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
How the fuck did the comment I'm responding to get to be a score:5? Dimbulb moderators abound.
Re:Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:2)
Quoted from parent:
Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.
Learn to read links... (Score:2)
Re:Learn to read links... (Score:2)
Oops. You definitely have a point, in that MSTCP.DLL lacks the copyright notice shown above. Which doesn't prove that they didn't steal code, but certainly taks the sting out of my point specifically regarding the TCP/IP stack.
If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.
Which is exactly the point - someone wrote the code for free usage, but a big (in this case nasty) corporation benefits. If the fellow who wrote the code wanted it used this way, that's his choice. But I wouldn't want my code used this way (presuming I wrote any that they wanted).
Re:Learn to read links... (Score:2)
The fellow who wrote the code obviously didn't *care* how it was used. That someone wrote the code for *any* usage, otherwise the license shouldn't have been BSD.
I never did understand why making ideological agreement with the author a condition of licensing was a good idea...
I figure "I'm not making any money off this code" so why should I make sure no-one else is either? If someone else finds a way to make a profit out of it, then good for them. It would be nice if they decided to contribute back, bu it's their choice.
There are many other reasons for open sourcing other than ideology or warm fuzzies, but I don't use my code to leverage morality
Re:Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:2)
Well that's nice, but if you capitalize, as in "Free Software", you are apparently referring the Free Software Foundation. And Stallman does get to define what that is "for", at least for those who work with him and use his license. And Stallman's concern is the Free software stay Free, and that the work that went into creating it not be absorbed to the benefit of some corporation.
Don't like it? Then don't incorporate GPL'd source code into your programs. Simple.
The Open Source movement, and the BSD communities are a separate issue.
The BSD license is about getting as many people as possible to benefit from your software
Well, the MIT license is apparently similar and look what MSFT did with Kerberos - made a version of their own that has many of the features, but does NOT interoperate. This closed code is being used against Samba.
Programmers (should) get to decide how their code will be used, but I for one would be furious if I worked on the open implementation of Kerberos, then saw scumbags like MS use it the way they used MS-Kerberos to increase vendor lockin.
Re:Back up this claim with evidence. (Score:2)
If you go back to that article, you see that the person concerned has no current access to source code, however they admit that the early code was BSD related. Many of the utilities still have BSD copyright strings in them.
As for the benefits, this is debatable as the editors here would agree (whenever they get DOSed from a Windows box where the owner isn't even aware that their system has been broken in to. By the release of insecure code that can not easily be fixed. By distributing such code, they have done the world a disservice.
What concerns me though, is the embrace/extend policy. For example, look at what happened to Kerberos. Their security extensions are sufficiently outside public domain as to hinder interoperability.
Actually, I note that Ximian is careful about its relations with Microsoft and is careful about how they license their code. I support what they have done with the classes, but hope that the rest of the code that is currently GPL'ed remains so.
Martyr License (Score:2)
I agree at first. Open Source is about functionality and empowering the user. When you think about it, pitting platforms and user communities against each other is really a byproduct of marketing. And that's the source of "evil" that leads to a lack of interoperability and removal of user choice... but I digress.
If the BSD license is somehow superior to the GPL because it has fewer restrictions which allows more people to use BSD code... then why bother with a license? Obviously, releasing code to the public domain would be superior to both the BSD and GPL. Why bother with the BSD license at all?
Simple. Credit where credit is due. Fame. Recognition. The one universal currency within the Open Source landscape.
All licenses involve a price. And while that price affects end users, it is really about developers and the IT industry. Licenses exist to limit or serve that industry.
Sure - Open Source takes the user in account. They may even be about enabling the user. But as soon as a developer is considering which license best suits his/her requirements... it is no longer about the end user.
Re:Instance that hurt BSD: Microsoft? (Score:2)
Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft [microsoft.com]. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.
This isn't an example of someone or something being hurt. Lack of gain doesn't equal injury. Nothing has been gained from MS not releasing their code, but nothing has been lost. Just because they didn't help you by releasing their code, that doesn't mean they have hurt you.
Which License Represents True Freedom? (Score:2)
My answer: None of the above. The very fact that all these different licenses exist--including the GPL--that represents true freedom.
Yeah, this is just another statement of the O'Reilly "freedom to choose your license" statement. So what.
Yes, the GPL has an agenda. Stuff that my friends have been telling me I'm paranoid... it's being confirmed. Come to think of it, since 9-11, the paranoids have been vindicated to a degree. I must say though, publishing software under the GPL is nowhere near as bad as say... marketing fuel-grade ethanol as a beverage or selling "herbal remedies" that are in fact potent medicines with potentially fatal side effects from long term usage.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
On the other hand, the GPL is about keeping things open. The classic problem with societies is that there is always someone who breaks the rules, or who won't play fair with the rest of us. The GPL exists to solve this problem and protect developers. This way, I can create code that is open, and if anyone wants to use it then their code must remain open also. Is that really too much to ask? I made something that you may use for free, and now I want you to do the same for me. That's the point of the GPL. It's to force people to play fair. Otherwise, you'll have good honest people making all this free code, and then other people/companies will just take it without giving back.
It sounds to me like you just want to take.
Please, don't whine about licenses. It is up to the developer to choose. Don't complain when something is GPL, geez. Be glad you have the code.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
actually, i'd interpret as saying, you can use my work as long as i can use yours. you can still make money off GPL'd code, you just have to distribute the source code. i'm sure you can imagine a situation where people would buy software which is also available free (ie, RedHat), especially if it came with a level of support or some other service.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
I have no issues with pot smoking, but ya gotta admit, only potheads ramble on about secret codes in the
In independent studies that I have conducted in my own life, I have concluded that *POT SMOKING* keeps you thinking like a socialist and creates a compelte rejection of authoritarian values.
YMMV.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
I totally agree with RMS here. If someone wants to have the advantages of my code, they are going to have to make the same sacrifices as I made. If they don't like it, that's tough. Freedom, schmeedom - if you wanna see my code, you are going to show me yours. It's as simple as that.
So what? So I want code! The GPL forces you to give me the code. I don't care at all about the recognition or the money, what I want is perpetual access to an ever-improving codebase. If that means that there is no 'commercial' software in the future, so be it.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
Huh? You talk like this is some kind of hidden agenda....? RMS has made it perfectly clear that his long-term goal is to throw out software licenses. The GPL is just means to get there.
As I see it, GPL is first and foremost there to promote the ideas of free software, which will ultimately lead to that all software licenses will be abandoned.
BSD licenses are used to promote some specific piece of software, application or codec. If that is what you want to do, go with BSD, I have no problem with that.
But, you may also want to put your software in the public domain, if it is really ultimate freedom for all you have in mind. If you do, you would agree with RMS' ultimate goal, but rushing it there may hurt more than it's worth.
Re:down with GPL (Score:2)
If you want your code to be "free", stick "Public Domain, do whatever you want with it" at the top. Even the BSD licence is restrictive in the fact that people who use the code have to credit the author. It's not much, but they've still lost the ability to create software without crediting anyone.
Stop arguing about licence "freedom" - it doesn't exist. Just let software authors create software with whatever licence they want.
License change. (Score:5, Informative)
Miguel.
/. moderators are getting stupider... (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's INFORMATIVE, dammit! Maybe even "Interesting", if you swing that way, but "Insightful"?
Apparently some moderators wouldn't know "Insightful" if it bit them in the ass!
/rant
Re:License change. (Score:2)
Why? I know that Ximian has to attend to the economic realities of the marketplace, but why is it that you were so sure that Intel would never go along with the GPL that you had to relicense? I realize it's still a free software license, but the MIT X11 license opens the community up to non-free forks. Anybody on the planet can now take the Mono class libraries, not even add anything and repackage it as proprietary software. What happens if Mono fails? (Somebody will pick up the class libraries, not necessarily someone with the communities best interests in mind)
Free software is great, (by the way, I'm hoping that you were misquoted in the news article that had you talking about "open source") and the MIT X11 license is fine, but it takes all of the teeth out of the software and lets anybody who wants to come along, repackage the software and steal subsequent users of their version's freedom. Why?
The more interesting news in this aritcle... (Score:5, Interesting)
is that Intel and HP are contributing to Mono.
I find it somewhat amazing that these two would risk the wrath of Bill. HP I can almost understand, since they're in the Unix business (for now anyway), but Intel would be in big trouble if MS dropped support for Itanic in favour of AMD's Hammer.
Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux (Score:5, Informative)
-Intel writes the fastest C/C++ and Fortran compilers and parallelization tools for Linux
-Intel is a founder of the Open Source Development Lab
-Intel is working on dozens of Linux projects including OSCAR cluster, ethernet, gig E and embedded StrongARM work.
-Itanium has over 500 applications for 3+ OSes while Hammer doesn't even have a finished OS yet.
(Just don't tell Microsoft...)
Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
True enough. I knew about most of those, although not all. But this is a little different. It's one thing to support an alternative technology, but Mono is a direct frontal attack. If MS is really reorganising itself around .Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.
Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux (Score:2)
Mono is a direct frontal attack.
Stop. Please. Now. Ami, you seem like the nicest person from your posts, and I know I tend to have an itchy trigger finger around here, and I really am trying to be a good boy tonight, so please bear with me...
This is not a direct frontal attack. Microsoft is pleased about Mono. Last month they even had a front page interview with Miguel at the MSDN site about his opinions on .NET and Mono. Microsoft wants .NET to spread, which is why they standardized it with ECMA to begin with (along with the not-so-subtle jab at Sun's own Java standardization foibles). The more interest there is in .NET, the less there is in Java, and consequently the more Sun is put over a barrel with regards to Java, especially at a time in Sun's history in which they been losing money for a few quarters now, and especially when Sun already has rocky relations with the open source community as it is.
I know most people at Slashdot love to think that Microsoft is a company of bumblers and that every move they make is some fatal step that will spell their downfall, but well, we've been hearing that for years now, and frankly all the marketshare numbers, server and desktop, show the opposite has been happening. Slashdot might never admit it, but there's some decent evidence out there that *gasp* Microsoft actually knows what it's doing. HP and Intel were the two biggest contributors with Microsoft in the .NET standardization process, and Microsoft actually expects them to help spread the word that .NET is A Good Thing. The Mono classes getting out from under the GPL is icing on the cake.
Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux (Score:2)
MS just has too much power, money, political clout etc. They pretty much can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Even the DOJ is afraid to punish them when they break the law.
Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux (Score:2)
Thanks.. I think. But really you don't need to be a good boy on my account. Being a good boy does earn you a response, however. Bad boys get ignored :-).
Indeed, they definately know what they're doing. Thats why I dont buy that they really want to see Mono succeed.
Microsoft makes it's money from Windows and Office. Two monopolies who's days are numbered. They won't go down tomorrow, or even next year, but it is happening. The only way they can survive is to use the next few years to establish themselves in other markets. Even doing that won't give them the same kinds of margins they have now unless they can establish a monopoly.
If Microsoft appears to be pushing Mono then there are few possibilities: 1) it's a PR ploy because they believe that they can pull the rug out later (perhaps using software patents), 2) they really think that they can dominate the market for software services if there's level playing field, 3) they've resigned themselves to becoming just another computer company, comparable to Oracle or Computer Associates, 4) they're idiots.
We've already agreed they're not idiots, so that eliminates #4. #3 seems unlikely, given that it's really to early for them to give up on world domination. They might as well give a shot since they've come this far. That leaves only "PR" and "extreme confidence". Given that they've got $40 billion in the bank, I suppose they have reasons to be confident, but knowing what we do about the level of paranoia within Microsoft I'd say PR is much more likely.
Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux (Score:2)
I wouldn't really say Mono is a "clone". It's more like an implementation. MS releases the specs for a new software architecture and/or compliler fully expecting people to port it. Their motivations behind this are probably many, but we can only speculate. The truth is, MS could care less if people implement the spec, otherwise they wouldn't have released it.
Win32 (Wine) on the other hand is closed source. It is completely possible that MS could have another layer equivalent to Win32 on top of the
Ah ha! Now THERE'S a strategy.
Re: Intel is putting HUGE resources into Linux (Score:2, Informative)
See the NetBSD/x86_64 port page [netbsd.org].
gcc is beyond help (Score:2)
Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see how they could be happy about it. If you can substitute Linux (or other Unix) servers for MS-Windows then Microsoft becomes just another software company. They've been fighting that for fifteen years.
With .Net they're gambling that they can out-code all of their competitors (3500 classes?!!) and maintain their monopoly that way. That might even be true if everybody else acts alone, but if a few large companies help with the Open Source implementation then the MS version will become a niche product.
Imagine if a few other large companies joined the effort. If AOL, Oracle, IBM, HP, Intel, and the Open Source companies worked togother on a Free .Net implementation, then the MS version would be marginalized. Nobody would use MS-propietary extensions if it meant shutting out Oracle or AOL users.
Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle... (Score:2)
If that's really the plan then I say good luck to them. If they don't own the platform then they'll actually have to compete in the services market against some much more established players.
Even I might become an MS customer if I could pick and choose those compenents I liked from MS and use them alongside products from competing companies.
Re:Microsoft can't really hurt Intel (Score:2)
The problem is that people don't buy software to go with their hardware, they buy hardware that runs their software.
For the next few years, at least, MS can push the desktop market wherever it wants. If the next generation of Windows only ran on MIPS, then MIPS would be the next big thing.
On the server side they don't have as much power, but Itanium has been a flop so far. Certainly you don't need Itanium to build a high-end Linux box. If MS ported Windows to some other 64-bit platform then there would be no compelling reason for anybody to support Intel.
Miguel is speaking at Columbia U on Wednesday (Score:4, Informative)
If the slashdot readership has any questions they'd like to ask Miguel de Icaza, we can ask the highly-moderated ones during the Q&A session and report the answers back here.
Phil Gross, Columbia ACM
DotGNU Portable.NET (Score:5, Insightful)
This leaves DotGNU Portable.NET as the only true Free Software project tackling the implementation of the CLR, C# compiler, C# class library, etc.
http://www.southern-storm.com.au/portable_net.html [southern-storm.com.au] .
We are looking for developers to help us build our system into a truly-Free implementation. Portable.NET has been around longer than Mono, and remains true to the principles of Free Software.
Re:DotGNU Portable.NET (Score:5, Informative)
The compiler is released under the GPL.
The class libraries are released under the X11 license.
The X11 license is a free software license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X1
It is also an Open Source license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.h
All of it free software.
If they were not `truly free software' we would have bigger problems (someone would have to start a reimplementation of X11, telnet, Kerberos, Expat, LibXML, Mesa GL, ftp, Tcl/Tk, BIND, DNS, and anything else released under the X11, the Ousterhout or the BSD licenses, because they are in essence the same thing).
Miguel
Re:DotGNU Portable.NET (Score:2)
Sure, Copyright law may allow you to do this, but that is a technicality. I have made a strong commitment to DotGNU and the GNU Project to *never* change the license in a way which may harm the community's interests. Will you do the same?
Free Software is more than just using a GPL-compatible license. It also entails that all future uses of the software remain Free, in all respects. The X11 license does not preserve this freedom, as it allows components to be proprietrised.
Ximian is putting pragmatism ahead of the community by bowing to Intel and HP in this.
Re:DotGNU Portable.NET (Score:4, Insightful)
moment.
Hah! Hah! Hah! You're so full of it the roto-rooter man is jealous.
Let's say I have an MIT-X11 program sitting on my ftp site. How, just how, can anyone make it non-free? They could of course download their own copy, build it, and distribute the resulting binary source-less. But that non-free binary will be on their ftp site, not mine. My copy is still 100% free.
You know, if you were correct, Bill Gates could stop Linux in its tracks in a heartbeat. All he would have to do is relicense XFree86 under a proprietary license, and suddenly it's no longer free. You have have to pay royalties to Microsoft to use any GUI on Linux. But guess what? That's not the way the world works. Bill Gates could do all sorts of evil and heinous things to his *copy* of XFree86, but his filthy hands will never touch my copy, your copy, or the copy at ftp.xfree86.org.
Frankly, if someone wants to use a non-free binary instead of my free binary that comes with source code, that's *their* decision.
Re:DotGNU Portable.NET (Score:2)
That's kinda funny, because when I read this story, the first thing I thought was "hey, Mono is now truly free, instead of only qualifiedly so".
Diff'rent strokes, I guess.
Re:GNU FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GNU FUD (Score:2)
All that is possible is to release derived work without a Free license. It's not as if the original Free code would go away. You do not lose anything - you just do not get more. That's quite a difference.
The danger is always that the derived work becomes more extensively supported than the free parts of it.
So, why would badly supported source code deserve to win over well-supported binaries?
If in the marketplace, the code in the GPL is ignored in favor of completely closed original code, how does this benefit anyone? The GPL project then becomes an academic exercise while the closed original code becomes a market force.
Instead, if open BSD code is "stolen" (hah), closed, and even distorted, then this means that everyone has access to an implementation that is very similar to the de facto standard, and can even track or dismiss observable differences if the closed source dominates the market (as BSD TCP/IP has done). Everyone benefits.
The GPL is about rights and control. A patent tries to spur innovation by forcing people out of the copy-me-too rut. The GPL "spurs" innovation by forcing market leaders to ignore valuable code and write their own closed standards (or steal the valuable code and erase the fingerprints).
Personally, the BSD or Artistic licenses make more sense to me. If I write something cool, I want the massive market leaders to leverage it and turn my ideas into market standards. I let everyone else play with the source code, so everyone can play with the market standards.
that article should be modded -1 troll (Score:2, Troll)
... or perhaps flamebait?
How can a professional journalist be so irresponsible as to write things like:
Ximian, a company working to improve the Linux operating system for ordinary computer users, has made a philosophical shift in a key new open-source software project that now will be governed by a less restrictive license [emphasis added].
and:
Mono would allow Linux and Unix systems to host Web services and to tap into Web services on other servers.
The GPL is restrictive. (Score:2)
Well, the same way a pro journalist can call a semiauto rifle an assualt weapon, but that's really beside the point.
Journalists are dumb, this fact is proven nearly every day.
Ximian, a company working to improve the Linux operating system for ordinary computer users, has made a philosophical shift in a key new open-source software project that now will be governed by a less restrictive license [emphasis added].
Umm...Maybe you haven't read it lately, but the GPL *is* as restrictive license.
A restriction is still a restriction, no matter if it's ultimate goal is openness or profit.
C-X C-S
Re:The GPL is restrictive. (Score:2)
Umm...Maybe you haven't read it lately, but the GPL *is* as restrictive license. A restriction is still a restriction, no matter if it's ultimate goal is openness or profit.
It's not a question of more or less. It's different! That's all. Microsoft's EULA is not any more open than the GPL no matter what their marketing spin might have people believe. This article insinuates that you're somehow strapped to lead weights and sunk in a deep ocean with the GPL. While the GPL may be restrictive, it's simply a different kind of restriction than that engendered by other, non GPL licenses.
My point was that the monkey at the keyboard writing that article suggested, in bold type no less, that a portion of Ximian mono was going to be ... a less restrictive license than the GPL. That is as rubbish as saying that the GPL is non restrictive. Saying either leads the ignorant down a garden path. That's what marketing is for, not journalism!
actually, your post should be... (Score:3, Insightful)
The statement was wholly appropriate, and this is coming from someone who happens to like the GPL in most cases.
I mean, some zealotry is expected from time to time, but this frothing at the mouth over a statement that was logically sound and not at all inaccurate just lends people to think all people who are pro-GPL are a bunch of dogmatic cultists. And what the hell is up with the second statement? It boggles the mind to even try and guess what the hell you found wrong with that.
Thanks a bunch. I'll remember you the next time I mention Linux to someone and they look at me like I'm a scientologist.
RMS, you have me confused (Score:5, Interesting)
In discussing the LGPL vs GPL for libraries, you mention the idea that if the ability doesn't exist outside of the library (ie readline) you should GPL it. Then, if someone wants to use your library, they need to GPL it, and this advanced free software.
However, if you are reimplementing a standard (i.e. glibc) then you should use the LGPL so that others can build on your work.
So, assuming we shared your goals of using licensing to advance free software, I still don't see how this hurts.
Right now, in the pragmatic marketplace, the Unix vendors are retreating up the ladder. Linux and GNU based systems are replacing the low-end UNIX system. Proprietary UNIX is slowly being confined to areas where Free Unix-like OSes can't perform. I think that worrying about liberating Unix users is quite silly. At this point, any markets that Unix competes in will belong to GNU when it matures to that level. UNIX isn't the enemy, its the advanced team. Crippling the commercial UNIXes in a Unix vs. MS fight really hurts free software, as we have a Free Unix, but not a free Windows. The Free Unix will displace the non-Free Unixes, but if the service runs on Windows, you won't liberate those users.
From this view point, I fail to see how this licensing change hurts thing? These classes are duplicates of the Microsoft classes. As they are based upon compatibility, you can't really do much with them directly. I don't see the leverage that even GPL'd versions give you.
If your goal is to prevent Sun from using this work to sell Solaris in this market, I think you are missing the situation here. The first choice that is made is Unix vs. WinNT. If WinNT wins, then your free tools are ignored. If Unix wins, then GNU systems get the job if they can handle it, otherwise a Unix is chosen. When the server is replaced in 2-3 years, it will likely be replaced by a GNU system.
We can't offer things that Sun and HP can. If they do the job, GNU systems kick in when they can handle it. If Win32 gets the job, you are unlikely to liberate them.
Please, explain how crippling the development efforts advanced free software?
GNUstep could have done wonders had the project been nearly completed 3-4 years ago. It is just coming to maturity now, and will likely me 2 years from true usefulness.
This industry moves quickly, and GNU is making it move faster. Any space gets eaten by Free Software within 5 years of existance now, with good prototypes in 2-3 years. Isn't it simply enough to speed up the Free Software Goliath? Why attack the Unix vendors, they're adopting the GNU way slowly as they can.
Alex
I had Mono as a kid... (Score:2, Funny)
Frustrating (Score:2)
The future of Mono as free software appears to be troubled (even more than it already was). It may make Ximian and Intel a buck or two, but I wonder if it will bring any benefit to the free sofware community.
I would have preferred an LGPL license. Dropping the LGPL, which is really quite tame, makes me suspicious of Ximian/Intel's motives.
Sun, GNOME, Mono? (Score:2)
But I haven't seen anything about this around. Has anyone seen anything?
This is *only* the class libraries. (Score:2, Informative)
The C# Compiler is released under the terms of the GNU GPL. The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL. And the class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license.
I don't know how much better that is, but at least it's better then changing the license to all of Mono.
Lesser than Common Wealth (Score:3, Interesting)
expanding base that does drive competition in the commercial market,
regardless of the licenses being used in the market.
On one end of the spectrum of licenses you have the growth of this base of
Common Wealth code.
On the other end you have the extream of closed down tight proprietary
code that is done so as a matter of milking it for every penny you can get
out of it, profits focused to a few.
If all code was proprietary, you can be certain that we would not be
anywhere near as advanced in this technology as we are today.
The BSD License doesn't help the Common Wealth code base as much as GPL
does. But the GPL doesn't help the proprietary code base any more than
vice versa.
So, do you build upon Common Wealth or slow it's advancement thru such
licenses support some other point in the spectrum?
In time it will become clear that compromises such as what the BSD license
allows, will act counter productive to the GPL objective/goal. In time,
thru the compromise, the GPL will become heavely constrained by those who
use the compromise to place barriers to advancement in front of the GPL.
Consider a piece of BSD licensed code, open to be improved until someone
comes along and pulls it behind the curtain and slaps patented piece of
software on it, effectively preventing anyone else from advancing that
software in that direction in an open source manner.
It should be worth noting that IBM is the Leading US patent holder, being
granted more patents a year than any other company or party, in the US.
This particular story regarding Mono is a good indication of....Ok it's ok
to make the engines available for free but we are gonna own all the tires
and gas.....and these engines won't be able to go anywhere without our
permission, and that's for sale.
RMS sees possibilities and then applies human greed to the equasion to
determine what to expect. I now this because I do it too, and it's always
right.
So Sure RMS seems to be extream, because when dealing with the devil,
there is no such thing as compromise. Only an illusion to lead you to
think so, untill it's to late for you to do anything about it.
hmmm. (Score:2)
Sounds like Antitrust.
Re:You do know what would happen now right? (Score:2)
The GNU-Nazi will have to start his own
He already has, its called DotGNU
Re:Funny how that happens... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Funny how that happens... (Score:2, Flamebait)
I just had an online argument with a GNUbite and a GNOMEite about his/her (don't know which) "boycott" of KDE, because its mere existence had somehow put the Free desktop in jeopardy.
Well, here's the thing.
When I first started using Free systems (I used Linux for years, then went to FreeBSD, and back to Linux) the best I could come up with was TkDesk, and RMS didn't even like that because of Tcl licensing. At that point, GNUstep was little more than a pipe dream ('96) but now ('02) it's getting closer.
I look at it like this: the KDE project was based on Qt due to it being a nice toolkit and due to the naivete of the core team. They just weren't aware of the implications, and couldn't understand it because, let's face it, programmers aren't lawyers. Later on, some of the KDE project people worked to make Qt GPL-friendly, a fact that was completely ignored by the GNUbite crowd, and largely ignored during RMS's crowing after Qt was dual-licensed under the GPL/QPL. To admit that both sides wanted the same thing would be to admit that the GNUbites were a bit wrong to spew so much venom at the KDE crowd.
Doggone it, news items like this just show how harmful having GNOME around is for the Free desktop. Nowadays, to be free-from-cost in the KDE world, one has to release their code under a Free license. To do otherwise is to pay a princely sum to Troll Tech, which most people don't want to do. The GNOME project, however, has wanted to get into bed with commercial projects since the beginning, and this is a great example. Such a license is bad for the Free world, though they'll not admit that their darling environment would be so.
If anyone's been harmful to the Free desktop, it's GNOME, not KDE.
sorry to get on the KDE vs. GNOME tangent again; it just bothers me that GNOME, the GNU darling, is getting so darned commercial-friendly. Seems a tad contradictory. I'm not really a Free zealot at all.
Re:Funny how that happens... (Score:2)
I know that Richard was never particularly fond of Tcl as a programming language. Maybe this is what you are refering to?
Miguel.
Re:Funny how that happens... (Score:2)
the KDE project was based on Qt due to it being a nice toolkit and due to the naivete of the core team. They just weren't aware of the implications, and couldn't understand it because, let's face it, programmers aren't lawyers.
This excuse does not fly. Perhaps it could have been true for a short time, but lots of people pointed out that KDE was depending on non-free software. KDE could have adopted the Harmony project (free library compatible with Qt) but they chose not to do so.
(There was an essay about this, with a title something like "Why KDE still isn't a good idea". I've searched the web for a long time and I couldn't find it. I think I read it on Slashdot, but I can't find it here either. Can anyone help me out?)
It seems clear to me that we have GNOME to thank for Troll Tech freeing up their license on the Qt library.
By the way, read this:
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/qtcontroversy.html [ntlug.org]
To admit that both sides wanted the same thing would be to admit that the GNUbites were a bit wrong to spew so much venom at the KDE crowd.
I'd prefer that no one spew venom at anyone, least of all at fellow free-software developers. But I must say that I have seen about as much anti-GNOME venom as anti-KDE venom. Both desktops have lots of rabid supporters.
Doggone it, news items like this just show how harmful having GNOME around is for the Free desktop. Nowadays, to be free-from-cost in the KDE world, one has to release their code under a Free license. To do otherwise is to pay a princely sum to Troll Tech, which most people don't want to do. The GNOME project, however, has wanted to get into bed with commercial projects since the beginning, and this is a great example. Such a license is bad for the Free world, though they'll not admit that their darling environment would be so.
Let me get this straight. It is better for the free software world to depend on a commercial product, one you must sometimes pay for the right to use, than to depend on a completely free library? Nonsense. To believe that, you would have to believe that contributions by business to free software are tainted and bad. I don't believe that. If IBM wants to donate a journaling file system, big iron patches, or anything else to the free community, I'm all for it.
I also note your implication: if we didn't have GNOME we would have more free apps. Let's think about this. If some company wanted to make and sell a product to run under Linux, and they didn't want to pay for a Qt license, you think that they would then go ahead and write the product and give it away for free? Not in this world. They would just forget about writing the product. The people who want to release their software free will do it, whether they are developing for GNOME or KDE. Lack of a free alternative will not cause more people to give stuff away.
If anyone's been harmful to the Free desktop, it's GNOME, not KDE.
Utter nonsense. The competition between the two desktops has made both of them better. The KDE guys are doing a great job, but so are the GNOME guys. The big difference is that companies like Sun and HP are going to ship GNOME on their computers, not KDE. But you have totally failed to make any case that it's a bad thing when more computers are running a free desktop.
steveha
Re:Funny how that happens... (Score:2)
Found it.
Why KDE is Still a Bad Idea [slashdot.org]
steveha
Re:Given up on Ximian (Score:4, Insightful)
Slam me if you like, but Gnumeric means I can keep my gradebook and track my business P/L on a free software application instead of dual-booting Windows. People need good spreadsheets and groupware to do real work.
Oh, and "apt-get install evolution-ssl" works just fine here... installing good software for Linux doesn't have to be hard, you know.
Re:Given up on Ximian (Score:3, Insightful)
Two steps behind a leader is much better place to be than right in front of the last man running :-) What Ximian makes is needed not to geeks but to common folk (a.k.a. lusers). That's who wants Evolution. Without Windows-like apps Linux will see much more resistance everywhere. I am personally very glad that Ximian works on all that unneeded fluff and eye candy, so I can focus on some serious work.
Myself, I am very happy with Mutt, and though I tried Evolution and I have it installed... it crashes sometimes, and it is not as flexible as Mutt is. Evolution also has some codepage-related quirks which Mutt (and iconv that it uses) doesn't have.
Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th (Score:2, Insightful)
It has been stated before that Mono does appear on the MSFT radar, but at the moment, it is seen as benign. Maybe this will change, but so what for the moment.
A BSD or MIT license is appropriate to encourage adoption. Yes, I'm certain if MSFT see good ideas then they will steal them, but please remember that they have already implemented all of their classes and they are extremely proprietary. However, what everyone is interested in is Mono being adopted on Unix platforms. Once it has been adopted, then it woud be possible to improve it using GPL'ed software.
Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, so what? I mean seriously, so what?
Just do Microsoft a favour and virtually work for them for free while you're at it!
Since I don't have to pay to get Mono, Miguel is working for me for free. I like that. It's cool. I don't have to pay Miguel a damn thing to get Mono. So if Miguel is working for me for free, why can't he work for Bill Gates for free at the same time?
Or is Free Software not the issue here, and you could care less what the software is as long as someone you don't like gets screwed?
Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th (Score:2, Funny)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person, other than an employee or agent of Microsoft Corporation, obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Disclaimer...
Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th (Score:2)
Should that be Mono + .net >= Mono? I have seen no real evidence that .net is non-zero.
I know mono is real (i can *download* it), but .net seems a bit more complex. I think the real part of .net is the developers toolkit, while the imaginary part is the passport stuff that no-one will ever use.
Complex numbers have no intrinsic order, but the inequality could be |Mono+.net|>|mono|. Fortunately this means that if they are a disaster, then the magnitude of microsofts disaster will be bigger than mono's!
Re:What the..?! What point is that part of Mono th (Score:2)
If Microsoft wants to take advantage of the Mono project by incorporating code from it in .Net, then that benefits Mono too.
Re:A disturbing move. (Score:3, Informative)
Mono changed from free software to free software.
Your comparison sucks.
Re:A disturbing move. (Score:2)
Re:Weird... MS' .NET is closed source but... (Score:2)
Re:Look at Mozilla (Score:2)
"If you're adding a new Mozilla source file then you must license it under an MPL/GPL/LGPL "triple license," unless the new file contains code taken from a file under another license. (In the latter case you may need to talk to mozilla.org staff before adding the new file.)"
And if you go to their license information page, you'll find:
"At the moment, parts of the source are available under either the Netscape Public License (NPL) or the Mozilla Public License (MPL), often in combination with either the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), or both. mozilla.org is working towards having all the code in the tree licensed under a MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-license; for more information, see the Relicensing FAQ. Any code checked into our CVS tree needs to comply with the licensing policy"
So no, they haven't transitioned to a GPL license - but they're trying to unify their licensing on MPL/LGL/GPL instead of (N or M)PL/(L)GPL. A simplification to what they had, but they're certainly not transitioning away from multiple licenses.
Re:Look at Mozilla (Score:2)
MPL and the GPL.
The fact that the GPL is used in Mozilla is more of a gift to the community to allow them to mix Mozilla code with existing GPL code than Mozilla being forced to use GPL code.
Miguel