9:28 p.m.
Any comments on the following, and how it might pertain to future releases?:
[quote]
I noticed a comment thread on Groklaw about Moonlight, with a link to
the license terms on Microsoft's website. They call it Covenant to
Downstream Recipients of Moonlight - Microsoft & Novell Interoperability
Collaboration . A comment by Microsoft's Brian Goldfarb on Dana
Blankenhorn's article about Novell being a lead pony for Silverlight
started the discussion originally. Goldfarb represented that anyone can
use Moonlight: "Moonlight is usable for anyone on any distribution of
Linux (redhat, ubuntu, etc.) -- it is not limited just to Novell as Mono
is." And he linked to the covenant, saying it "applies to all downstream
recepients of the software." Is that true?
...
"Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries, hereby covenants
not to sue Downstream Recipients of Novell and its Subsidiaries for
infringement under Necessary Claims of Microsoft on account of such
Downstream Recipients’ 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 to provide Plug-In Functionality. 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."
...
Q: But the definitions section seems to be saying that Moonlight is safe
from threat only if you get it from Novell AND DO NOT PASS IT ON, as
there are no protections for downstream recipients.
A: Correct, unless those downstream recipients get it from an
'Intermediate Recipient' defined to only include authorized resellers.
[quote]
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454
I was particularly interested in the phrase "it is not limited just to
Novell as Mono is."
^^^^^^^^^^
I know you don't ship Moonlight, and I sincerely hope you never do, but
you /do/ ship Mono, and I have been vigorously campaigning (in various
places) for distros not to, without much success. I think this latest
revelation is finally vindication of my concerns, and you should drop
Mono like a hot brick.
On the subject of Microsoft's "covenants", there's also this:
[quote]
So much quarreling about open standards. Jason Matusow advocates for a
document format with RAND licensing conditions for the patents. What
does he mean when he talks about RAND? RAND stands for "reasonable and
non-discriminatory". But Jason Matusow's company Microsoft lacks honesty
when it talks about "reasonable and non-discriminatory" conditions.
...
Reasonable and non-discriminatory in patent licensing means "we apply a
uniform fee".
...
RAND patent licensing conditions are a tool to ban Free Software, which
is entirely incompatible with RAND licensing conditions. Now one side of
the debate blames it on the patent licensing conditions, the other side
on the software licensing conditions.
"The reason I agree with the statement about patents and Free Software
not mixing is that there have been terms written into GPL licenses that
explicitly conflict with software patents. Okay, that is the choice of
the authors and users of those licenses."
[quote]
http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-54546/reasonable-and-not-non-discr...
It seems clear to me that the cloak of ECMA's RAND, that Microsoft hides
their .NET and OOXML patents behind, has been exposed as a sham. IOW the
Emperor has no clothes.
Why are you still shipping Mono?
Then there's this new debacle over Firefox:
[quote]
I decided to upgrade my copy of Firefox 3 Beta5 to the recent Release
Candidate today and was greeted with something quite unexpected.
Instead of my browser window opening as it was supposed to do I was
given a End-User Software License Agreement (EULA) screen which would
not let me use Firefox until I agreed with the terms and conditions.
While Mozilla has had a EULA since Firefox 1.5 or so they have never
brazenly shoved it into the end-user's face until now. It immediately
set me on edge because this behavior is indicative of proprietary
software and not something you would expect to see when using something
that is open source.
[quote]
http://www.linuxinfusion.com/firefox-3-rc1-forces-you-agree-eula-usage
Why are you still shipping Firefox instead of GNU IceCat, which is after
all exactly the same software - but without the additional restrictions
that make Firefox® non-Free?
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
9:59 p.m.
As far as I see, the Moonlight "Covenant" is /far/ from open source; so as
long as the conditions stay as today, this is just out of the question for
Fedora.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513
1:11 a.m.
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Any comments on the following, and how it might pertain to future
releases?:
Moonlight:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight
Mono has been discussed extensively in the past. So just refer to list
archives for details.
Firefox: EULA shown is just MPL/LGPL/GPL and doesn't really make it
non-free anymore than showing EULA in previous Fedora releases made it
non-free.
However refer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447661
Rahul
3:24 a.m.
Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly:
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> Any comments on the following, and how it might pertain to
future
> releases?:
Moonlight:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight
Thank you. I hadn't actually seen that page, but I was aware that you'd
blocked Moonlight as non-Free. Indeed, this is why I'm so surprised that
you don't block Mono for the same, or similar, reasons.
Mono has been discussed extensively in the past. So just refer to
list archives for details.
In advance of reviewing the archives, I'd just like to reiterate
concerns that have been made about Mono elsewhere:
[quote]
I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the
excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros
over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products,
i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an
interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world.
Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not
excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to
sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true.
[/quote]
http://commandline.org.uk/linux/2007/aug/5/be-careful-who-you-kiss/
Coupled with the revelations of Microsoft's agenda for Moonlight, I'd
say it's pretty clear that Mono is a serious (and unnecessary) risk,
since Mono is encumbered by similar terms, by the same patent holder.
Firefox: EULA shown is just MPL/LGPL/GPL and doesn't really make
it
non-free anymore than showing EULA in previous Fedora releases made
it non-free.
Having read the EULA, I see there is considerably more in there than
just the MPL, in fact there is no mention of the GPL at all, and only a
very brief reference to the MPL. The vast majority of the document
details Intellectual Property restrictions, and other insidious elements
such as export restrictions.
Also, I really don't think that Free Software should require an
affirmative confirmation of license acceptance to allow use of that
software, especially when what one is "accepting" is the revocation of
one's rights WRT that software.
The EULA itself does not even read like an expression of Freedom, but
much more like a corporate declaration that /inhibits/ Freedom. In fact
I couldn't even locate a copy of that version of the license on Mozilla
Corp's Website, to review before deciding whether or not to download the
software, although this is a preview release, so that may (hopefully)
change. Ultimately I had to download the tarball, and even then I could
not find a license file to read, I had to actually run the software to
see the (presumably embedded) license. I've published a copy here (I
assume that publishing a copy of the license is not, in and of itself,
some form of Intellectual Property violation):
http://slated.org/firefox_3_is_this_really_free_software
[quote]
By clicking the "Accept" button, or by installing or using the Mozilla
Firefox Browser, you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement. If you
do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click
the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla
Firefox Browser.
...
Mozilla, for itself and on behalf of its licensors, hereby reserves all
intellectual property rights in the Product, except for the rights
expressly granted in this Agreement. You may not remove or alter any
trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notice in or on the
Product. This license does not grant you any right to use the
trademarks, service marks or logos of Mozilla or its licensors.
...
8. EXPORT CONTROLS. This license is subject to all applicable export
restrictions. You must comply with all export and import laws and
restrictions and regulations of any United States or foreign agency or
authority relating to the Product and its use.
9. U.S. GOVERNMENT END-USERS. This Product is a "commercial item," as
that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting of "commercial
computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as
such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995) and 48 C.F.R.
227.7202 (June 1995). Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212, 48 C.F.R.
27.405(b)(2) (June 1998) and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202, all U.S. Government End
Users acquire the Product with only those rights as set forth therein.
[/quote]
IMHO this is non-Free, and obviously both Debian and FSF agree with me,
since they have each forked Firefox.
Personally I just don't see why there should be an issue switching to
the Freest available version of any given software.
However refer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447661
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
4:43 a.m.
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Also, I really don't think that Free Software should require an
affirmative confirmation of license acceptance to allow use of that
software, especially when what one is "accepting" is the revocation of
one's rights WRT that software.
This is correct which is which is why I asked the person complaining
about this on fedora-test list to file a bug report which has already
been done. So further comments should go there.
IMHO this is non-Free, and obviously both Debian and FSF agree with me,
since they have each forked Firefox.
Debian forked because the logo is non-free and FSF has forked earlier
due to non-free components like talkback which we didn't include in
Fedora. Export controls do not make a software non-free according to
FSF. Refer
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF
Rahul
7:28 a.m.
Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly:
So it comes down to this:
[quote]
We think there is nothing wrong with distributing free software that
implements patented ideas, as long as the patent holders don't stop
you.
[/quote]
I will have to agree to disagree with Stallman on that one.
IMO there are two types of threat - direct and implied. One may easily
infer that Microsoft's intentions towards Free Software are not
honourable. A man with a knife is just a chef chopping carrots, but a
psycho with a knife is a killer. One needs to make the distinction and
take preemptive measures.
Anyway, I obviously need to take this discussion straight to the source.
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
7:35 a.m.
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF
So it comes down to this:
[quote]
We think there is nothing wrong with distributing free software that
implements patented ideas, as long as the patent holders don't stop
you.
[/quote]
I will have to agree to disagree with Stallman on that one.
I discussed this in detail with RMS and other FSF members. They have
published these set of guidelines which to some extend explains their
rationale.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
Rahul
10:41 a.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> Also, I really don't think that Free Software should require an
> affirmative confirmation of license acceptance to allow use of that
> software, especially when what one is "accepting" is the revocation of
> one's rights WRT that software.
This is correct which is which is why I asked the person complaining
about this on fedora-test list to file a bug report which has already
been done. So further comments should go there.
>
> IMHO this is non-Free, and obviously both Debian and FSF agree with me,
> since they have each forked Firefox.
Debian forked because the logo is non-free and FSF has forked earlier
due to non-free components like talkback which we didn't include in
Fedora. Export controls do not make a software non-free according to
FSF. Refer
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF
I disagree with the FSF on just about every point regarding the best
ways to encourage the development and use of open source software, but
this position on patents is even more bizarre than usual. I can sort-of
understand the claim that patent coverage is harder to determine, but in
cases where it is obvious, how can restrictions imposed by patents be
considered any differently than restrictions imposed by other people's
copyrights with respect to whether the GPL can be applied to the work as
a whole with its explicit claim of redistribution rights under its own
terms?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
11:07 a.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
I disagree with the FSF on just about every point regarding the best
ways to encourage the development and use of open source software, but
this position on patents is even more bizarre than usual. I can sort-of
understand the claim that patent coverage is harder to determine, but in
cases where it is obvious, how can restrictions imposed by patents be
considered any differently than restrictions imposed by other people's
copyrights with respect to whether the GPL can be applied to the work as
a whole with its explicit claim of redistribution rights under its own
terms?
Unlike copyrights, patents are far from universally enforced. If you
want to further clarifications, I suggest you take it with FSF rather
than here.
Rahul
3:26 a.m.
Le Lun 2 juin 2008 08:11, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Firefox: EULA shown is just MPL/LGPL/GPL
It's not. In particular the "privacy policy" bits are more than
borderline in any country but the USA. (not just from a FLOSS angle,
from a general legal angle).
and doesn't really make it
non-free anymore than showing EULA in previous Fedora releases made it
non-free.
Is this a legal opinion?
--
Nicolas Mailhot
4:39 a.m.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 2 juin 2008 08:11, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Firefox: EULA shown is just MPL/LGPL/GPL
It's not. In particular the "privacy policy" bits are more than
borderline in any country but the USA. (not just from a FLOSS angle,
from a general legal angle).
Feel free to comment on the bugzilla report referenced earlier.
> and doesn't really make it
> non-free anymore than showing EULA in previous Fedora releases made it
> non-free.
Is this a legal opinion?
You have to find a lawyer for that.
Rahul
5:28 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 03:28:51AM +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Why are you still shipping Mono?
Have MSFT actually revealed what patents Mono might infringe yet?
Since Mono/.Net is just a warmed-over version of Java/p-Code and other
concepts dating back 30 years or more it seems like these patents (if
identified) are probably worthless anyway.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
6:19 a.m.
Verily I say unto thee, that Richard W.M. Jones spake thusly:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 03:28:51AM +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner
wrote:
> Why are you still shipping Mono?
Have MSFT actually revealed what patents Mono might infringe yet?
Do they ever?
Of course they never will, they don't need to - the FUD works better.
Since Mono/.Net is just a warmed-over version of Java/p-Code and
other concepts dating back 30 years or more it seems like these
patents (if identified) are probably worthless anyway.
Yes I agree, but it isn't a very comfortable position to have Ballmer
breathing down one's neck and leering in a menacing fashion.
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
6:56 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 03:28 +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Why are you still shipping Mono?
Apologies in advance, I cannot be overly specific about legal issues.
Red Hat (and I) are aware of your concerns around mono, and after
discussing this in depth with Red Hat Legal, we have no immediate plans
to remove mono from Fedora.
As to the Firefox EULA, we are aware of this issue, and are currently
investigating the situation.
In the future if you (or anyone) has any legal concerns around Fedora,
please feel free to do one of the following:
* If it is an issue which you think can be discussed in public (e.g. "Is
this license ok for Fedora?"), please send it to
fedora-legal-list(a)redhat.com.
* If it is an issue which you do not think can be discussed in public
(sadly, most legal issues fall under this case), please email
legal(a)fedoraproject.org (or tcallawa(a)redhat.com, if you'd prefer).
Thanks,
Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal
p.s. IANAL, this does not represent legal advice.
7:56 a.m.
Verily I say unto thee, that Tom "spot" Callaway spake thusly:
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 03:28 +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> Why are you still shipping Mono?
Apologies in advance, I cannot be overly specific about legal issues.
Red Hat (and I) are aware of your concerns around mono, and after
discussing this in depth with Red Hat Legal, we have no immediate
plans to remove mono from Fedora.
Thanks Tom.
IANAL either, but AFAICT there is no real threat of litigation. The
"threat" is more in terms of manipulation (a la Novell, Linspire, etc.)
My fear is that Microsoft will wait until their IP is firmly established
in Free Software, then use that as leverage to coerce "deals" that both
suppresses Free Software and fortifies Microsoft's monopoly. Their
patents may well be completely indefensible for all the difference it
makes to that agenda. Other distros have already conceded without any
legal intervention. This tactic also brings mindshare to their platform
at our expense (brain drain), since their technology indoctrinates the
Windows paradigm (both technically and philosophically).
It's hard to convict a criminal who has not yet committed the crime, but
I'm ever hopeful of successfully forewarning the prospective victims.
I'll move this to the appropriate list and RMS directly.
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
8:25 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 13:56 +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
My fear is that Microsoft will wait until their IP is firmly
established in Free Software, then use that as leverage to coerce
"deals" that both suppresses Free Software and fortifies Microsoft's
monopoly.
Hopefully, Red Hat's continued refusals to even consider negotiating
such a "deal" should give you an idea of where Red Hat/Fedora stands
with regards to such issues.
As to the confluence of Software Patents and Freedom, I think you will
find that the FSFs stance on them is that code under a free license is
where their primary focus lies, and that they have little or no concern
around whether that code is patent infringing or not. This is a notable
area where Fedora and the FSF differ (Fedora makes every effort to avoid
infringing software patents, as stupid as they all may be).
~spot
9:20 a.m.
It's hard to convict a criminal who has not yet committed the
crime
totally off-topic, but if no crime has been committed, the person is
not a criminal. Unless we head into 1984-istan. "Thought crime" is not
a real crime.
Slightly on topic (only because I feel there should be something on
topic in this post), yes some people are uncomfortable with Mono (I
myself uninstall it as my first task after installing Fedora), but
there are some checks and balances - there is the ECMA standards
certification and more importantly there is (or was - no idea where it
is after the Novell deal.) "protection" on this item from the OIN -
something which preceded mono's inclusion into Fedora.
5:48 p.m.
Verily I say unto thee, that Naheem Zaffar spake thusly:
> It's hard to convict a criminal who has not yet committed the
crime
>
totally off-topic, but if no crime has been committed, the person is
not a criminal.
To elucidate my analogy:
This particular criminal has "form", they've already been convicted, at
least twice, on two continents. Any FBI profiler would describe this as
a high risk scenario, providing sufficient due cause to take steps that
would usually be a violation of that individual's civil rights, by e.g.
invoking the Patriot Act.
But stepping back from the analogy, I don't literally mean "conviction"
in this case ... I mean taking measures to protect others. Protect /us/
from a known bad element who clearly has unambiguously bad intentions.
Slightly on topic (only because I feel there should be something on
topic in this post), yes some people are uncomfortable with Mono (I
myself uninstall it as my first task after installing Fedora), but
there are some checks and balances - there is the ECMA standards
certification and more importantly there is (or was - no idea where
it is after the Novell deal.) "protection" on this item from the OIN
- something which preceded mono's inclusion into Fedora.
AFAIK the OIN do not own all the patents in mono-core. It's Microsoft's
"Intellectual Property", provided under ECMA's supposedly "RAND"
patent
terms. If this isn't the case, I'd be most relieved to be proved wrong.
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
6:31 p.m.
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
AFAIK the OIN do not own all the patents in mono-core. It's Microsoft's
"Intellectual Property", provided under ECMA's supposedly "RAND"
patent
terms. If this isn't the case, I'd be most relieved to be proved wrong.
You seem to misunderstand how OIN works. OIN doesn't need any patents
related to Mono.
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
Rahul
12:28 a.m.
Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly:
You seem to misunderstand how OIN works. OIN doesn't need any
patents
related to Mono.
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
Ah, I get it now - "If you attack us, our OIN soldiers will attack you."
That works if your resources can outlast your enemy's, or if your enemy
is bluffing.
Still, this seems like an odd basis upon which to make the deliberate
and voluntary decision to wheel the enemy's Trojan Horse through the
gates of the city.
BTW, I've fully reviewed the archive now, and this is pretty much all
the information I could find:
1. The decision to allow Mono to enter the tree seems to have been made
arbitrarily by Red Hat, with no community consultation, and in spite
of protests (including some by high profile Red Hat personnel -
mostly expressed as a rejection of Mono before the announcement).
2. There has only ever been one public announcement on the subject, and
that was made (with some dismay, it seems) by Tom Callaway:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00588....
3. There has only ever been one, extremely reserved, explanation given
for this decision, in a blog post by Greg DeKoenigsberg:
"Business considerations that prevented certain Mono components from
being included in Fedora previously have now been resolved."
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/3597.html
The specific nature of this resolution is not given.
4. There is precious little concrete information about precisely who
made these arbitrary decisions that also affected the Fedora
community distro, but as best as I can deduce, the key players seem
to be Greg DeKoenigsberg (as above) and Christopher Blizzard,
although it may be that these were simply the only people discussing
it publicly:
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=188
5. The nearest thing to an actual justification for this acceptance of
Mono, is that the OIN offers a kind of Mexican Stand-Off protection
to those who implement it:
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
My final conclusion is that Fedora includes encumbered, non-Free
software, that is covered by patents owned by Microsoft, and assured by
a patent covenant that is not worth the (metaphorical) paper it's
written on, since Moonlight, which is also covered by this same type of
covenant by the same company, has recently been exposed by Groklaw as
undistributable (I'm advised that PJ is currently investigating Mono as
well). The announcement and justification for this inclusion is
extremely sparse, and there has been almost no community consultation on
the subject, either before or after the fact.
I hope I don't seem judgmental, I'm just trying to establish the facts.
OK, this really is my final post on the subject, and I apologise for
being off-topic.
If anyone still wishes to continue this off-topic conversation with me,
please feel free to Email me at fedora[at]slated.org.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Keith G. Robertson-Turner
1:47 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Keith G. Robertson-Turner
<fedora(a)slated.org> wrote:
<snip>
1. The decision to allow Mono to enter the tree seems to have been
made
arbitrarily by Red Hat, with no community consultation, and in spite
of protests (including some by high profile Red Hat personnel -
mostly expressed as a rejection of Mono before the announcement).
Is this true?
--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )
1:57 a.m.
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
1. The decision to allow Mono to enter the tree seems to have been
made
arbitrarily by Red Hat, with no community consultation, and in spite
of protests (including some by high profile Red Hat personnel -
mostly expressed as a rejection of Mono before the announcement).
The complete risk is for Red Hat as the legal entity behind Fedora and
the legal team has evaluated and taken the decisions they have.
My final conclusion is that Fedora includes encumbered, non-Free
software, that is covered by patents owned by Microsoft, and assured by
a patent covenant that is not worth the (metaphorical) paper it's
written on, since Moonlight, which is also covered by this same type of
covenant by the same company, has recently been exposed by Groklaw as
undistributable
* Patent encumbered code is not the same as non-free code
* There is no specific patents owned by Microsoft that you have listed
* It is definitely not the same type of covenant.
Rahul
9:50 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Keith G. Robertson-Turner <
fedora(a)slated.org> wrote:
1. The decision to allow Mono to enter the tree seems to have been
made
arbitrarily by Red Hat, with no community consultation, and in spite
of protests (including some by high profile Red Hat personnel -
mostly expressed as a rejection of Mono before the announcement).
I think you are entirely mischaracterizing what happened. General Fedora
policy is essentially a package is innocent until proven guilty. If it meets
packaging policy, it can go in. (Keep in mind, policy does cover licensing
and legal concerns) There was no decision to allow Mono in, rather, there
was a decision to keep it *out* for legal reasons. Those legal concerns were
addressed, thus Mono gets in by default.
High profile people can protest it all they want, but unless a solid legal
or technical issue can be presented, there's simply no grounds to disallow
it.
(Personally I'm a bit paranoid of Microsoft/C#/Mono myself, but I ♥ Tomboy.
I just wish I could sync my Tomboy notes with Google somehow...)
10:36 p.m.
2008/6/3 Callum Lerwick <seg(a)haxxed.com>:
(Personally I'm a bit paranoid of Microsoft/C#/Mono myself, but I
♥ Tomboy.
I just wish I could sync my Tomboy notes with Google somehow...)
I'm sure i'm not alone in saying that I would be interested in seeing
an application that fills the role that tomboy currently does written
in a language that has less of a legal cloud hanging over it which
could be held up as a candidate to include in a default desktop
install making tomboy less relevant to Fedora users who don't have a
an existing preference for mono based apps.
-jef
11:52 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/6/3 Callum Lerwick <seg(a)haxxed.com>:
> (Personally I'm a bit paranoid of Microsoft/C#/Mono myself, but I ♥ Tomboy.
> I just wish I could sync my Tomboy notes with Google somehow...)
I'm sure i'm not alone in saying that I would be interested in seeing
an application that fills the role that tomboy currently does written
in a language that has less of a legal cloud hanging over it which
could be held up as a candidate to include in a default desktop
install making tomboy less relevant to Fedora users who don't have a
an existing preference for mono based apps.
KNote?
--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )
7:26 a.m.
2008/6/3 Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com>:
KNote?
I think its pretty clear at this point that default applications for a
given desktop environment should attempt to be native toolkit. We'd
need a damn good reason to want to prefer a qt based app as a default
app in GNOME... no matter what the functionality gap is between
applications in the same space. So making knote a default installed
application for a GNOME desktop would be less than optimal. But if
KDE users want to use it as a default, fine by me.
-jef
8:49 a.m.
2008/6/4 Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com>:
I think its pretty clear at this point that default applications for
a
given desktop environment should attempt to be native toolkit. We'd
need a damn good reason to want to prefer a qt based app as a default
app in GNOME... no matter what the functionality gap is between
applications in the same space. So making knote a default installed
application for a GNOME desktop would be less than optimal. But if
KDE users want to use it as a default, fine by me.
This is a good point, although I notice recently it's being brought up
as an argument against using KDE apps in GNOME space, despite there
being a number of cases where GNOME / Gtk apps are recommended as (and
in some cases required, like package kit) for use in KDE space ;o)
The issue here is, the two "best" note takers both appear to be
qt/kde-centric, alas ...
2:11 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
offtopic warning: I thought it was just the "Fedora
Desktop" spin,
not "GNOME Desktop"? :)
It's okay to hedge your bets in the naming. We all know in the end
we'll move back to an fvwm2 desktop environment as the default
eventually.
-jef
3:01 a.m.
"Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure i'm not alone in saying that I would be interested in
seeing
an application that fills the role that tomboy currently does written
in a language that has less of a legal cloud hanging over it which
could be held up as a candidate to include in a default desktop
install making tomboy less relevant to Fedora users who don't have a
an existing preference for mono based apps.
As it happens the Roundup feature in the latest issue of Linux Format
covers note-taking applications. They speak highly of Basket and
NoteCase, both of which are in Fedora Extras^WEverything.
I wouldn't know, I use vi.
Ron
3:36 a.m.
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 03:28 +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> Why are you still shipping Mono?
Apologies in advance, I cannot be overly specific about legal issues.
Red Hat (and I) are aware of your concerns around mono, and after
discussing this in depth with Red Hat Legal, we have no immediate plans
to remove mono from Fedora.
Never mind the legal stuff, is there any technical reason for having
Mono in the core distribution? (Or in the distribution at all.)
One of the first things I do after installing Fedora is remove
mono-core and its dependencies. A tiny number of applications depend
on Mono, none of which I miss. I'm sure they could easily be replaced
with non-Mono equivalents for those who do find them useful.
With Java itself now Free Software why bother with Mono?
Ron
4:26 a.m.
2008/6/3 Ron Yorston <rmy(a)tigress.co.uk>:
With Java itself now Free Software why bother with Mono?
Because there is already a very nice collection of free software
available if you think of f-spot, banshee aso. So why do I, as a user,
have to choose between Java and Mono if there is not the same software
available for both sub-platforms?
I use Mono because I develop in C# to write programs for multiple OS.
I'm sure we'll see more and more Mono programs in the future that will
follow that approach. If we are over legal issues, and I think we are,
Mono should stay in Fedora.
Guido
4:52 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:26:53AM +0200, Guido Ledermann wrote:
2008/6/3 Ron Yorston <rmy(a)tigress.co.uk>:
> With Java itself now Free Software why bother with Mono?
Because there is already a very nice collection of free software
available if you think of f-spot, banshee aso. So why do I, as a user,
have to choose between Java and Mono if there is not the same software
available for both sub-platforms?
erms... you don't have to choose between Java or Mono. Even though I
prefer GNOME, digiKam is far superior to f-spot, banshee always seemed,
to me, like a cpu hog, TomBoy looks like a wiki but is disappointing, in
comparison.
Rui
--
Or not.
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 8th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
5:16 a.m.
2008/6/3 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms(a)1407.org>:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:26:53AM +0200, Guido Ledermann wrote:
> 2008/6/3 Ron Yorston <rmy(a)tigress.co.uk>:
> > With Java itself now Free Software why bother with Mono?
>
> Because there is already a very nice collection of free software
> available if you think of f-spot, banshee aso. So why do I, as a user,
> have to choose between Java and Mono if there is not the same software
> available for both sub-platforms?
erms... you don't have to choose between Java or Mono. Even though I
But
that's what I would have to if there is no Mono in Fedora.
prefer GNOME, digiKam is far superior to f-spot, banshee always
seemed,
to me, like a cpu hog, TomBoy looks like a wiki but is disappointing, in
comparison.
Rui, no offense, but did you read what this thread is about? We are
not talking about how good programs are or if we like or use them or
not.
9:58 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 12:16:26PM +0200, Guido Ledermann wrote:
2008/6/3 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms(a)1407.org>:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:26:53AM +0200, Guido Ledermann wrote:
>> 2008/6/3 Ron Yorston <rmy(a)tigress.co.uk>:
>> > With Java itself now Free Software why bother with Mono?
>>
>> Because there is already a very nice collection of free software
>> available if you think of f-spot, banshee aso. So why do I, as a user,
>> have to choose between Java and Mono if there is not the same software
>> available for both sub-platforms?
>
> erms... you don't have to choose between Java or Mono. Even though I
But that's what I would have to if there is no Mono in Fedora.
What, Fedora does bring Perl, Python, PHP, the GNU Compiler Collection
(which, BTW, also compiles Java), etc... not to mention all those
esoteric programming languages you can install.
No way you would be so limited... ;)
> prefer GNOME, digiKam is far superior to f-spot, banshee always
seemed,
> to me, like a cpu hog, TomBoy looks like a wiki but is disappointing, in
> comparison.
Rui, no offense, but did you read what this thread is about? We are
not talking about how good programs are or if we like or use them or
not.
Yes, I did, no offense taken of course. My point is precisely that there are
*better* alternatives (both in the sense of Freedom and technical).
Rui
--
Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 8th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
11:03 a.m.
2008/6/3 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms(a)1407.org>:
Yes, I did, no offense taken of course. My point is precisely that
there are
*better* alternatives (both in the sense of Freedom and technical).
Thank god and mainly a lot of people there are alternatives. For me
Mono is one of them and it's free IMHO. And even if there are better
alternatives in technical way it should also be the programmers choice
which to use.
Guido
4:09 p.m.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms(a)1407.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 12:16:26PM +0200, Guido Ledermann wrote:
[...]
> Rui, no offense, but did you read what this thread is about? We
are
> not talking about how good programs are or if we like or use them or
> not.
Yes, I did, no offense taken of course. My point is precisely that
there are
*better* alternatives (both in the sense of Freedom and technical).
Sorry, but "better" is in the eye of the beholder... and Fedora is not in
any way limited in the number of packages it supports, quite the contrary:
The more, the merrier. If you don't see any use for a package, don't
install it. As long as the interested parties do the heavy lifting of
handling the package for Fedora, what do you care?
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513
5:20 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:36:34AM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 03:28 +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
>> Why are you still shipping Mono?
>
>Apologies in advance, I cannot be overly specific about legal issues.
>Red Hat (and I) are aware of your concerns around mono, and after
>discussing this in depth with Red Hat Legal, we have no immediate plans
>to remove mono from Fedora.
Never mind the legal stuff, is there any technical reason for having
Mono in the core distribution? (Or in the distribution at all.)
[...]
In the distribution at all to give people choice. You could make the
same argument for other minority languages or applications, OCaml for
instance. Maybe we should remove any amateur radio software or
electronic CAD or 2D games or support for Norwegian language users.
All of those are minorities.
As long as there is someone willing to support a package and there are
no legal or packaging problems, we should have it in. One thing that
Debian has is a huge range of very obscure packages.
With Java itself now Free Software why bother with Mono?
.Net/CLR potentially has better support for functional programming,
although unfortunately there are no mainstream free languages out
there which exploit this (see my signature however). There are also
various fairly minor but technically useful improvements in the
bytecode, eg. Java has an annoying limit on the size of methods and
doesn't allow you to jump between methods (meaning that tail-call
optimization can't be done in many useful cases).
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora
5806
days inactive
5808
days old
38 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Bill Crawford -
Callum Lerwick -
Guido Ledermann -
Horst H. von Brand -
Jef Spaleta -
Keith G. Robertson-Turner -
Kelly Miller -
Les Mikesell -
Naheem Zaffar -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rex Dieter -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Ron Yorston -
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra -
Tom Callaway