Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 21st May 2004 01:17 UTC
Mono Project The tomato war between Red Hat, Novell and the developer Gnome community about Mono and its legal safety continued today. Novell's Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza replied to yesterday's editorial by Red Hat's Seth Nickell. Later, Red Hat's Havoc Pennington replied to Nat and Gnome's Andrew Sobala also threw a few (metallic) cents too. For future episodes, bookmark PlanetGnome (unverified rumors circulating on IRC claim that eggs might be used next if there is no sign of their lawyers meeting with Microsoft to try to give an end to the saga). In any case, you don't want to miss this.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
import dotnet; community.split(); stdin.close()
by Fredrik on Fri 21st May 2004 09:22 UTC

You can argue patents all you want, but nothing will change the fact that a split has occured in the community.

The way i see it, there are only 4 things that can happen now.

1. Everyone agrees to use Mono, and Gnome adopts it. This is about as likely as MS releasing .NET under GPL.
2. Everyone agrees that Mono is not worth the risk, and it becomes irrelevant. Not very likely either, but probalby more likely than 1.
3. Gnome adopts Mono, but a lot of people refuse to use it and either forks or jumps to KDE or starts a new DE.
4. Gnome doesn't Mono, but a lot of people want to use it and possibly forks a Mono-Gnome version.

1 and 2 is mostly hypothetical, but 3 or 4 will most likely happen, and it's probably too late to anything about it now. It's the GNOME/KDE thing all over again.

Miguel doesn's seem like he has understood this. He seem to be confident that he can make 1 happen, which is about as likely as all Gnome devs and users moving to KDE at once.

He does not address these issues, instead he's bringing up his "Stop Energy" argument, which is a universial argument which you can apply to everything that involves "doing something" (e.g. starting nuclear war, killing kittens, building a house on the north pole etc..).
He says that doing X is inherently good, and not doing X is inherently bad, regardless of what X is.
According to his theory, trying to stop people from basing the free software desktop on a (then) non-OSS toolkit (Qt) is "Stop Energy". If linus torvalds got hit in the head and lost his mind, and proposed rewriting the entire kernel in bash, it would be "Stop Energy" to protest against that.

I think it's ironic how this situation is so similar to the Gnome/KDE issue. Replace "Mono" with "KDE" in miguels statements and it's more or less exactly the arguments that KDE people used around the time Gnome started. Remember who started it?

I say Mono is a big mistake, and not for technical reasons, and not for patent reasons. It is a mistake because it creates a split in the community, and that's not something we can afford.

Until you have addressed that, it's completely pointless to to discuss patents or technical merits.