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.
by hohum on Fri 21st May 2004 15:26 UTC

Josh and Cendrizzi, please go back and read the summary. Or go and read Seth Nickell's argument again. Even with the existence of that letter, (which might not even be legally binding), it does not unencumber the ECMA core. Once again, RAND does not equal FOSS. To give you an idea, MS EULA could be considered RAND as long as it is administered in a reasonable and non-discriminatory way.

Go and look up Rotor. Rotor is distributed in a RAND+ROYALTY FREE manner. It was available even before Mono could compile itself, yet Miguel persisted with Mono... Why? Because Rotor was not, and never will be, Open Source software. It had restrictive terms such as a non-commercial clause. So, please try to understand, even with the existence of Miguel's purported letter, it isn't enough!

Now, what would be acceptable is a general patent grant. Or a legally binding license, that MS fronts now, allowing us to use their patents in a compatible manner with our FOSS licenses.

In short - don't hold your breath.