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.
@cendrizzi
by johnMG on Fri 21st May 2004 18:32 UTC

cendrizzi wrote:
Apparently nobody read the link I posted before or they don't seem to think it's as important as I do.

If this letter exists then the EMCA compliant version should be suitable for use IMO. We don't have these promises with other stuff in the free software world.


Here's a post by Mike Reid, from the very end of the last thread on this topic, that needs repeating. I guess I'll be the one to repeat it, since it was me who he was replying to:

-------- 8< ----------
Hi johnMG,

{small snip}

> Mike, could you please point to where on Sun's site it
> discusses this patent grant you mention? Jeez. If that's the
> case, we're even better off than I thought. ;)

See the interview with James Gosling on http://today.java.net/jag/ , specifically
"There has been a big debate about implementation languages in the Gnome world. It's been all over the map, but one point of concern has been a set of formless dreads about the usability of the Java language specification. We've been very clear about this, but it seems like few have read the spec: if you look in the frontmatter, it contains an explicit statement that anyone is free to implement the specification. It goes much farther than most other specification documents: it actually includes a patent rights grant."

The Java Language Specification license he alludes to is
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/first_edition/html/jcopyright.do...

So, while *any* implementation of the .NET libraries have dubious legality with respect to patents implementation of the Java libraries are in the clear. Better yet, Java is a safe bet because programs written in Java can be moved to .NET later (thanks to J#, and Sun will have to implement its JDK for .NET eventually anyway). So Java is a safe bet for an application language, unlike C#.

One point I would like to make is that we do need the Mono project to help C# developers make the transition to Linux. I just don't think that Gnome should be developed in C#.

Cheers,
Mike

----- 8< ------


---J