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.
re: whoops.
by t3rmin4t0r on Fri 21st May 2004 20:34 UTC

Also, it seems that while the DotGNU libs are unflinchingly LGPL,

DotGNU Portable.net's core class libraries are licensed similar to GNU Class Path licensing .. See http://www.southern-storm.com.au/pnet_faq.html#q7_1

Safer , almost as good as LGPL (for a user) and safety of GPL (for the developer).

To quote:

There is also a potential problem related to patents: If you write software and release it under the MIT X11 license, and then you find out that someone has a patent on some idea(s) that you used in the program, this MIT X11 licensed program which you have written is actually proprietary software under the control of the owner of the patent.

The owner of the patent can control the code in the sense that he can dictate terms on how or when it should be distributed ... And right now for Mono that is Microsoft . (L)GPL explicitly disallows this and therefore it can be taken up as an antitrust lawsuit rather than an open shut patent lawsuit.

I work for DotGNU as it is a ".NET replacement" ...nothing more .. nothing less