Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 21st May 2004 01:17 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



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