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: Storm In a Teacup
by David on Fri 21st May 2004 22:39 UTC

That's an interesting thread. I don't know how this ended up being a bit of a war - it started off rather well.

We had Miguel talking about the Microsoft innovations in the ECMA standards. There was one sentence I found quite bizarre:

In our case, if Microsoft in fact owns patents to the technology and they require the licensing of those, we are willing to license those for the sake of our users and customers.

Even if Mono is totally in the clear this is simply not an acceptable attitude. This situation is not acceptable for free software either.

Miguel then started telling people to use GTK# and then evangelizes on .Net (and how it improves Windows programming?!). Thong (Tum) Nguyen was right here as .Net is just Windows programming with nicer wrappers. Miguel also talks about the improvements to Windows programming, neglecting the fact that we are not really looking at Windows programming. He seems to have gone south with the hype of .Net in general.

This is a pity, because the whole thread lost focus at this point and could have been a fruitful discussion. All that we got was this:

What I said is reflected on our FAQ: we dont believe that *any* of it is patentable.

I don't think that leveraging patents on an implementation of .Net is realistic (the change in material quote was interesting), but the above statement in an FAQ does not provide any real back up.