Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Sep 2007 18:40 UTC
Gnome Ars has reviewed GNOME 2.20. "GNOME 2.20 was officially released last week after six months of development. The new version includes strong incremental improvements that contribute to a better user experience and provide more flexibility and integration opportunities for third-party software developers."
Thread beginning with comment 274441
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Mono required
by BluenoseJake on Tue 25th Sep 2007 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Mono required"
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

"But I'm fairly sure someone will make some core part of GNOME in Mono one day and that's when we're screwed."

Please, take off the tinfoil hat and relax. Mono is not patent encumbered, it's a clean reimplementation, and free software. Just because you don't like MS does not make the technology bad.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Mono required
by kaiwai on Wed 26th Sep 2007 01:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono required"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Please, take off the tinfoil hat and relax. Mono is not patent encumbered, it's a clean reimplementation, and free software. Just because you don't like MS does not make the technology bad.


Actually there are patents on mono; the issue isn't whether they exist; no one is denying that (except you), the concern is whether Microsoft will exercise their rights as the patent holder. Given one doesn't have to act immediately with patent violations, Microsoft allow this to simmer for quite some time and exercise when it can inflict maximum damage.

With that being said, however, they have an agreement with Novell for a patent sharing agreement, which will give them the ability to clone technologies, including the patented ones within .NET. Sun is in a similar situation. All things being equal, the issue then shouldn't be so much whether Microsoft will exercise those rights but where those distributors who haven't signed patent sharing agreements, sit into the bigger equation. Will we see Microsoft sue Red Hat and Conical for not playing ball? its all wait and see for now.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Mono required
by BluenoseJake on Wed 26th Sep 2007 10:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Mono required"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"no one is denying that (except you)"

Actually, I wasn't really denying that the patents exist, I just wasn't very clear. I guess the problem I have is the word "encumbered" as I also believe that the deal with Novell protects Mono and Linux users from any legal problems with MS. So I guess I look at it as a non issue. So while there is patents on .NET technology, I think were all safe in this case.

Reply Parent Score: 2