Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Jul 2009 08:51 UTC, submitted by PLan
Mono Project We've already seen some heavy discussion on Mono and C# here on OSNews the past few weeks, as it became clear the patent situation regarding the ECMA parts of Mono was anything but faith inspiring. This issue seems to be resolved now: Microsoft has made a legally binding promise not to sue anyone who uses or distributes implementations of said ECMA standards. Following this news, Mono will be split in two; the ECMA standard parts, and the rest.
Thread beginning with comment 372094
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GPL compatibility?
by raboof on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:29 UTC in reply to "On Mono"
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

It only covers a *full* implementation of the required portions of the specs, which means that even if a small part is missing in an implementation, it could potentially fall out from under the promise.


If this is true, doesn't this make Mono GPL-incompatible (assuming the 'promise' is needed beyond mere clarification)?

I seem to remember the GPL requires it must be possible to distribute modified versions. If the 'promise' only covers full implementations, modified versions which omit part of the Mono stuff are not allowed, thus violating that part of the GPL.

The fact that it's MS who introduces this restriction (rather than the distributor of the GPL'd software) shouldn't make a difference (section 12 of GPLv3, but something similar was in v2 iirc).

I might be mistaken here, but please, make a convincing rebuttal rather than just shouting FUD at me ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: GPL compatibility?
by vivainio on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:49 in reply to "GPL compatibility?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


I seem to remember the GPL requires it must be possible to distribute modified versions. If the 'promise' only covers full implementations, modified versions which omit part of the Mono stuff are not allowed, thus violating that part of the GPL.


A promise does not imply that the stuff not covered by the promise is forbidden. Therefore, this does not cause GPL incompatibility.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: GPL compatibility?
by raboof on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:07 in reply to "RE: GPL compatibility?"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

A promise does not imply that the stuff not covered by the promise is forbidden. Therefore, this does not cause GPL incompatibility.

Right, hence my "assuming the 'promise' is needed beyond mere clarification".

So either (a) the 'promise' is redundant and unneeded, and Mono was already unproblematic in whole and in part regardless of it, or (b) the promise is useful, but renders any project actually depending on it (such as parts of Mono) GPL-incompatible?

Edited 2009-07-07 16:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1