To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Look - it is like this: I can use Mono to compile .Net code for free, without making that code GPL or LGPL - in fact I can license however I like. I can package up a dynamically linked Mono runtime and include it on Linux or Mac and include it in my software, without any fear of breaking the LGPL. But God forbid if I need to statically link the Mono Runtime to my app - they don't allow me to do that - no, for that I need a commercial license? Um... okay, no.
If that part isn't clear now, please ask more questions. This isn't about the LGPL, it is about the fact that they have crippled Mono on purpose so as to not allow something, but then added features that are actually very interesting and exciting for .Net developers, dangling them like a carrot. That is where my problem is.





Member since:
2006-01-01
A month ago I would have defended Miguel and by proxy Novell, but they have an unholy and extremely tight grip on the licensing of Mono. It is basically very, very scary as to the licensing restrictions they put on to the Mono runtime and how they are willing to milk the iPhone developer community for 4 times the amount that Apple will require to use Xcode and Objective-C, just to use C#. They could easily add the "static linking exemption" to the LGPL license used to the Mono Runtime, as many project do, but they want to make money - plain and simple. Very sad. Monotouch is proprietry - I'm not claiming I should be allowed to have the source for that, but I can't create my own version, because they would force me to use a commercial license on the Mono Runtime? Sheah, right. No more mono for me on mobile platforms, and I'd think twice about using it on the Mac too - just because!
Seriously - they made a really big, big deal about the fact they can use AOT to pre JIT and make native code versions of .Net apps, but if I need a commercial license to link in the Mono runtime, what was the point? I don't think it was worth their time.. It benefits no one except those [willing/able/stupid enough] to pay for a commercial license. As they claim the $399 is "the cheapest" they have ever commercially licensed the engine for, I really can't imagine how much or under what terms any vernture would be forced to comply... Yes, I'm feeling a little bitter about it. Stupid corporations :-(
That is all.