On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 15:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Llu, 2004-08-09 at 14:42, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 06:42 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > - (potential) requirement of C#/Mono > > > > The current licensing state for Mono is even more problematic than > > Evolution, since it has been confirmed that wanting to be able to make > > proprietary derivates _is_ intentional. > > The bigger problem there is patents and patent concerns, but can we > keep that discussion seperate. Evolution right now doesn't seem to > need Mono and if it did then a fork can (and probably would) occur. Indeed. What makes me very sad pales in comparison to the potential defusing of the patent bomb! Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part