Re: Gnome to be based on .NET?
- From: Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
- To: gnome-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Gnome to be based on .NET?
- Date: 05 Feb 2002 09:56:57 -0500
On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 00:24, Crispin Wellington wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 12:34, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > Yes. Enslaved. Mono will be released under the X11 license, Apple will
> > make a proprietary version, and magically the Ximian version will be
> > eradicated, and we all will stop having the choice to install the
> > software we want on our GNU systems, and Apple will enslave us all.
> > This is of course just like how FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD are no longer
> > used by anyone in the world, because Apple took BSD and make a
> > commercial version of it.
> > (Note: yes, it's late, and I feel like being a smart-arse.)
> Ah. But Apple did not embrace and extend. They don't consider BSD to be
> a threat. Have no doubt that if Microsoft saw BSD as a threat to their
> desktop dominance, they would have released msBSD, which would have been
> BSD with a whole bunch of proprietary extensions. It could run BSD
> stuff, but BSD users couldn't run msBSD stuff. Gradually they would kill
> BSD by embracing it and then extending it with MS proprietry protocols,
> api's etc.
Um, Apple has embraced and extended. Don't tell me that MacOSX programs
run perfectly well on a FreeBSD box.
> I have no illusions that the only reason Linux has survived is becuase
> it uses the GPL so heavily. Its all layed out in the infamous MS
> Halloween document. Linux was their number one threat because they
> couldn't kill it by embracing it and extending it. Well they could. They
> could make 'Linux+' with extensions, but those extensions, being a
> derivative work would fall under the GPL and thus they would have to
> open them, and then the main Linux could integrate them. If linux was
> under MIT/X licence, everyone would be using Microsoft Linux by now.
Not true again. SUre, the kernel is GPL, but nothing is stopping
Microsoft from replacing various parts of the whole OS. They could use
a different graphics interface (a closed X-like server, that has X
-compatibility to run existing programs, and a proprietary interface for
Also, Linux fully allows non-GPL modules to be written. There *are* the
GPL_ONLY symbols and stuff.
> MS actually spells this out explicitly in the Halloween doc.
> > > MIT/X cant even be construed as more 'free' as in price.
> > >
> > > > *And*, adding Mono interfaces/wrappers to
> > > > GNOME wont force GNOME to use another license.
> > >
> > > True. But maybe well have Mono. And then we'll have IBM's Mono (which
> > > doesn't come with source) and Sun's Mono...
> > And that hinders us how, exactly? I mean, I thought Free also included
> > the right to choose our software, right? If IBM's Mono is better than
> > the Open Mono, I would rather use that.
> Q: hinders us how, exactly? A: Because you cant take IBM's Mono and
> change it, reconfigure it and make it work the way you want. Thus you
> are *less free*
No, you are free to use the Open Mono. I am free to use IBM's Mono if I
so wish. Like I said, if IBM's MOno is better, I'd want to use that.
If, suddenly, I found a need to modify the source, and IBM didn't
release the source, then I am free to grab the Open Mono and modify that
to do as I wish.
This is a really nifty part of Mono under the X11 license. We could
conceivably end up with many different versions, all competing. Simply
said, if IBM made a non-compatible version, but 2 other venders'
proprietary Mono's were compatible with Open Mono, it is very likly
IBM's wouldn't be used, until the Opened it or fixed the compatibility.
But, each of these commercial versions would need to be constantly
improved (security, stability, speed, features) to maintain its
competitive edge. We end up with some awesome products. Or, we end up
with some sucky products that no one uses. Either way, the users of
Open Mono are free to keep using their software as they wish.
> > > > The only issue I see is getting Mono tied into GNOME - there are lots of
> > > > apps and such in GNOME that are GPL only, which can't be linked to
> > > > closed source implementations/enhancements of .Net based on Mono. Geez,
> > > > look at that, GNOME is hindering .Net in that case, not the other way
> > > > around. ~,^
> > >
> > > We have a philosphical imperative to hinder .Net :)
> > I *hate* it when that happens. ~,^
> LOL :)
> > Also realize that there are two .Nets: the core technology, which is
> > what Mono is, and then the core tech. plus the ten billion services
> > Microsoft offers, which is was MS calls .Net. I don't want to touch
> > that second .Net (unless they have a particular service that is really
> > killer), but I look forward to the .Net Mono is becomming: the VM,
> > compiler, and development tools.
> So essentially a whole independant .Net server infrastructure. I have a
> feeling the passport/hailstorm/soap will be embrace and extend for any
> Free .Net initiative. Like... "Oh. You want to send you data to that
> X-box user. You'll need a passport account" Sort of thing.
Well, nothing we can do about that, is there? You can releae Mono under
X11, GPL, closed source, or not release it at all - either way, we end
up not having the ability to communicate with those boxes, and no one
will care but the Mono users - who will be, admittedly, extremyly small
in number compared to MS users.
With Mono under an X11 license, at least we could have the freedom to
use extensions (which may or may not be closed source) to communicate
with these boxes, if the need or want ever arises.
> > > Reading http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23715.html ... In fact
> > > read it now if you haven't before. Sounds great hey! Security our
> > > customers can trust. Wow I want a OS like that!
> > ^,^ I wasn't planning on running Mono on MS Windows, or MS .Net on
> > Linux. I'm using Mono on Linux, which won't suffer from MS's poor
> > programming. Just the usual poor programming the OPen Source world is
> > used to... (*cough* sendmail, NIS, etc. *cough*)
> Yes. Piles of Openness ;)
> > > Now change one thing, and .Net becomes clear. When Bill says "customers"
> > > he doesn't mean you and me. No. We are the product. The user of .Net is
> > > the comodity he will sell. The "customer" is the media content owner.
> > > .Nets customers are Time-Warner, Disney, Sony etc. When he says "a
> > > product our customers can trust the security of" he means a system that
> > > the content owners can deliver their copyrighted media to without fear
> > > of copying.
> > Again, we will be using Mono, which is Open Source. You can quite
> > easily modify any such security precautions out. And yes, a proprietary
> > extension can be developed for media that isn't OPen Source. But how,
> > then, is that *any* worse than not having Mono at all?
> But if they really do close out the ballgame from the CPU/HDD all the
> way to the API, Opensource or not, you're stuck.
That won't be dependent on Mono being under the X11 license,
> > I'd rather have
> > the choice to watch media thru a closed extension than not watch it at
> > all. Not having that option isn't going to make the media open; it's
> > just going to make it impossible for users of Open operating systems to
> > enjoy the media.
> Id rather watch it through an open medium. I'd rather *own* a collection
> of DVD's than have to pay per play.
That wasn't an option. ~,^ We have this media XYZ. It's *only*
available under a closed, proprietary media. Now, either you have the
technology to watch it, Open/Free/Closed, or you don't.
It's just like the DVD's. I really hate CSS and the DMCA. But I own a
DVD player, and a good number of DVD's. I'm forced to use closed code
to watch these movies; but, without it, I wouldn't be able to watch them
(or, at least, I'd be a federal criminal under the DMCA).
> Id rather see a bazzar like model of amateur media creation. If I make a
> cheesy kung fu film with my friends, I wanna be able to share it with
> the world without having a Passport account, or uploading to some 'movie
> .Net service' where the people downloading need passport/money to view
> my video. And if the Terms of Service for passport remain unchanged,
> when I upload my film to .Net, Im not going to own the copyright anymore
Well, with Mono, you could create such a system on .Net, and allow both
MS users and Linux/UNIX users to access this. Tie it into a different
auth protocol than Hailstorm (there are alternatives), and there you go.
Heck, if the Open Source community could form a very
powerful/fast/secure authentication server for .Net, and *advertised* it
properly (Free Software never does that enough, or least, they
idiotically advertise to their existing users) any large on-line service
would offer both Hailstorm authentication *and* auth against the Open
> Sure I could just upload it to a web server or something, but then all
> those MS .Net users with their closed X-Box DRM machines (and there will
> be a *lot* of them no doubt) might not be able to get them.
Well, if they choose to use that system, that is their right to do so.
> > And I'm not even going to try to dissect the rest of this message. What
> > any of it has to do with Mono being released under the X11 license I
> > can't figure out. ^,^ You do have some good philosiphical points tho,
> > something I hadn't really thought of myself.
> I wish I had your confidence that all was going to be alright. I know
> things will always be OK as long as we have the GPL. Gnome, ATM is GPL.
> So no-one, anywhere, ever can take that away from the *community*. I
> wait with baited breath to see this .Net/Mono crazyness unfold.
Again, Mono isn't going to change GNOME. Even Miguel's plans on that
were clear: GNOME is GNOME, and will continue to be licensed/used as it
is now. Mono just wraps into it. Perl is not under the GPL, but there
are Perl bindings for GNOME... has this caused the collapse of our
freedom on GNOME?
NOt that I recall. ^,^
> gnome-list mailing list
> gnome-list gnome org
] [Thread Prev