[Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful

Mon Apr 6 07:22:56 UTC 2009

No, Rotor predates Mono. It’s old and somewhat non-functional now.

Adam

From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Dzonatas
Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2009 10:02 PM
To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful

Do you mean the one they made mainly for IronPython and IronRuby? I can dig up the mail for that on the IronPython list, but it is mainly to keep OSS source out of internal Microsoft boundaries where they want to make sure there is no mix between internal code and external OSS code, as their stated intention.

Frisby, Adam wrote:

It's also worth noting that MS released a somewhat FOSS (I'm a little unsure which of their licenses they used and whether it's an OSI one or not) implementation of .NET for Linux called 'Rotor'.

Adam

-----Original Message-----

From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de<mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de> [mailto:opensim-dev-

bounces at lists.berlios.de<mailto:bounces at lists.berlios.de>] On Behalf Of Frisby, Adam

Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2009 8:59 PM

To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>

Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful

Yeah, I did miss reasonable fees.

However, it is widely believed that the Novell/MS pact disclaims these.

I would highly suggest bringing this one over to the Mono mailing list,

they have a lot more experience dealing with these claims.

Adam

-----Original Message-----

From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de<mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de> [mailto:opensim-dev-

bounces at lists.berlios.de<mailto:bounces at lists.berlios.de>] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl

Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2009 11:34 AM

To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>

Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] [linux-elitists] Mono considered harmful

----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com><mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com> -----

From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com><mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com>

Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:44:08 -0700

To: linux-elitists at zgp.org<mailto:linux-elitists at zgp.org>

Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] [Opensim-dev] Mono considered harmful

User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403

Quoting Eugen Leitl (eugen at leitl.org<mailto:eugen at leitl.org>):

IANAL, does below explanation by Adam hold water?

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's rubbish on two

separate

grounds.

Yes, C# is an ECMA standard.  However:

(1) It doesn't follow that ECMA International has any power to

"forbid"

patent holders from suing anyone over anything, let alone patent

infringement.  I mean, think about it:  Does Adam think ECMA

International is Microsoft Corporation's daddy?  That it owns 51% of

the

issued and outstanding common stock?  At worst, it might be possible

for

ECMA International to be very deeply disappointed in Microsoft's

behaviour at some future point, decertify particular things, and

otherwise carry out mild actions that _are_ within its power.

More important:

(2) In any event, ECMA International does not even _profess_ to

disapprove of suing patent infringers.  It merely has a "Code of

Conduct

in Patent Matters"

(http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm),

setting

ECMA policy that the group will approve standards only if it has

written

assurances from applicant that applicable patents will be licensed on

a

"reasonable, non-discriminatory basis".  (That term of art is

typically

referred to as RAND terms.)

Has Adam Frisby completely missed the last decade of standards

warfare?

The proprietary camp has repeatedly attempted to get the World Wide

Web

Consortium to start accepting "RAND" patent licensing, instead of

requiring that applicants certify that covering patents will be

_royalty-free_.  This arm-twisting failed, because of diligent

focussing

of attention from open source people.  W3C has stuck to its guns and

insistend on royalty-free patent licensing.

To spell it out:  "Reasonable" means obligatory patent royalty

payments.

Which means no open source implementations of those standards.

And that is one reason why ECMA standards can be (and often are)

issued

on terms hostile to open source, whereas W3C standards are reliable

and

open-source-friendly.

Sheesh.

--

Cheers,              Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers

Rick Moen            Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;

rick at linuxmafia.com<mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com>  Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is

McQ!  (4x80)         Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.

_______________________________________________

linux-elitists mailing list

linux-elitists at zgp.org<mailto:linux-elitists at zgp.org>

http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

----- End forwarded message -----

--

Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org"<http://leitl.org>>leitl</a> http://leitl.org

______________________________________________________________

ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org

8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

_______________________________________________

Opensim-dev mailing list

Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>

https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

_______________________________________________

Opensim-dev mailing list

Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>

https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

_______________________________________________

Opensim-dev mailing list

Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>

https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20090406/0e2bce84/attachment-0001.html>