Intel, Miguel de Icaza Comment On Nokia's Move

[Joe Sixpack]

KDE+Qt became 100% GPL so that zealotry is no longer relevant?

He had a valid concern about KDE once. That concern no longer applies, so he got over it. Time for you to do the same

Actually I've long gotten over it - you just missed the point. His "concerns" don't align up with his decisions to support Microsoft. Had he been consistent I wouldn't have agreed with him, but I would have respected is views. People label him as this great figure in open source but really, he could give a damn about the OSS movement - he just wants to promote GNOME by any means necessary.

(p.s. We've talked about the license thing a million times over and it was nothing more than BS. The only people who were concerned were the ones on the outside looking in. The developers knew the license and conditions and worked with Trolltech directly...)

[BlackStar]

You are just as inconsistent - if not more:

but really, he could give a damn about the OSS movement - he just wants to promote GNOME by any means necessary.

GNOME is part of the OSS movement and promoting it *helps* the OSS movement.

We've talked about the license thing a million times over and it was nothing more than BS. The only people who were concerned were the ones on the outside looking in.

Just like Mono then: the only people concerned are those on the outside looking in. The rest of us know its license and its limits and work with this - exactly like Qt developers did when Trolltech was around.

[RealNC]

No, that's a fine goal. Good luck porting your "million lines of C++ code" to run on iOS or Android, though.

I don't have to really port it anymore, because it now runs fine on Android. It was a matter of 5-6 hours to get it to work using android-lighthouse.

Java would be useless for me.

[Joe Sixpack]

You are just as inconsistent - if not more:

Now you're reaching...

GNOME is part of the OSS movement and promoting it *helps* the OSS movement.

Umm.. NO! GNOME is second to KDE in users, features, and functionality. In addition to that, every serious computer user outside of GNOME's base considers its interface it to be a bad joke from 2001.

Just like Mono then: the only people concerned are those on the outside looking in. The rest of us know its license and its limits and work with this - exactly like Qt developers did when Trolltech was around.

Umm. No! First of all, Trolltech didn't have the bad history of Microsoft. Secondly, the FreeQt license legally permitted KDE to distribute Qt - KDE's usages rights were explicitly in writing. KDE was also allowed to access the source code. If that wasn't enough, Trolltech started an agreement that QT would always have a free version. Can you show me where GNOME has been granted any those same rights with .Net?

Back to Miguel de Icaza... In case you forgot, he started as GNU or die. I hardly think injecting .net into GNOME fits than mantra. If you don't see then I don't know what to tell you...

[BlackStar]

Weak troll is weak.

Umm.. NO! GNOME is second to KDE in users, features, and functionality. In addition to that, every serious computer user outside of GNOME's base considers its interface it to be a bad joke from 2001.

Irrelevant. GNOME is OSS and its promotion helps the cause. End of story.

Umm. No! First of all, Trolltech didn't have the bad history of Microsoft. Secondly, the FreeQt license legally permitted KDE to distribute Qt - KDE's usages rights were explicitly in writing. KDE was also allowed to access the source code. If that wasn't enough, Trolltech started an agreement that QT would always have a free version.

Am I, a user, able to fork and distribute my own version of KDE and Qt? That's all that matters and back then this *wasn't* possible - because the Qt license was proprietary.

Can you show me where GNOME has been granted any those same rights with .Net?

Mono comes with GPL/LGPL/MIT/X11/MPL/Apache2 licenses; it's covered by an irrevocable patent grant; and if it goes down, GNOME remains completely unaffected.

Let's stop spreading FUD now.

[Joe Sixpack]

Weak troll is weak.

Last I checked someone having a different opinion doesn't automatically make them a troll.

Am I, a user, able to fork and distribute my own version of KDE and Qt? That's all that matters and back then this *wasn't* possible - because the Qt license was proprietary.

Does GNOME have their usages and rights in writing from Microsoft? Are they on the .Net board the was KDE was on the committee with QT? What's funny is the fact that the MSRSL is damn near identical (if not worse) than the same license he called "tainted". He's a major hypocrite and you don't have a point.

Mono comes with GPL/LGPL/MIT/X11/MPL/Apache2 licenses; it's covered by an irrevocable patent grant; and if it goes down, GNOME remains completely unaffected.

That's cute the way you did that. From Mono's homepage:

An open source, cross-platform, implementation of C# and the CLR that is binary compatible with Microsoft.NET

And what license is .Net released under? Mono's license is a non factor because the technology it implements doesn't use any of the licenses you mentioned.

[cjcox]

I know that "killing Miguel" is the main goal of most... but do you REALLY know WHY he likes .Net, C#, CLI/CLR, etc?? Have you ASKED him?

I find it interesting that we say we're the "open" people... the ones that "listen"... but are we REALLY just looking for a good old fashioned witch hunt?

So.. I'll post this (but you're already lighting your torches to come after me).... Miguel is strange in that he loves technology. Miguel looks at libraries, classes, style, languages from a technical point of view. He likes what he sees with .Net and can anyone here show anything close anywhere? Not saying that we should all drop (evil) Java or whatever and pick up (evil) .Net... just saying, have you REALLY looked at Mono is trying to do??? Forget the potential legal mumbo jumbo for a second, and just look at what Mono is about technology wise.... fair enough??

Look, it's VERY easy to live in constant fear. Trust me, Microsoft LOVES it when the "Miguel" crusades start. And there is a level of love/hate between Microsoft and Mono (even though you all will refuse to see the "hate" side).

The Mono project does several things.

1. Allows a .Net developer to write platform independent software. And often times that leads the developer to a FOSS state of mind.

2. Provides a BETTER .Net platform on MORE devices (not hampered by Microsoft's arbitrary restrictions).

3. Provides a more feature complete and consistent set of classes and APIs than other "solutions".

4. There are more...

Now... what we CAN'T say is what, if anything, Microsoft will do to Mono... and so, Mono app developers might be in trouble someday (not necessarily legally, but possible by some means that limits their ability to use Mono).

But for right now.. Mono provides a pathway for .Net developers to write PORTABLE applications. And of course, Mono gets more people exposed to things like Linux (and other FOSS). So... Mono probably helps things more than it hurts. With that said, if you're NOT a .Net developer.... nothing saying you have to use Mono at all.

With regards to what Nokia is doing... well... time will tell. Looks bad from my perspective....

Kill Miguel if you must... but it's the wrong thing to do. Miguel is entitled to his opinion. And he's NOT 0wned by Microsoft.... to believe that is to believe a LIE... (in other words, those of you that posted here claiming you KNOW something... you are deceived).

[BlackStar]

Last I checked someone having a different opinion doesn't automatically make them a troll.

[stuff]

And what license is .Net released under? Mono's license is a non factor because the technology it implements doesn't use any of the licenses you mentioned.

Alright, I'm not sure whether you are a troll or just plain misinformed.

You see, there's that little thing called Linux that is based on Minix which is a Unix clone. Now, neither Minix nor the original AT&T Unix were released under any of the licenses I mentioned. This didn't stop Linux from going GPL.

It's the same with Mono and .Net. The latter is closed-source technology; this doesn't stop the former from being released under a FSF-approved license.

[BlackStar]

@cjcox: it's a losing battle. Fighting religion with technology just doesn't work. The fundamentalists will just shrug and keep going.

[smitty3268]

Alright, I'm not sure whether you are a troll or just plain misinformed.

You see, there's that little thing called Linux that is based on Minix which is a Unix clone. Now, neither Minix nor the original AT&T Unix were released under any of the licenses I mentioned. This didn't stop Linux from going GPL.

It's the same with Mono and .Net. The latter is closed-source technology; this doesn't stop the former from being released under a FSF-approved license.

I don't think software patents were a major concern back then - totally different situation. And in fact there was a little company called SCO that did claim to own portions of Linux, if i recall correctly.

There are clearly some legal issues that could pop up around Mono if they ever hit the jackpot - just like what happened to Java when Android sales went crazy. However, I doubt that Mono is ever going to be that big, which means it's probably safe.

I'm actually a fan of the Mono project. I love C# and .NET, and an open implementation that runs on Linux is interesting. But for most desktop software i would tend to go with Qt as a first choice. Mono would be more interesting as a business app at work, IMO. Just like Java, in fact.

Miguel's reaction to this whole thing strikes me as someone cheering about how great a tree is doing while the forest burns down around them. That tree is pretty awesome, but without the rest of the forest it's going to get mighty lonely.