Wine-Mono: Marrying Mono With WINE

[crazycheese]

Every prediction about Mono's legal status has been wrong. Usually "opposite of reality" wrong.

Proclamations about the core ISO/ECMA API being dangerous? The API is explicitly covered by a legally binding covenant not to sue for patent infringements in implementing it, as of 2009.

Fears over implementing non-core features like ASP.NET? Microsoft released *their* source under Free Software licenses (with patent grant, for luck), thereby allowing implementations like Mono to use them. Despite having Windows-only licenses like Ms-LRL they've either used the more liberal Ms-PL, or more recently, the GPLv3-compatible Apache 2.0

Silverlight? The "Download now" link on Microsoft.com redirects to the Free Software replacement Moonlight ( http://www.microsoft.com/getsilverli...l/default.aspx )

Microsoft has invited senior Mono folk to speak at its .NET conference MIX, for several years running, e.g. http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX10/EX02

Microsoft has deployed apps built with Mono, on platforms without Microsoft.NET (e.g. iPhone)

Unlike Dalvik (or more to the point, Apache Harmony, which is what Oracle are suing over), Mono is covered by OIN.

At what point has Mono's risk gone up, not down, over the past decade? Right now there's pretty much nothing on the Linux desktop with *lower* documented risk.

Mind if I print this out on toilet paper roll ?

[crazycheese]

The runtime is LGPL2. The class library is MIT. Other libraries bundled with Mono for convenience use their choice of Free Software licenses, usually the GPLv3-compatible Apache 2.0

What do we do with two MS-PL entries, chief?

So if there was lots of code which was (c) Microsoft, you'd feel happier? Really? Really?

MS-PL == (C) Microsoft
Also, look:

Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
This is the least restrictive of the Microsoft licenses and allows for distribution of compiled code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes under any license that complies with the Ms-PL. Redistribution of the source code itself is permitted only under the Ms-PL. Initially titled Microsoft Permissive License, it was renamed to Microsoft Public License while being reviewed for approval by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The license was approved on October 12, 2007 along with the Ms-RL. According to the Free Software Foundation, it is a free software license but not compatible with the GNU GPL.

The ISO spec specifies the file extensions and usage of a PE header stub - and it's utterly irrelervant. UNIX doesn't use file extensions.

Yeah, its irrelevant to have a shitload of MS in source and binary, and call it crossplatform. YEAH.

If you want to fork off your own version of Mono with different file extensions because you have some strange allergic reaction to specific combinations of 3 characters, then, well, go ahead. It removes compatibility with other implementations of the spec (and would stop being an implementation of the spec) but whatever.

No, for gods sake, I don't want to fork zombies!

[directhex]

What do we do with two MS-PL entries, chief?

Whatever you want, I guess.

Ms-PL is a Free Software license, according to the FSF. If you don't want the libraries in the source which are Ms-PL, then, well, don't use them

I should also note that some of them have changed license recently upstream, but Mono's snapshot hasn't been updated to reflect that (or debian/copyright hasn't been updated).

For example, the Dynamic Language Runtime is Apache 2.0 as of July 2010.

MS-PL == (C) Microsoft

Er, no, that's not true, any more than GPL means (C) FSF. The license was written by Microsoft originally, just as the FSF wrote the GPL, but that doesn't mean the same applies to projects released under those licenses.

Also, look:

Yeah, so? Plenty of licenses aren't compatible with the GPL. The Mozilla Public License, for example. Or the OpenSSL license.

Yeah, its irrelevant to have a shitload of MS in source and binary, and call it crossplatform. YEAH.

cp /usr/bin/gcc /usr/bin/gcc.exe HOLY SHIT MY SYSTEM IS INFECTED I'M GOING TO DIE

Do you know just how ridiculous it is when your primary argument is dangerous file extensions are dangerous?

No, for gods sake, I don't want to fork zombies!

You just want to piss and moan about developers having more freedom than you permit them to have?

[directhex]

Mind if I print this out on toilet paper roll ?

You want to shit all over reality? I can't think of a more appropriate metaphor, tbh. Go nuts!

[ciplogic]

Since Visual C does only very small subset of what GCC is capable for, Visual C is for the ppor.
LLVM does not touch here, because it has same set of functionality as GCC, yet different approaches. It does not limit, nor bind itself.

Right, what Java version does Visual CC have?

Mono and Visual C# (or any .Net language, including C++ CLI) supports IKVM, so if you take its support is the same as Apache Harmony, meaning Java 6.0. Isn't it better than GCJ?

.NET/CLR is NOT and was not designed as a cross-platform dialect, but rather as opposite - as a way to enslave everyone to goals of MS.It was started by definition as a project to either kill or overtake crossplatform and free java.
Because you clone .net, does not make you correct all these issues. It started much later than java, so it does not have mistakes that java still have.

Maybe it wasn't (if you mean about COM Interop, which most C# programmers don't use), but Mono is. The same thing could be told about: Java (to enslave people to Sun/Oracle), Objective C (to enslave people to Apple platforms). Accepting that doesn't have Java mistakes, and to be fair, compared with typical C++, Java is really a great tool, means simply that to some extend C# can be used in fair amount of places.
JavaScript's Canvas is based on the API that Apple created for Mac OS X 10.4 which in my understanding could be once patented one scheme or the other. Or Cairo or a font drawing engine. Some they were attacked already, but did not mean that Linux disappear when it was attacked by MS's patent about FAT system, isn't so?
Excluding trivial algorithms, you are almost always into a possible patent-risk scenario: the kernel, the desktop with multiple features, the office suite, the browser, your CPU, wifi card and your video card are just some components that have the high risk of patent problems. Some risks are mitigated by the company that offers "indemnification", but without it, your computer is locked, want it or not to some US (most likely) patent company.

[alcalde]

a project to either kill or overtake[/B] crossplatform and free java.

The architect of C# was grabbed from Borland by MS. This along with some other poachings prompted a lawsuit whose settlement is not public. Since Borland was in great need of cash, it's commonly considered they may have let MS off the hook for payment. A statement popped up in one of the documents regarding the proceedings which made reference to "Delphi for Java". For this reason a theory has persisted that Borland was working on making Delphi target the JVM, MS grabbed the lead Delphi architect and ended up with the Delphi/VCL-like c# and .Net framework instead with Borland letting them have rights to it in exchange for the cash settlement. Borland would never directly address this theory. If this is the case, all of your "way to enslave everyone to goals of MS" idea is null and void because the origins of .Net lie with Borland and not MS.

EDIT: ok, found what I was looking for; it starts with the last paragraph on the first page:
http://delphi.about.com/od/delphifor...piracydnet.htm

[Veerappan]

I'm literally grinning from ear to ear at just how adorable you are. I just want to tickle your tummy and make baby noises.

It's 3pm here, and you still almost managed to get me to launch coffee all over my keyboard... well done.

[crazycheese]

The architect of C# was grabbed from Borland by MS. This along with some other poachings prompted a lawsuit whose settlement is not public. Since Borland was in great need of cash, it's commonly considered they may have let MS off the hook for payment. A statement popped up in one of the documents regarding the proceedings which made reference to "Delphi for Java". For this reason a theory has persisted that Borland was working on making Delphi target the JVM, MS grabbed the lead Delphi architect and ended up with the Delphi/VCL-like c# and .Net framework instead with Borland letting them have rights to it in exchange for the cash settlement. Borland would never directly address this theory. If this is the case, all of your "way to enslave everyone to goals of MS" idea is null and void because the origins of .Net lie with Borland and not MS.

EDIT: ok, found what I was looking for; it starts with the last paragraph on the first page:
http://delphi.about.com/od/delphifor...piracydnet.htm

Who coded it is completely irrelevant. Relevant is following:
Why was Borland in need of money?
Why was Watcom in need of money?
What happened to Delphi?
What happened to Turbo C++?
What happened to Watcom 11?

Cmmon! Bring .net to Linux! It is in dire need for DLLs! Poison the infrastructure with useless junk! Kill it! So many microsofties here, I hope you are not letting your customers hang on the phone lines! Useless bastards.

[crazycheese]

You want to shit all over reality? I can't think of a more appropriate metaphor, tbh. Go nuts!

Yeah, I gladly shit over your "reality", sir!

[psycho_driver]

Python apps are not native, but people want them.

Python doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. Also, python is practically perfect. No other scripting language is needed.