Originally posted by directhex
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Wine-Mono: Marrying Mono With WINE
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by directhex View PostThe 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
Originally posted by directhex View PostSo if there was lots of code which was (c) Microsoft, you'd feel happier? Really? Really?
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.Originally posted by directhex View PostThe ISO spec specifies the file extensions and usage of a PE header stub - and it's utterly irrelervant. UNIX doesn't use file extensions.
Originally posted by directhex View PostIf 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by crazycheese View PostWhat do we do with two MS-PL entries, chief?
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
Also, look:
Yeah, its irrelevant to have a shitload of MS in source and binary, and call it crossplatform. YEAH.
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!
Comment
-
Originally posted by crazycheese View PostSince 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?
.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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by crazycheese;263638
.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 [Ba project to either kill or overtake[/B] crossplatform and free java.
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
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by alcalde View PostThe 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
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.
Comment
Comment