"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:s08nl4-aac.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Verily I say unto thee, that jim spake thusly:
>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:reply_in_group-251A52.08405401072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>> Mono is not proprietary. It's under GPL and LGPL, and would have
>>> no trouble whatsoever in a GPLv3 world, and would in fact work just
>>> as well if it went to GPLv3 itself.
>
> Mono is tainted by Microsoft patents, for which Microsoft has only made
> assurances of "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND)" conditions, not
> a patent grant:
>
> http://www.redmonk.com/public/mono_cc_licensed.pdf
>
> Bruce Parens has publicly stated that he feels that using and developing
> under the Mono framework is an unacceptable risk, with little guarantee
> that Microsoft won't simply change its policy and become a patent troll
> over the issue. Given Ballmer's recent patent threats, that sentiment
> seems to be well founded.
>
> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2005/02/17/state-of-open-source/
> http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945
> http://osc.gigavox.com/shows/detail1767.html
>
>> Unforttunately, since it is just a copy of Microsoft's work, it will
>> always be at least a step behind Microsoft.
>
> Mono will always be a step behind technology of rather questionable
> merit (.Net), so it's a moot point.
>
>> Novell really should just waddle away from that crappy project and
>> move on to something with more potential, like REALbasic.
>
> Now you're just being silly.
I did say "more potential".....
jim
|
|
