Tony Manco wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Mono actually is dangerous
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> In a recent iTWire article titled "The elusive,
>>> royalty-free patent licence for Mono", Sam Varghese
>>> contacts Ecmea for the patent terms surrounding Mono.
>>> Remember that the mono camp always throws the argument at
>>> people that mono follows an Ecmea standard and as such is
>>> free to implement?
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>
>>> He reaches a very simple conclusion: "To me, it looks this
>>> licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa Claus. I
>>> think Mono fans need to think of a fresh defence when
>>> people talk about the dangers of patent suits arising over
>>> this technology. The licence talk has worn more than a
>>> little thin."
>>>
>>> Thanks for a great piece of investigation to Sam.
>>>
>>> Now, can we please take a real look into this before we
>>> rip out Rhythmbox in favour of Banshee in Ubuntu and can
>>> we please reinvestigate making Gnome depend on mono
>>> (currently by virtue of Tomboy)?
>> `----
>>
>> http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/node/152
>
> And yet some more proof that Mono is dangerous. Great post!
I did a search for Mono in Synaptic on my main desktop. I then
uninstalled all Mono features and 2 applications using it,
including Tomboy. It was easier than switching off the uninvited
Windows .Net extension in Microsoft's recent FireFox "patch".
(Seeing Flatfish has accused Linux advocates of "latent
homosexuality", it would not surprise me that he gravitates
toward the likes of "TomBoy".)
--
HPT
|
|
