On Nov 29, 2007 6:05 PM, Joe Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/29/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. The boycottnovell site and the OP alluded to that there would be
> > moral, philosophical and or legal problems with GNOME depending on
> > Mono and or C#. Is that
Le vendredi 30 novembre 2007, à 08:49 -0500, Joe Shaw a écrit :
> On 11/29/07, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007, à 18:03 -0500, Joe Shaw a écrit :
> > > It's been frustrating over the past few years that GNOME hasn't taken
> > > a firm position on the issue. I
Vincent Untz posted our Mono policy yesterday, which states very clearly
GNOME's stance on the issue. No part of the core platform can depend on
Mono, and no part of the desktop suit can pick up a new Mono dependency
without going through the module approval process again. A Mono
The patent clauses of GPLv3 are designed to make Microsoft give us all
patent safety thru its involvement in distribution of SuSe GNU/Linux,
if and when programs under GPLv3 and not under GPLv2 are included in
SuSe GNU/Linux.
(If they aren't included in SuSe GNU/Linux, they don't affect Novell
at
> And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
> particularly active in litigating on it.
> When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
> instead of "patents" only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
> extending it to
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:44 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
>
> We want to add support for Tracker as a search backend. Tracker
> is implemented in good old C, and it finally seems to be getting
> some uptake. It just takes some manpower.
>
With XESAM coming along, you wont need to have libtracke
> And all of this could have been explained just as simply if the folks at
> boycottnovell.com had simply emailed us and asked for details, instead of
> posting unsubstantiated drivel.
Pretty much the crux of the issue with that website. Despite transparency
into the community that they would ne
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:44 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> > great concern.
> >
> > Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
> > of the situ
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
>
> Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
> of the situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope
> someone
Hi Richard,
Richard Stallman wrote:
> We are talking at cross purposes. The issue I raised is not whether a
> person _can_ write a program in C#; Microsoft might try to stop him,
> but we will not. The question is whether these programs are treated
> as part of GNOME, and to what extent other p
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:48 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That is a decision left entirely up to those who create such Free Software.
> I don't believe that we can tell them what to do or how to do it. We can
> ask
> politely.
>
> We are talking at cross purposes. The issue I raised
Also to not clutter mailboxes even more, I don't see how an optional
dependency on anything can be worse than the fact that GNOME optionally
compiles on MS Windows systems.
That GNOME can work on Windows has no effect on what GNOME does in a
GNU/Linux system. However, a dependency for
That is a decision left entirely up to those who create such Free Software.
I don't believe that we can tell them what to do or how to do it. We can ask
politely.
We are talking at cross purposes. The issue I raised is not whether a
person _can_ write a program in C#; Microsoft might
Hi,
On 11/30/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
> particularly active in litigating on it.
>
> When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
> instead of "patents" only tends to confuse
Hi,
On 11/29/07, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007, à 18:03 -0500, Joe Shaw a écrit :
> > It's been frustrating over the past few years that GNOME hasn't taken
> > a firm position on the issue. I have personally felt very in limbo
> > because my application is in
> With Novell's customers getting exclusive patent protection for mono, it
> seems unfair for everyone else who have a heightened risk.
Thats something to take up with the FSF. The implementation of the GPLv3
is badly flawed by allowing that activity to continue. The original act
was Novell's, bu
The patent danger to Mono comes from patents we know Microsoft has, on
libraries which are outside the C# spec and thus not covered by any
promise not to sue. In effect, Microsoft has designed in boobytraps
for us.
Indeed, every large program implements lots of ideas that are
patented. Indeed, t
And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
particularly active in litigating on it.
When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
instead of "patents" only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
extending it to copyrights, trademarks, and o
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 18:03 -0500, Joe Shaw wrote:
>
> Again, I think this is a strawman argument. There's no evidence to
> suggest that Microsoft would attack Mono any more than they would
> attack other free and open source software like GNOME, the Linux
> kernel, OpenOffice, Samba, Apache, Pyt
2007/11/30, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
> situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.
>
> If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
> then I think they should be writt
Quick reply to say that I pretty much agree with Joe. There are areas
that it's very clear to anyone that our code infringing MS patents. And
none of that is hidden to anyone. Lemme give a very central and
specific example:
- GNOME requires at least one of Microsoft Uniscribe, Apple ATSUI, o
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007, à 18:03 -0500, Joe Shaw a écrit :
> It's been frustrating over the past few years that GNOME hasn't taken
> a firm position on the issue. I have personally felt very in limbo
> because my application is in C#, and it would make me much more
> comfortable if the community
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007, à 14:51 -0500, John (J5) Palmieri a écrit :
> I would also like to ease your mind and say the Release Team would take
> great exception to a core GNOME module all of a sudden sprouting hard
> dependencies. Some modules are more scrutinized than other, Yelp would
> be one
Hi,
On 11/29/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree this isn't really something that the foundation can force, but
> > even "asking politely" in an official capacity would be a step in the
> > right direction.
>
> The Foundation asking politely of developers with regards to their ch
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 10:17 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > I suspect there hasn't been anything firm because (a) there is quite a bit
> > of division within the community on the issue and (b) there is some
> > element of "walking on eggshells" around Novell and its endorsement of the
> > environm
> On Nov 29, 2007 5:40 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out
> > > on", then I think they should be written in another language.
Note that the above quote is misattributed, and was stated by Richard, not
me.
- Jeff
> It's been frustrating over the past few years that GNOME hasn't taken a
> firm position on the issue.
Agree.
> I suspect there hasn't been anything firm because (a) there is quite a bit
> of division within the community on the issue and (b) there is some
> element of "walking on eggshells" a
On Nov 29, 2007 5:40 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
> > then I think they should be written in another language.
I, for one thing and completely unrelated to Microsoft, would much
rather see our developers foc
Hi,
On 11/29/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a situation
> > where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.
> >
> > If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
> > then I think
> The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a situation
> where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.
>
> If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
> then I think they should be written in another language.
That is a decision lef
There are some components in GNOME that optionally integrate with Mono-based
tools, particularly Beagle. Yelp can depends on 'libbeagle' which provides
an interface to Beagle for C-based applications, but itself does not depend
on Mono at all.
That is a relief. However, this state
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
>
> Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
> of the situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope
> someone
Hi,
On 11/29/07, Diego Escalante Urrelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I once hurt my finger installing beagle, but that was because of
> excesive computer use. The installation just triggered my problem.
That's fixed in the new version.
Thanks,
Joe
___
On 11/29/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:13 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 8:31 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Nov 29, 2007 1:33 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'll second this. T
On Nov 29, 2007 11:44 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. The boycottnovell site and the OP alluded to that there would be
> moral, philosophical and or legal problems with GNOME depending on
> Mono and or C#. Is that fact or is it fiction?
I think Richard made it clear he does no
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 18:44 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:13 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 8:31 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Nov 29, 2007 1:33 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'll second this.
Hi,
On 11/29/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. The boycottnovell site and the OP alluded to that there would be
> moral, philosophical and or legal problems with GNOME depending on
> Mono and or C#. Is that fact or is it fiction?
Moral or philosophical is hard to judge, since s
On Nov 29, 2007 12:44 PM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:13 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 8:31 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Nov 29, 2007 1:33 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'll s
On Nov 29, 2007 3:13 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 8:31 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 1:33 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'll second this. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just
> > > incredibly, inc
On Nov 29, 2007 10:37 AM, Jonathan Blandford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 15:54 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> > Luis Villa wrote:
> > > Jeff has ably debunked this particular fiction already in the thread,
> > > and more generally ably debunked the FUD that Novell somehow contr
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 15:54 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> > Jeff has ably debunked this particular fiction already in the thread,
> > and more generally ably debunked the FUD that Novell somehow controls
> > the Foundation. As to the rest, I have better things to do with my
> > li
Luis Villa wrote:
> Jeff has ably debunked this particular fiction already in the thread,
> and more generally ably debunked the FUD that Novell somehow controls
> the Foundation. As to the rest, I have better things to do with my
> life than to debunk the rest of boycottnovell post-by-post.
Now w
On Nov 29, 2007 8:31 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 1:33 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2007 5:59 AM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded things
> > >
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
>
> Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
> of the situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope
> someone
On Nov 29, 2007 1:33 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 5:59 AM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded things like:
> >
> > Sorry, but the negativity of that site greatly outweighs the positive. It
On Nov 29, 2007 5:59 AM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded things like:
>
> Sorry, but the negativity of that site greatly outweighs the positive. It
> takes more than a little sucking up to earn back my respect after the cr
> > libbeagle does not depend on Mono. Perhaps, if the Fedora RPM of
> > libbeagle actually depends on Mono, it needs to be fixed.
> It doesn't.
I am Jack's abject lack of surprise. :-)
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/
"Love never
Hi,
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> People are very freaked out and nerves on a real fringe, so it's very
> easy to trigger alarm. We have Novell, as a huge puppet from Microsoft's
> manouvers to divide the Free Software community, to "thank" for so much
> friction.
This kind of comment, repeat
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 22:00 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > > Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
> > > optional, and it's not news.
> >
> > We need a new RPM in some distributions, as optional dependencies are not
> > part of current RPM in Fedora, for instan
> > Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
> > optional, and it's not news.
>
> We need a new RPM in some distributions, as optional dependencies are not
> part of current RPM in Fedora, for instance :)
libbeagle does not depend on Mono. Perhaps, if the Fedora RPM
> I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded things like:
Sorry, but the negativity of that site greatly outweighs the positive. It
takes more than a little sucking up to earn back my respect after the crap
they've been spewing.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Aust
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:15:34AM +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> > great concern.
>
>
> Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
> option
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:22:23PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great
> > concern.
>
> Unfortunately, the authors of that website are obstinate in their
> indifference to the truth, and do not serve the interests of the Free
>
On Nov 29, 2007 11:48 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:03:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> > great concern.
>
> (...)
>
> > However, making GNOME depend on Mono is running a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:03:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
(...)
> However, making GNOME depend on Mono is running a grave risk, and a
> grave mistake. If the article accurately describes the situation, I
El mié, 28-11-2007 a las 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió:
> However, making GNOME depend on Mono is running a grave risk, and a
> grave mistake. If the article accurately describes the situation, I
> think we need to launch a high-priority project to reimplement Yelp in
> some other langu
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great
> concern.
Unfortunately, the authors of that website are obstinate in their
indifference to the truth, and do not serve the interests of the Free
Software community. They prefer to create suspicion and insinuations than
re
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
optional, and it's not news.
If maintainers want to add optional dependencies on t
58 matches
Mail list logo
