Joshua Penix wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Paul G. Allen wrote:
That said, what can I use to replace Evolution?
Isn't one of the major drawing points toward Open Source the license?
Yes, but the Microsoft/Novell agreement isn't about license, it's about
patents, right?
You know, the license that prevents your rights and your software from
being taken hostage by any organization/individual? Why then would one
throw out Evolution?
Mono aka C#. If Microsoft has a patent that it chooses to enforce, it
will likely be in Mono/C#.
Does Gnome need to go too? How about any other
GPL'd software that Novell happens to have developers working on?
Depends on the implementation language. At this point, I would throw
out anything based on Mono.
Sure, the Novell/MS agreement might make one think twice before signing
corporate licensing agreements with Novell, but the way parts of the
community are running around freaked out shows me that they don't have
as much faith in Open Source as they like to claim they do.
Open source provides no protection against patents. Personally, I think
Microsoft doing this is a *wonderful* thing. Everybody was pounding on
the FSF about being too far reaching, too paranoid, too extreme with the
GPLv3.
Suddenly, they look a little less extreme and their concerns look a
little more valid. Conversation is now in order instead of name-calling.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
