James Michael DuPont wrote:>I doubt that you will be able to do any of this >without a new version of the GPL, belive me, I have >been in this discussion for over 1 year now. > > *sigh* I really didn't want to go down that far. > > >>Is there going to be a way I can resolve this? >>Special License? >> >> >Maybe a GPLv4? > > Uh-huh. That and $3.50 will get me a coffee at starbucks ;) Somehow I don't think that's going to solve the problem. > > >>Get the >>mono C# compiler license changed? >> >> >I dont think that is a good idea. > > > >>I'm a bit confusled as to why the Compiler itself >>needs to be GPL'd >>anyway... I mean is there a *fear* that someone may >>take it, extend it >>and make it commercial without releasing the code to >>it? >> >> >That is exactly what RMS was worried about happening >to the GCC. It can happen very quickly, there is not >firewall anymore and anyone can link in at any point >and get and take data from the compiler at will. > > Maybe I'm just looking at this a bit simplistically. I don't see GCC and the mono C# compilers in the same league. One churns out code for bunches of languages, and supports many back ends... Truly a massive feat, which grants great power. The other compiles a single language into IL bytecode. Not quite the scale of GCC, y'know? And that's kinda the lines where I like to see things licensed. Big, important, powerful == GPL. Smaller, single purpose == BSD > > >>Really? I can't >>see how someone would. Seems a little unlikely. >> >> >It is not that unlikely at all. > >There are a more than a few commercial projects out >there that would *love* to get thier hands on a free >and tested c# compiler and code generator that the can >just take from and never give back to. > > But they can ship the mono C# compiler anyway as-is... What kinds of things would they bother to add to make it "better", and therefore proprientary? >In the course of the introspector project I have had >many discussions with people who dont want to >contribute anything, it really is just take take take. > Yeah, I know... I'm not really an opensource zealot, but from whence I take, there I give... >Free software for most people means that they have no >obligations at all to give back. > And that I really don't mind... It's their choice. > >The GPL protects honest developers from that type of >abuse, the LGPL does not. > > When they take, extend and keep proprietary... Sometimes that doesn't bother me, (mostly with components, but it would infuriate me with the biggies : GCC, Linux , etc...) I guess my complaint is with the GPL that it dictates what the overall license will be once you commit to using the code. Whether you leverage 100 lines of code, or 100,000, or 100,000,000 lines. Let's face it, if I write a million lines, and I use a GPL'd library that's got 100 lines in it, I'm forced to go GPL, if I wish to use the code, or write my own. Yeah, it's my choice to use it, and Yeah, it's the author's right to license code any way they want. It is just that in this particular case, I would like to use the code in an opensource project, *without* making my opensource project GPL. I don't feel my component is important enough to force my license on others. Now, if it were at lease LGPL, I could build a library out of it.. ;) I guess I still don't see the mono C# compiler being in the same league as the GCC suite. > >Then answer please my original questions about the >implementation of the System.Compiler und the X11 >license, >how will that be possible without linking to and using >the gpled code from the MONO C# compiler itself? > Yes, please... I do want to know that too! > >I wouldn't want the gcc to stop being GPL. I *want* the software that I >use to be GPL. > I wouldn't want GCC to be anything other than GPL too. I don't need all my software to be GPL or even opensouce. I've bought many a software package, because it was fundamentally better than the opensource/GPL equivalent. And regardless what RMS says, I'm NEVER going to choose open first, quality second. >I find assurance in knowing that the sofware that I use >will remain publicly available and no one will be able to "take over" that >software (the case of Kerberos is an example of what I mean). > I don't see how someone can "take over" code under alternative licensing. Yes, they can make a copy, and yes they could make serious changes to it, to enhance it, but that still leaves the original code availible. It didn't dissapear. >Anyone that wants to continue the thread should really put his money >(or his code) where his mouth is. > Well, I'm doing both. :) I'm building code which I'm releasing as BSD licensed stuff. I'm not heavily concerned about people using it in their commercial apps. Garrett _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
