Re: Proposal: Desktop Search hackfest
Hi, On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Quim Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: Desktop Search Hackfest. Calling to: Xesam, Beagle, Tracker projects and whoever else is involved. When: September 19 + the days the developers decide before after. Where: Berlin. Why: The Board made a call to organize hackfest around events and the Maemo Summit has answered. Budget: Funded by Nokia within reasonable terms. Sounds like a good idea, but I don't have the vacation time to make the trip, so I'd be unable to make a hackfest outside of Boston. Somehow I doubt that Nokia's reasonable terms include paying my salary. ;) That's probably ok anyway because I haven't been doing Beagle hacking lately and have been in my co-maintainer's accurate description an armchair quarterback. I don't think that the other two main Beagle hackers (dBera and Arun) are on this list -- one of them being a KDE guy -- but I've forwarded the email to them privately. The best way to reach them would be on the dashboard-hackers mailing list: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dashboard-hackers Joe ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 C#, and it would make me much more comfortable if the community and/or the foundation came out strongly in support of it as a first-class language and environment, or to reject it from ever becoming a core piece of the platform. It depends what you call platform :-) If it's the GNOME Developer Platform, it is my understanding that there's a consensus we want to keep the platform in C. Indeed, I wasn't totally clear on this. I do believe things get a little muddied when we start talking about things like daemons, D-Bus interfaces, etc. My understanding is that we want the Platform in C because it makes it usable from all applications and bindable into other languages. But libbeagle is a C library that talks over a IPC to a C# running daemon. Does that make it suitable for platform? Can D-Bus interfaces become part of the platform? The main issue here is that each time a mono-based app is proposed, there are comments only made on the fact that it's mono-based. Also, quite often, there are comments for python apps because it's slow, memory-hungry, etc. Indeed, the technical arguments are sane and good criteria to determine a module's suitability. But the philosophical and moral objections, to borrow a phrase, are what seem to create a double standard in my eyes. Thanks, Joe ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 the issue, by spuriously extending it to copyrights, trademarks, and other totally different laws. I actually meant both patents and copyrights, so I think my characterization was accurate. Joe ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 so many people are involved in GNOME for so many different reasons. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say they object to Mono because it's a Microsoft technology. I've never had this problem personally, but maybe that's because Mono is a totally independent, free and successful implementation of it, and partly because C# is so much like Java it's tough to argue that it's somehow new and novel. Likewise the level of hatred toward Novell over the past year would color people's moral and philosophical positions, as is clearly the case at boycottnovell. The legal aspects have always seemed like a strawman argument to me. There's nothing particularly different about Mono than GNOME, Samba, or Apache. There's no reason to believe that Mono is any more or less patent encumbered than any other piece of open source software. There's no reason to believe that Mono infringes on copyrights any more or less than other pieces of open source software. However, unlike many other open source projects, Mono's messaging on this has been clear: they don't believe they violate any patents and have plans to work around them if they do and if you've used tools to disassemble Microsoft code, etc., you may never contribute to Mono. I don't believe GNOME has a policy that clearly articulated. And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not particularly active in litigating on it. In fact, they are the 900lb gorilla and most small companies and patent trolls target them, because that's where the money is. Their FUD against us is a more effective weapon than actually suing us. And I believe the broader open-source community, with the help of invested corporations like IBM, Red Hat and yes, even Novell, have given us a reasonable defense in the unlikely event. The real legal threat to us comes from patent trolls, and we've already seen the start of this with the recent lawsuit against Red Hat and Novell, and over things that are much more trivial and broad than what applies to Mono. They're more likely to cripple us, and it's ought to be a driving motivator for patent reform in the US. Joe ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 choices, or Novell (or any developer advocating Mono) asking politely of the GNOME Foundation with regards to a policy? I meant in the context of your email, which I understood to be the foundation asking politely of its developers not to develop using Mono. Novell asking would be fine too. Or anybody. Consider this my asking. :) Joe ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
