Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 fact or is it fiction? > [snip] > 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. Thanks a lot for explaining that Joe! Mono is great technology and it would be bad if it got sidelined purely because of the FUD. -- mvh Björn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 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? I think it's better to have an IPC interface (most probably dbus interface) in the platform than a library that does the work. And yes, I think it makes sense to have dbus interfaces in 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. Sorry, my point wasn't clear: people have been arguing that the python apps are bad. Sometimes it's true and there's data to prove it, but sometimes it's just an argument used because it's python... So it's bad too. The real point that there will always be people complaining about the language something is written in :/ Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 dependency does not exclude an application from consideration as part of the GNOME desktop suite, or of any suite other than the core development platform. I think that's a good basic outline for the policy: there's no need for GNOME to reject all C# programs entirely outside the core. But I think that when it considers them, it should not consider each one in isolation. It's important to keep an eye on the total amount of C# usage too. In effect, to ask, "How bad would it be if we had to drop them all?" The point is that we don't want to lead ourself into a position where the idea of dropping all C# programs is so painful that we would be tempted to do something more problematical to avoid it. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on 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 all.) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> 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. If you mean patents and copyrights, please say "patents and copyrights". Saying "intellectual property" takes in a dozen other laws (such as trademark law) that don't relate to the issue, so it can turn accurate statements into inaccurate ones. However, even saying "patents and copyrights" seems like a distraction from the issue at hand. Patents are relevant to the use of Mono and C#, but copyrights are not. The fact that Microsoft has not yed sued us over these patents might be relevant -- though I've heard that Microsoft is privately threatening companies that run free software and demanding they pay. If Microsoft also has not sued in some case concerning copyright, that case must be very different from this one, and I don't think it relevant to this discussion. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 libtracker or libBeagle as a dependency (really these two should be deprecated as nautilus, yelp and Gtk file chooser can all use libxesam instead) Nor will beagle and tracker (and other indexers) have to write their own indexers for yelp as we will move towards having index-independent third party indexers for both individual entities as well as crawlers for container objects that contain lots of sub-entities (lime mbox, rss feed etc) Ideally the authors of yelp will be able to write their own indexer plugin that all indexers can use As soon as Xesam 1.0 is out (hopefully before xmas) the next thing will be 1.1 which will have the above plug-in functionality defined As always, lack of time is making progress on Xesam slow atm but its getting there jamie ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> 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 never get with companies, they do not actually do any primary research, and have come up with some doozies about things they simply don't understand. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 "Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it." - Alan J. Perlis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope > > someone will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious > > problem. > > > > I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just > > as I've supported the development of free platforms for any language > > that users use. I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C# > > with a free platform for secondary applications. > > > > 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 language. Sorry, I wanted to be absolutely clear on something here: Yelp itself is not written in C#, and does not run on top of Mono. Yelp is written primarily in C, with some XSLT for document transformation and some C++ for Gecko stuff. There is no need to re-implement Yelp. But if anybody wants to, hey, have fun. > Others have commented, but here's the detailed explanation > of how things work and where we're heading from somebody > who actually co-maintains Yelp: [snip other stuff I said] -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious > problem. > > I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just > as I've supported the development of free platforms for any language > that users use. I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C# > with a free platform for secondary applications. > > 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 language. Others have commented, but here's the detailed explanation of how things work and where we're heading from somebody who actually co-maintains Yelp: Yelp currently has two backends for searching the help files on your computer: beagle and "basic". The basic search will simply ransack your hard disk every time you do a search. It's nowhere near as fast as beagle, but it does work. 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. We do not want to be in the business of maintaining our own indexer, and we believe the Gnome platform should be providing that for us. As for dependencies, Yelp has a configure-time option: --with-search=basic|beagle|auto auto (the default) will build Beagle support iff beagle is found on your system. Even when compiled with Beagle support, Yelp will still fall back to basic search if Beagle can't be found at run time. I believe we've done a good job of providing useful functionality without being able to depend on functionality that really should be a part of our platform. (And by "we", I mostly mean my fellow co-maintainer, Don.) The fact that this results in a hard dependency for some binary packages is really outside what we do. 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. -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 parts of GNOME use them, > and what other GNOME developers are asked to do in regard to them. > > The GNOME Foundation ought to have something to say about that. Indeed - the Foundation board has enfranchised the release team, a group accountable to the board and the membership, to decide exactly that. 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 dependency does not exclude an application from consideration as part of the GNOME desktop suite, or of any suite other than the core development platform. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 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 parts of GNOME use them, > and what other GNOME developers are asked to do in regard to them. > > The GNOME Foundation ought to have something to say about that. And it does through the Release Team. I have personally witnessed and participated in numerous consensus meetings on the Release Team where pros and cons are heavily weighed. Mono has been a hot button for awhile there. It was only two releases or so ago that Tomboy was allowed in and that was after hard thought about the mono dependency. Vincent Untz already posted the policy that came out of that discussion (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2007-November/msg00332.html) -- John (J5) Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 GNOME when running on GNU/Linux does have an effect on what GNOME does in a GNU/Linux system. A mandatory dependency is automatically crucial. If the dependency is optional, then it is not necessarily important. But it is not necessarily unimportant either. Its importance is determined by the practical details of the situation. Thus, having some applications written in C# is not an automatic disaster, but the more they are the more the problem. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 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 parts of GNOME use them, and what other GNOME developers are asked to do in regard to them. The GNOME Foundation ought to have something to say about that. ___ 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, 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
> 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, but the ongoing problem is caused by the FSF. And the sooner the FSF realise that and issue a GPL v3.1 removing that exemption the better. The FSF not Gnome wrote Novell the get out clause. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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, there's no way to avoid this danger. But that's no reason to put our head inside Microsoft's jaws. The FSF is organizing a campaign for the total abolition of software patents in the US. Mere reform is a distraction. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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. The same is true for issues about any other law. The term "intellectual property" may give you a feeling of deeper understanding, but it is a spurious feeling because that understanding is mistaken. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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, Python, etc. No evidence, but as pointed out by Jamie, the MS-Novell deal is a hint. A strong hint in fact. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 written in another language. Yeah, also all those uglier-than-lawful Perl programs! Here's my request: Please don't write cool stuff in Perl since I want to run them with Python Thanks a bunch for complying. Makes me feel all free to choose and stuff. P.S. In my opinion, freedom should not limit even the bad choices people make -- Kalle Vahlman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Powered by http://movial.fi Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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, or FreeType to run. There is no way you can run a Gtk+ application without any of those three. And all three have code implementing technology patented by at least two of Microsoft, Apple, and Adobe. Yes, FreeType has at least two features (TrueType bytecode interpreter / hinter, and subpixel text rendering) that are clearly and undoubtedly are infringing on Microsoft patents, and possibly Apple patents. The solution Red Hat and Fedora has taken is to not use those features at the cost of inferior text rendering, but most other distros don't do that. Yes, those features in FreeType are optional. 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. behdad On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 13:05 -0500, Joe Shaw 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 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 -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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. To me, it's already a first-class language and environment for GNOME since it's we ship GTK# in the bindings and it's allowed to have a GTK#-based in the Desktop suite. 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. I admit I might be oversimplifying the problem, but my point is that for many people, it has become a non-problem. (oh, and I don't think I'd want to hack in Mono, if anybody think I'm completely biased on this -- so far, I'm a C/python guy) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 of them. Novell has also been very sensitive to the Mono issue > in the past. They still champion it but have done things like create C > glue libraries and refrain from making their apps like Evolution depend > on Mono. Just a reminder for everyone here, the current release team policy for things related to mono [1]: New modules may be accepted into the desktop or admin releases with a dependency on gtk#/mono, but any modules accepted into either of those release sets without a dependency on gtk#/mono may not gain one without going through the proposal process again in a subsequent release. I'm nearly sure at the time, I was willing to either not have this whole paragraph or to replace "gtk#/mono" with "gtk#/mono, python, etc." because it makes sense for other languages too. Maybe I'm just misremembering all this and other release team members will correct me in this case :-) Vincent [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2006-August/msg0.html -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ 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
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 > > environment. > > Agree. > > Also, I think much of the issue has moved on from legal paranoia to concerns > about adopting a strategy perceived as Microsoft-friendly (at least among > those who don't adopt a knee-jerk, black-and-white approach to such issues). there are other fair play issues too With Novell's customers getting exclusive patent protection for mono, it seems unfair for everyone else who have a heightened risk. Increasing mono adoption combined with MS FUD tactics would give Novell an unfair advantage over its competitors (as Ms tech is more likely to be tainted with patents obviously) If novell want mono to be on the agenda then they really have to can their patent deal - I personally would object to any new mono apps proposed for Gnome because of it on the grounds I stated above jamie ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> 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 -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "Creative thinkers make many false starts, and continually waver between unmanageable fantasies and systematic attack." - Harry Hepner ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> 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" around Novell and its endorsement of the > environment. Agree. Also, I think much of the issue has moved on from legal paranoia to concerns about adopting a strategy perceived as Microsoft-friendly (at least among those who don't adopt a knee-jerk, black-and-white approach to such issues). > 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? My feeling on past discussions about this at the Foundation (or Advisory Board) level is that it has been other participants, not generally Novell, that have pursued the discussion. Maybe Novell raising the issue would be a good thing. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "The beanbag is a triumph of modern day eclectic colourism..." - Catie Flick ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 focus on what is already there... For instance, even though Foresight Linux ships Banshee, Beagle and F-Spot by default, I usually turn Beagle off, and replace Banshee with Rhythmbox and do my image browsing with EOG. It is not that I'm a GNOME purist but I feel that we have good software and we should be using it and supporting it. Make goffice rule again, etc. Cheers, -- Og B. Maciel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Keys: D5CFC202 http://www.ogmaciel.com (en_US) http://blog.ogmaciel.com (pt_BR) ___ 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: > > > > 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. 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, Python, etc. > 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. 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. 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 environment. 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. Maybe this is something the candidates should argue over. ;) Joe ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> 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 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. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "As humans we speak one language." - Avril Lavigne ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 statement is disturbing: You can remove Mono from modern FLOSS desktop systems without removing GNOME itself, though you'll miss out on some cool stuff like f-spot, Beagle, Tomboy and so on. 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. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious > problem. > > I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just > as I've supported the development of free platforms for any language > that users use. I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C# > with a free platform for secondary applications. > > 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 language. > > The use of code from Firefox in a way that might cause trademark > problems is also a serious issue. The solution might not be difficult > -- it may be enough to remove the trademark in the sources used by > GNOME wherever that is necessary -- but the solution does need to be > carried out. > > The nontechnical impact of these issues vastly exceeds the technical > impact, so considering them only in technical terms is fundamentally > misguided. In this sort of decision, the Foundation should intervene > and decide based on the nontechnical issues at stake. If those who > work for Novell tell us not to worry, we should not listen to them. 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 of them. Novell has also been very sensitive to the Mono issue in the past. They still champion it but have done things like create C glue libraries and refrain from making their apps like Evolution depend on Mono. -- John (J5) Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ 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, 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 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just > > > > incredibly, incredibly bad. > > > > > > RMS message read "If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will > > > explain." Do you care to sort out what is fact and what is fiction? > > > > 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. > > 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 once hurt my finger installing beagle, but that was because of excesive computer use. The installation just triggered my problem. We should buy boycottgnome.org before boycottnovell decides to expand the franchise :). (of course, just kidding) Diego ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 not take philosophical or moral issue with Mono (other than he'd probably prefer GPL licensing instead of MIT) - he says he supports the use and development of "free platforms for C#". When he talks about the 'grave risk', I think he means legal risks (to which I just noticed Joe responded). Gabriel ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just > > > > incredibly, incredibly bad. > > > > > > RMS message read "If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will > > > explain." Do you care to sort out what is fact and what is fiction? > > > > 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. > > 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? > Its hypothetical The fact that its optional means its also irrelevant in any case IMO microsoft technology (outside the realms of genuine interoperability like wine or samba) is pretty much irrelevant to the wider GNOME community too. Any attempt to add MS stuff in the future is likely to be optional. If it ever becomes mandatory, Gnome would probably fork and its as simple as that. The official GNOME approved desktop and platform is really the lowest common denominator for all its members - at least that is how I understand how they approve stuff for it. BoycottNovell are really "trolls r us" and are anti-gnome as much as they are anti-novell jamie ___ 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
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 second this. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just > > > > incredibly, incredibly bad. > > > > > > RMS message read "If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will > > > explain." Do you care to sort out what is fact and what is fiction? > > > > 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. > > 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? Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding the question. I don't have time to answer right now (class beckons) but suffice it to say that there are very diverse opinions on that question. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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, incredibly bad. > > > > RMS message read "If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will > > explain." Do you care to sort out what is fact and what is fiction? > > 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. 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? -- mvh Björn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 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 what could possibly be better than that? > > boycottboycottnovel.com is still available! Stabmyselfintheface.com also available! ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 > > life than to debunk the rest of boycottnovell post-by-post. > > Now what could possibly be better than that? boycottboycottnovel.com is still available! -Jonathan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 what could possibly be better than that? Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 > > > > 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. > > > > I'll second this. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just > > incredibly, incredibly bad. > > RMS message read "If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will > explain." Do you care to sort out what is fact and what is fiction? 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. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious > problem. > > I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just > as I've supported the development of free platforms for any language > that users use. I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C# > with a free platform for secondary applications. > > 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 language. > Yelp uses, optionally (off by default), libbeagle, which is a C library. I don't see where the problem is, really, it's just an optional dependency like other programs, that have an optional dep on Python, for some plugins and similar stuff. Should we raise the alarm also that GNOME is depending, not only on Mono, but on Python also? I think the guy that wrote that article should have done what he says at the end, that is, look at the sources and the .spec file. He probably would have written another thing -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 > > takes more than a little sucking up to earn back my respect after the crap > > they've been spewing. > > I'll second this. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just > incredibly, incredibly bad. RMS message read "If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will explain." Do you care to sort out what is fact and what is fiction? -- mvh Björn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 crap > they've been spewing. I'll second this. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just incredibly, incredibly bad. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> > 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 misses the chance to put the boot in." - Kelly, SLOU ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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, repeated ad infinitum, is not helpful. You've made your point, now please let it go, or find somewhere else to bicker. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 instance :) > > libbeagle does not depend on Mono. Perhaps, if the Fedora RPM of libbeagle > actually depends on Mono, it needs to be fixed. $ rpm -q beagle package beagle is not installed $ rpm -q libbeagle libbeagle-0.2.18-1.fc8 $ rpm -V libbeagle $ It doesn't. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> > 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 of libbeagle actually depends on Mono, it needs to be fixed. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "Again you are making up inventing as you go. Be specific aba gaba datata." - Oscar Plameras ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> 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, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ Money can't buy me grok. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 > 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 :) Rui -- Umlaut Zebra �ber alles! Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 > Software community. They prefer to create suspicion and insinuations than > report the truth of important matters such as these. http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/26/the-novell-fud-never-existed/ I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded things like: Jeff has written a good blog item to clarify things about Novell and GNOME. (...) (...) You are encouraged to read Jeff’s detailed and honest writing on this issue. Hey, I have a handicap, English is not my native language and I have a "truth be told damn the consequences" attitude, so what I write ususally seems harsher than what I mean. I wish English was like Perl, in that regard. Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 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 language. > > RPM (as used in most distributions) is not as flexible as DEB and a > badly made package will bring in *optional* dependencies as if they were > required. Actually it is, even if this is quite recent. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 > think we need to launch a high-priority project to reimplement Yelp in > some other language. RPM (as used in most distributions) is not as flexible as DEB and a badly made package will bring in *optional* dependencies as if they were required. 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. Rui -- Frink! Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 language. I am not an expert in this area, but I know how to use apt: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/bison-bf$ apt-cache depends libbeagle0 libbeagle0 Depende: libc6 Depende: libglib2.0-0 Depende: libxml2 Sorry to spoil the fun, but I think that libbeagle is a C library. Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
> 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 report the truth of important matters such as these. > I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just as > I've supported the development of free platforms for any language that > users use. I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C# with a > free platform for secondary applications. Thanks Richard -- I think that's a very important sentiment that more people in the Free Software community should consider. > 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 > language. GNOME does not depend on Mono at all. There is one Mono-based application in the official GNOME release suites (Tomboy) that is easily removable if users are not comfortable using Mono. Mono bindings are included in the bindings suite, such that developers familiar with C# (and other [CD]LR languages) can create Free Software that works with GNOME and Free platforms (instead of proprietary software that works with only proprietary platforms). 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. You can remove Mono from modern FLOSS desktop systems without removing GNOME itself, though you'll miss out on some cool stuff like f-spot, Beagle, Tomboy and so on. Most distributors ship Mono 'out of the box' now anyway. Thanks, - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 make: *** No rule to make target `whoopee'. Stop. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME dependent on Mono
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 things that might be perceived as contravening your ideology, simply don't compile your application with it. I should also note that Yelp doesn't depend on Beagle in that particular distro, but on a C library that can call into beagle itself. FWIW, a Tracker-based search has recently been contributed to Totem, and I'd be happy to accept a Beagle one. Cheers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
GNOME dependent on Mono
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 will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious problem. I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just as I've supported the development of free platforms for any language that users use. I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C# with a free platform for secondary applications. 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 language. The use of code from Firefox in a way that might cause trademark problems is also a serious issue. The solution might not be difficult -- it may be enough to remove the trademark in the sources used by GNOME wherever that is necessary -- but the solution does need to be carried out. The nontechnical impact of these issues vastly exceeds the technical impact, so considering them only in technical terms is fundamentally misguided. In this sort of decision, the Foundation should intervene and decide based on the nontechnical issues at stake. If those who work for Novell tell us not to worry, we should not listen to them. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
