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
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
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 libtracker or
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
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
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
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
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
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
quote who=Shaun McCance
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
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
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,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:22:23PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Richard Stallman
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
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.
snip usual rant
Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
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
--
quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
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.
quote who=Bastien Nocera
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/
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 22:00 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
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
On Nov 29, 2007 5:59 AM, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
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
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
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:
quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded
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
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
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
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.
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
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
quote who=Joe Shaw
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
quote who=Og Maciel
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.
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
