On 7 apr, 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> It's astonishing how anti-Mono FUD just won't die. (Something can be
> true, and still FUD. "Oh no, people might *choke* on a peanut, or have an
> allergic reaction, we must label every piece of food May Contain Nuts
> just in case, because you never know
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>Perhaps what you mean is, none of the licences granted are *irrevocable*.
>But the same applies to the GPL -- break the GPL's (generous) terms, and
>you too could find that your licence is revoked.
Actually, you could argue since the GPL doesn't meet the legal definitio
On Apr 7, 7:17 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>
> wrote:
> > Do you want to know who scares me? Google and Apple. Google, because
> > they're turning software from something you run on your own computer to
> > something you use on a distant server you
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Do you want to know who scares me? Google and Apple. Google, because
> they're turning software from something you run on your own computer to
> something you use on a distant server you have no control over. And
> Apple, because they're tur
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:50:56 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET
> […]
>
> It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
> (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, th
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET
[…]
It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
(Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
“.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
