Time for GPLv3 to evolve and become GPLv4?
We've all heard about Tivoization [
1,
2,
3,
4] -- a GNU GPL loophole that GPLv3 will close and a behviour that will be therefore prevented. Another important (yet unrelated) issue is
not the attempt to mimic Windows look-and-feel, which might be fine (Xandors and Linspire have been doing this forever), but the inclusion of bits and pieces that are legal land mines and subvert Linux, or at least its general direction.
Steve Lake (of Raiden fame)
wrote a short piece on what he calls "Winux", but he was not referring to what we repeatedly characterise as "Microsoft Linux" (
most recent example, among many more). Steve was talking about making Linux installation more intuitive for long-time Windows users, who are unfamiliar with realms that are peripheral to Windows.
Bringing the comfort of Windows familiarity to promote Linux is one thing, but Mono brings to the game legal complications and it introduces Microsoft's
control over all ways forward. Mind you, the
first beta of MonoDevelop 1.0 has just been released.
MonoDevelop 1.0 Beta 1 (0.16) has been released. MonoDevelop is a GNOME IDE primarily designed for C# and other .NET languages.
Over at Linux Journal, Tom Adelstein wrote a
piece to praise Mono.
For those readers who have a bias toward Mono, I understand. I mean, I feel your pain. In the mean time, it might help to get off it and take a real look at what Miguel and his development team have accomplish.
The comments are worth reading as well. Linux Journal appears to have just put a wall in front of commenters by requiring login, which wasn't the case last night. It might be an attempt at suppression of expression of dissent, but maybe it's more to do with the recent torrent of SPAM (maddog's article got abused/defaced). Even BoycottNovell.com was flooded by slanderous comments against me yesterday -- comments that have been deleted for containing libel and repetitive personal attacks. Ah! The joys of 'daring' to criticise Novell... I'm
by no means alone.
The comments in Linux Journals pretty much speak for themselves. As long as Novell promotes Mono as a
principal the direction for Linux development, SUSE Linux is bound to become something undesirable not for reasons involving being "anti-Microsoft", but for purely legal and technical reasons. We've explored and covered a lot of this before.
Related articles:
Comments
Vexorian
2007-10-03 03:12:09
Just venting, out of the fact I cannot post in LinuxJournal:
The best tool for the job It is clear that programmers want to always use the best tool for the job, that said, why would MONO with its heavy MS ties (both as a reverse engineering project and recently as part of 'cooperation' from microsoft, and its patent risks (CLEARLY stated by microsoft itself, if not why would non-novell deals have to mention they do not "protect" MONO? And obviously acknowledged by Icaza and Novell (See: moonlight) be the best tool for the job?
Apparently, some people are missing the point, the "job" here is to make open source software, and to ensure that there is free competition, why would mono or C# be a good tool for that job?
Is MONO them at least indispensable? Is it the only way to make software? Don't we have enough with all the options that open source has provided us without needing to depend on MS patents? There's C, C++, Java, python, ruby, perl, and everyday there is a new language out there ready to be used or invented, why on earth do Novell and Icaza push this technology? Why do we need it?
The fact is that not only we did not need it, but that its ties to MS and risks and the fact it helps promote a MS controlled world make it not a likable tool for the job. We got better jobs for the job. Be a pragmatic programmer, don't use MONO.
Vexorian
2007-10-03 03:13:28
Roy Schestowitz
2007-10-03 03:23:01