06.19.08
Gemini version available ♊︎Why Is Mono in Fedora? Nobody Knows… It’s Possibly a Secret
Searching for truth about Mono
We continue to explore the legal implications of building the GNU desktop using Mono. As readers may be aware, this Web site, among several others, has been a critic of Novell’s Mono for quite some time.
We are now aware, based on the assessment of the SFLC, that Novell’s Moonlight is a legal risk (or uncertainty at best). Fedora forbade it. The key worry though is that strategic direction gets changed to favour the Microsoft API in several places, which is akin to adopting or supporting Microsoft codecs. It gives a sworn enemy of libre software powers that can essentially eliminate the freedom of the desktop — for good.
It’s important to act upon this early, or else it might become irreversible, at least for important portions of the code pool.
The other day, Charles wrote a nice piece detailing the differences between Red Hat’s approach and Novell’s approach to handling of intellectual monopolies.
I have frequently expressed myself about the patent and business agreement between Novell and Microsoft.
[...]
Novell did precisely not sign a patent agreement with Microsoft debunking any claims or myths related to FOSS infringing Microsoft’s “intellectual property”. It implicitly did just the contrary: Microsoft and Novell were teaming up to “protect” Novell customers against patent claims made by…Microsoft.
The agreement was only covering Novell customers (not even OpenSuse users) and was at the same time contradicting the GPL (v2). Red Hat’s settlement does not seem to conflict with any version of the GPL as it places no burden or extra deeds on users and developers of GPLv3 software (More on that later).
There was no prior art, no litigation, and perhaps as important as the rest, the Novell-Microsoft agreement involved money. Lots of it . On the other hand, Red Hat received to my knowledge no payment for the settlement and as a future outcome, no strong incentive to do business with the plaintiffs and have its existing customers sign some dubious “software patent insurance”.[...]
Contrary to what can be read here and there, the GPL v3 does not deny the existence of software patents. That would be stupid, as the GPL has been designed to live in a legal environment where such patent claims would be made against Free Software. What it does however is denying software patents the possibility to infringe on the users and developers’ freedom and ability to run, use, modify and redistribute software. If the software cannot be redistributed without some form of immunity in regard of software patents, then a poison pill option exists. Red Hat’s settlement does not apply here. What Red Hat did was “clean” patent busting: they demonstrated prior art first, and then essentially killed the patents by extending the immunity to those patents to anyone using the problematic software apps. That’s how historical it gets.
I am, just like many others, left not wholly satisfied by this. I am very happy of course, of the outcome of this lawsuit, but I know that the real issue at stake is software patents and that what will really put all these issues to rest, ultimately, shall be the end of software patents.
Charles speaks about a “poison pill”. The name of it may be Mono. Why is this questionable piece inside branches other than Novell’s (e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora)? Let’s explore how it slipped into Fedora.
I've fully reviewed the archive now, and this is pretty much all the information I could find: 1. The decision to allow Mono to enter the tree seems to have been made arbitrarily by Red Hat, with no community consultation, and in spite of protests (including some by high profile Red Hat personnel - mostly expressed as a rejection of Mono before the announcement). 2. There has only ever been one public announcement on the subject, and that was made (with some dismay, it seems) by Tom Callaway: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00588.html 3. There has only ever been one, extremely reserved, explanation given for this decision, in a blog post by Greg DeKoenigsberg: "Business considerations that prevented certain Mono components from being included in Fedora previously have now been resolved." http://gregdek.livejournal.com/3597.html The specific nature of this resolution is not given. 4. There is precious little concrete information about precisely who made these arbitrary decisions that also affected the Fedora community distro, but as best as I can deduce, the key players seem to be Greg DeKoenigsberg (as above) and Christopher Blizzard, although it may be that these were simply the only people discussing it publicly: http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=188 5. The nearest thing to an actual justification for this acceptance of Mono, is that the OIN offers a kind of Mexican Stand-Off protection to those who implement it: http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html My final conclusion is that Fedora includes encumbered, non-Free software, that is covered by patents owned by Microsoft, and assured by a patent covenant that is not worth the (metaphorical) paper it's written on, since Moonlight, which is also covered by this same type of covenant by the same company, has recently been exposed by Groklaw as undistributable (I'm advised that PJ is currently investigating Mono as well). The announcement and justification for this inclusion is extremely sparse, and there has been almost no community consultation on the subject, either before or after the fact.
This hopefully sums up Red Hat’s (or Fedora in practice) decision to adopt Mono. More people should be aware of this. It invalidates Jeff Waugh’s “if Red Hat does it, then it’s OK” claim. No clear reasons seem to be given. Mark Shuttleworth’s defense of it seems to be the argument that a separate and greater threat exists, but that’s like blowing your toe because your entire foot might be in danger.
A few quick points ought to be added:
- Red Hat has been hiring top lawyers recently, not necessarily in preparation for anything, but Red Hat’s people have been negotiating in the back rooms with Microsoft for almost a year. Codecs, for instance, were negotiated, but Red Hat didn’t lose that fight. There were other such talks about intellectual monopolies that go approximately 2 years back.
- Technical exclusion using Novell’s deal (e.g. hypervisors) is not sufficient for Microsoft to maintain dominance. It needs software patents and ‘licensing’ too (Mono, Moonlight, etc). If Microsoft’s profit decline at the end of this quarter (again), then it’s likely to just get even more vicious.
- If the Debian Project was concerned enough about trademarks to create IceWeasel and Fedora is at least raising similar issues about the freedom values of Firefox (or deficiencies), how would they feel about Novell copyrights in Mono projects, let alone software patents?
It is our humble assessment that — in the long term at least — Novell and Microsoft will be the next SCO in the sense that they can use software patents rather than copyrights (a ‘stronger’ form of intellectual monopoly).
Novell claimed that it would not ever resort to this, but the company in its existing form crumbles while .NET developers are hired. Yesterday we saw the departure of a Novell vice president. An anonymous reader wrote to tell us: “Why is he leaving or was he asked to leave in light of the partner blunders of late who’s next watch and see if Ebzery gets the chop.”
Novell is a large company. There’s still a lot that we don’t know about its direction. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Needs Sunlight said,
June 19, 2008 at 12:05 pm
More importantly, *how* did it get there in the first place? Let’s look at the CVS tree and see who needs to have their check-in privileges revoked:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mod_mono/F-9/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/f-spot/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/themonospot/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/monosim/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/monodevelop/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/monodoc/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono-zeroconf/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono-sharpcvslib/F-9/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono-ndoc/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono-debugger/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono-cecil-flowanalysis/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono-basic/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono-addins/
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/mono/
Maybe a warning will do, but if they’ve gotten this bad, it’s best their access gets pulled and they be shown the door:
toshio, pfj, spot, jkeating, kevin, notting,
Europe needs a plan B, in case M$ is able to get software patents validated in the European market. Spreading software clearly labelled http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/by it’s own developers as being under M$ patents is not a viable plan and mono needs to go.
Fedora? That is supposed to be *only* FOSS material, so mono is there by accident and needs to be wiped ASAP.
Rupert F. said,
June 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Is it really necessary to open another stupid conspiracy theory over a completely normal and official part of Fedora.
If you want information about Mono in Fedora, why not Google for it?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Mono
Nothing secret about it, there’s even help for people who want to package Mono-related stuff for Fedora.
Rupert F. said,
June 19, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Also the news is two years old:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2809897659.html
Saul Goode said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I suspect PJ will have a difficult time comparing the Moonlight “Promise Not To Sue” with any similar Mono agreement — because there is no all-encompassing Mono patent covenant provided by Microsoft. The only thing that Microsoft has ever said is that RAND terms will be available. Anyone wishing to implement .NET patented technology still must negotiate the specific terms with MS or they are not indemnified.
Slated said,
June 19, 2008 at 10:26 pm
@Rupert F.
Ref this link: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Mono
I don’t see anything there, or anywhere else, that gives any reasons or justifications for why Red Hat suddenly reversed their policy and accepted Mono.
Thus far, the nearest thing to any kind of a justification was provided by Greg DeKoenigsberg (the intermediary between Red Hat counsel and the Fedora project), specifically: “Business considerations that prevented certain Mono components from being included in Fedora previously have now been resolved.” … that’s it. That’s the sum total of all the available information on the matter.
That’s not even a reason, it’s just a statement. Take it or leave it, “we’ve decided”. No community consultation, and no justification. Period.
Why the secrecy?
And the only assurance offered is that the OIN is guarding the gate to the castle … after Red Hat already rolled the Trojan Horse over the drawbridge.
Yeah … I feel “safe”.
How times change:
[quote]
We will never include Mono, or anything that is obviously patented without a patent grant in writing that permits unrestricted use and redistribution, as per the terms of the GPL. We are not going to go violate the GPLv2 because “everyone else is doing it”.
[/quote]
~ Tom “Spot” Callaway, Fedora Engineering Manager.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00602.html
So the big question is … when did Red Hat negotiate a patent grant from Microsoft, and can we see a copy of that legal document?
Slated said,
June 19, 2008 at 10:32 pm
@Needs Sunlight
Those who signed-off on CVS packages are just engineers/maintainers, they don’t make policy.
Policies are made (and broken) by management, not engineers.
And anyway, I’m not so much interested in “who”, as “why”.
handa said,
June 19, 2008 at 11:56 pm
C’mon, Fedora has been officially carrying the Mono for two years; it was preceded by a lengthy discussion on the ML, it was even in the news!
Only because you guys don’t take enough interest to read the MLs – or the news! – and thus took two years to realize it you cannot that there’s been the secrecy involved.
In anything, you were sloppy.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 1:10 am
handa,
Two years ago there was no exclusive grant of Mono ‘protection’ to Novell’s paying customers. Moreover, it only later turned out that Red Hat’s CEO had spoken to Microsoft about patents (I’d need to check my record to give an accurate report).
Things are not the same as they were two years ago.
handa said,
June 20, 2008 at 1:30 am
two years ago there was not grant for Fedora users. now there is no grant for Fedora users. no difference since 2005 to now.
Woods said,
June 20, 2008 at 5:00 am
What I find curious about Fedora’s use of Mono is that with Fedora 8 (Live CD) Tomboy was displayed prominently on the top panel and after installation to hard-disk, the first thing I had to do was to rip-out mono-common and the rest.
However, after I tried Fedora 9 (Live CD) a while ago and started setting it up as usual, when I got to the point of ripping out Mono, I noticed a curious thing. There was no Tomboy on the panel. “Well, it’s nice to see them coming to their senses” I thought, proceeding to wipe out mono-common (Ubuntu, after all, doesn’t display Tomboy on the panel, whilst still including it in the installation) only to find out to my amazement that it wasn’t installed at all!
Has there been some change of heart at Fedora since they don’t seem to be promoting Mono (no Tomboy on panel) and not even installing it by default?
(disclaimer: trying out F8 was a while ago, so if I confuse Mono being installed by default with some other distro, my apologies to Fedora-project)
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 5:25 am
This is very interesting. Tomboy has always received a bit of a special treatment. Can it be confirmed that F9 dropped Tomboy (not from the repos, but from the installation) after it was there in F8?
Homarturi said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:15 am
Non.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Image:Tours_Fedora9_019_Fedora_Desktop.png
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:22 am
Woods, can you shed light on this or ‘reproduce’ it, so to speak? That could be very significant.
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:37 am
@handa
As someone subscribed to that mailing list, and also involved in Fedora at the time, I can tell you that discussions about Mono were very limited (to just two threads totalling 41 posts on extras, and a mainly technical discussion of 33 posts in just one thread in devel), and that community consultation on the final and sudden reversal of policy to include Mono, was exactly zero.
To this day, there has still never been any explanation offered.
Get your facts straight.
Woods said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:51 am
@Roy:
That screenshot is probably from the Fedora 9 installation DVD (as seen from the desktop icon)
I was speaking of the Live CD.
I had seen that screenshot (or similar) previously when checking the reviews and that’s why I was surprised when I started my after-install Mono-purge.
I can’t speak for the F9 DVD but I guess I have no choice but to download the Live CD again to confirm this…sigh.
Sam Lada said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:54 am
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-November/msg00081.html
Alll you asked for.
Sam Lada said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:57 am
Afterdiscussion in 2008; dunno how you could miss that:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-June/msg00033.html
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:53 am
It would be enormously appreciated. If we can demonstrate that Tomboy got the axe, that would push further the discussion (whether omission is deliberate or not). Tomboy is one of those toys that have innocent users come to depend — practically speaking — on Mono applications. It therefore tempts them never to remove Mono or choose a Mono-free distro.
Governments Must Reject Gates’ $3 Bid to Addict Next Billion PC Users
,—-[ Quote ]
| “Microsoft’s strategy of getting developing nations hooked on its
| software was clearly outlined by Bill Gates almost a decade ago,” said
| Con Zymaris, CEO of long-standing open source firm Cybersource.
|
| Specifically, Bill Gates, citing China as an example, said:
|
| “Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but
| people don’t pay for the software,” he said. “Someday they will, though.
| As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours.
| They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to
| collect sometime in the next decade.”[1]
`—-
http://www.cybersource.com.au/press/gates_set_to_addict_next_billion.html
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:03 am
Paul W. Frields’ response is probably important because he leads the project right now and he never replied to my E-mail about Mono, whereas Mark Shuttleworth did.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-November/msg00083.html
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:05 am
This part of the repo contains exactly the same packages as the release ISOs:
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/9/Fedora/i386/os/Packages/tomboy-0.10.1-2.fc9.i386.rpm
Tomboy may have been omitted from the LiveCD for space considerations, but I’d have to boot it to confirm.
Sam Lada said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:05 am
It is definitely in. It’s in every screenshot in every review…
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6492/3/screenshot3745/
http://www.linux.com/var/uploads/Image/articles/135685-1.png
Sam Lada said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:07 am
But it might, just might have been left out of Life-CDs for lack of space?
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:12 am
That would make sense. Was it also omitted (it at all) from F8? Could screenshots help resolve this?
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:13 am
Aha!
http://www.electrictoolbox.com/fedora-8-released-screenshots/
Live CD, Fedora 8. Tomboy is there.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:16 am
In Fedora 9 (Live CD) I can’t see Tomboy in the task bar, but maybe it’s customised (there are other Mono applications up for display):
http://linux.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Fedora-Core-LiveCD-Screenshot-21068.html
Sam Lada said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:31 am
A note-taking application on a LifeCD doesn’t make much sense, anyway: where would it store the notes? Office-Software, yes; you can save documents to disk. But Tomboy automatically stores notes to user-folder. It don’t make sense on a LifeCD.
Woods said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:32 am
Still an hour and a half to go…unless Slated beats me to it
Fedora 9′s review at pro-linux.de has screenshots of the install process. No Tomboy.
http://www.pro-linux.de/berichte/fedora9.html
(tinfoil disclaimer: alas, at the end of the day, the only way to be sure is to download the F9 Live CD and see for yourself, dear reader)
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:46 am
@Sam Lada
[quote]
Afterdiscussion in 2008; dunno how you could miss that:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-June/msg00033.html
[/quote]
You idiot. That mailing-list message was posted two and a half years after Mono had already entered the distro. I’m talking about debate and consultation at the time that it was actually relevant to influencing this decision, when it could have made a difference. Someone complaining about it two and a half years later is hardly “community consultation” on that decision, is it? Exactly the same goes for that nine post thread (again, made nearly one year too late) that you found on an obscure mailing list.
Oh and BTW, that first thread you linked to is already in the main body of this BoycottNovell article. Indeed it’s the main point of the article. That thread is the why we’re discussing this in the first place.
Unless you can actually offer any insight into the actual question at hand, rather than running around trying to find irrelevant mailing list posts with the word “Mono” in them, I suggest you piss off.
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:50 am
@Woods
Sorry, I should have said. I actually have the ISO here, so I could burn and boot it now, if you like.
You can save your bandwidth and quit the download now, if you want
Sam Lada said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:51 am
A nice and polite man, no?
Woods said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:01 am
@Slated
Thank you, it would have the additional benefit that whereas my “confirmation” can easily be questioned, yours cannot.
Personally I’m ready to go with pro-linux.de’s screenshots (since they match what I remember) but I think Roy et al. would appreciate your confirmation. And it would resolve this question a lot faster, especially since I have an hour to go
All in all, I think you got it right on your first post, they probably left it out from the Live CD to save space (I don’t really care for the reason, I’m just happy I didn’t bother with having to rip out Mono post-install…:-) )
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:07 am
I’ve just received some inside information about Novell. I’m checking to see what I can share in public. It’s pretty major and it’s also to do with patents.
Woods said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:13 am
@Roy
Considering Beranger’s latest, I really can’t help by repeat: “We’re living in interesting times.”
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:20 am
Confirmed:
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/10002/f9-live.png
Fedora 9 Live does not have tomboy installed.
The DVD ISO does.
Maybe the Troll can back off now, and find a new hobby.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:24 am
it did exist in F8. Thank you, Slated.
@ Woods: I’m starting to understand why Hovsepian (from IBM) came to Novell, but I need to explore and validate with more sources.
The hope is that we can establish he truth, verified by enough independent sources, and explain to the public what the Novell/Microsoft/others collusion was all about. It’s more complicated than I ever realised. Even Oracle is allegedly involved. The loser may not be Novell; it’s the GPL.
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:26 am
A couple of OT observations about Fedora 9:
1. My synaptic trackpad doesn’t work properly (no tap-click).
2. This is the slowest-loading LiveCD I’ve ever seen! By a mile!
Wow this is slow.
Really.
Very … very … very slow.
Come back Knoppix, all is forgiven.
Sam Lada said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:33 am
“Even Oracle is allegedly involved”
Major conspiracy theory coming up…
Woods said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:33 am
@Slated
>Confirmed
Thank you!
@Roy
This waiting is always the worst part…
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 8:35 am
Is it my imagination, or are there posts in this thread from several different nyms that are all actually the same person? From the almost identical writing styles, and similar nyms, this would seem to be the case.
Roy, maybe you can shed some light on this, as you can see the IP addresses.
Are we actually witnessing … astroturfing?
LOL!
Slated said,
June 20, 2008 at 9:21 am
@Sam Lada or whatever your nym de jour is.
And you can shut your trap about “conspiracy theory” crap too.
Roy provides information from verifiable sources; providing links to those sources, so if you think every news outlet and Blog on planet earth is a lie, then I’m afraid that it’s you who’s the conspiracy nut … not Roy.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 20, 2008 at 9:19 am
‘Sam Lada’ uses a bogus E-mail address and posts via anonymouse.org. eet uses it too and the writing style is similar, but it’s not enough to confirm that it’s that same Novell AstroTurfer (or ‘fan’).
Bear in mind that ‘eet’ (Beranger thinks its real name is Sebastian and he lives in Germany) is nymshifting very regularly before getting caught. He also posts from proxies and zombies in exotic countries.
Regardless, ‘Sam Lada’ (fake name), my source is close to Novell’s top management. I don’t need you to tell me that it’s a “conspiracy theory” (negative connotation). Conspiracy? For sure.
Norm said,
June 21, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Break out the tin-foil hats! The black helicopters are approaching! Keep an eye out for grassy knolls! This…might be…the end of Linux…as we know it! If anyone needs me, I’ll be in my abandoned missile silo in the Midwest, frantically rewriting Mono programs into something safer…like Fortran.
Rupert F. said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm
LOL
fred a. said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:55 pm
The section starting with “I’ve fully reviewed the archive now” is unreadable because the right menu thingys cover part of it. I will be happy when this shiny new website fad passes- a lot of sites make this same mistake. Doesn’t anyone read their own damned sites?
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:58 pm
It’s rendered fine over here. Simple <pre> section.
Breslauer Illuminatus said,
June 21, 2008 at 5:38 pm
…which conspiracy is responsible for the terrible fact that mono is included in the Debian distribution, dear Mr. Schestowitz?
Is it the well-known non-existent Debian cabal?
Is this happening because of covert funding of the Debian project by the black ops section of Microsoft Counterintelligence Department (I mean the secret one)?
Is it part of the overwhelming conspiracy of aliens from Grophalanx 49?
…because it cannot be just an innocent Illuminati project, right?
I SAY: THESE QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED.
Chris Lees said,
June 21, 2008 at 9:36 pm
You’re an idiot.
Fedora contains Gnome. Gnome contains Mono. Mono does not contain the patented parts of .NET. Bibbity-bobbity-boo, Mono belongs in Fedora.
anon said,
June 22, 2008 at 12:47 am
Nice conversation..the facts remain distorted , but those bent on a M$ world where their their technology rules are in for a huge surprise, even though the attempt has been made to give linux a wart.
Well you can huff and puff all you want, but ole wolfy is no match for common sense and the power of OSS , and those that are behind it that still have their wits about them.
We all know about the mighty M$ and its IP rights, OOXML atttempts and the ever stinky novel/M$ agreement, for which we stilll have no clue whats behind it….and now we learn apparantly there were very ‘iffy’ reasons mono was included in fedora to begin with; as if that would surprise anyone ?
A rat by any other name is still a rat , no matter how much you try to spin it in your favor..you just forgot to figure in the fact that not everyone is a drone that has no cognitive abilities to rationalize the truth from the pile of rotting disease your so fond of calling mono.
Some of us dont have nosepins on and are able to breathe freely the stench, and steer clear of it.
It would indeed be a perfect world where M$ and OSS could coexist peacefully, but then their stockholders would get angry I suspect, just as their employees did over the Vista mess, if however apparantly no one important listened ; so I guess that says alot about said company, and oh boy we’re ready to rush out and trust them aren’t we.
OH and btw..gnome does contain mono you right, but then so does GTK it would seem , or at least a good mention about its wrappers I guess..but you know what this is OSS , where choice is very relevant and it offers those involved in it the ability to redirect focus elsewhere if need be.
I dont like things shoved down my throat ( especially buggy, OLD ones ), but apparantly you do. Offer mono to me in the repos, sure fine whatever,- but forcing it on unsuspecting users is a crime to OSS in light especially of the OOXML mess ETC.ETC.ETC.,,,, and all you supporting it should be ashamed. Why do you trust M$ so, I really think that is the golden question
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 22, 2008 at 1:12 am
Chris Lees.
Interesting. Jeff Waugh would have something to say about it.
In the words of Slashdot, “you must be new here.”
Slated said,
June 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm
@Chris Lees
“Fedora contains Gnome. Gnome contains Mono. Mono does not contain the patented parts of .NET. Bibbity-bobbity-boo”
All of .NET is patented, Chris.
Some of that patented technology has been released under ECMA’s RAND by Microsoft, in “a covenant to not sue” – i.e. “we promise not to sue”. A covenant is not a patent grant. The whole basis of the RAND is “trust”, nothing more.
How far do you trust Microsoft, the sworn enemy of Free Software (“Linux is a cancer”)?
“Mono belongs in Fedora.”
Even the Fedora Engineering Manager doesn’t think so:
[quote]
We will never include Mono, or anything that is obviously patented without a patent grant in writing that permits unrestricted use and redistribution, as per the terms of the GPL. We are not going to go violate the GPLv2 because “everyone else is doing it”.
[/quote]
~ Tom “Spot” Callaway, Fedora Engineering Manager.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00602.html
Where is Fedora’s explicit patent grant to use Microsoft’s patented technology, Chris?
Who’s the “idiot” now?
You, if you trust Microsoft.
Slated said,
June 22, 2008 at 12:37 pm
@Roy
[quote]
In the words of Slashdot, “you must be new here.”
[/quote]
LOL!
Slated said,
June 22, 2008 at 12:46 pm
@Breslauer Illuminatus pseudonymous Troll
“…which conspiracy is responsible for the terrible fact that mono is included in the Debian distribution”
Which conspiracy is responsible for you having the IQ of a carrot, and the morals of a Republican?
In the words of Tom “Spot” Callaway, Fedora Engineering Manager:
[quote]
We are not going to go violate the GPLv2 because “everyone else is doing it”
[/quote]
IOW two wrongs do not make a right.
Or didn’t they teach you that in the juvenile detention centre.
casualvisitor said,
June 22, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Slated, if you are impotent of discussing without getting personally abusive, go to a shrink.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Is that you, eet, with a new nymshift? Your IP seems suspicious enough, never mind the bogus details you put in.
The trolling sandbox is there —>>>
Thank you.
casualvisitor said,
June 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Judging from the rude language, I would rather suspect Slated than me, here.
casualvisitor said,
June 22, 2008 at 1:56 pm
But if he is your pet that makes everything he says A-OK, of course.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Sebastian (if that’s really you), nobody forces you to come to this Web site. The Web has over 100 million domains. Leave us alone please. Thank you.
casualvisitor said,
June 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’m definitely not who you think I am (whoever that maybe) but be assured that I will leave you guys alone now to indulge in whatever sick games you’re into. Freaking wackos…
Bye!
Breslauer Illuminatus said,
June 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Dear Mr. Slated,
A terrible misunderstanding happened.
I was just pointing that the very presence of Mono in the Debian distribution warrants a separate Debian-bashing article. Why only bash Novell and Red Hat, when you have such a nice and clear target?
Debian being Debian is much better suited for any conspiracy theory, especially one that will suggest unfair play, cabals and secret organizations within secret departments.
I am truly sorry, that I allowed myself to be this misunderstood. Please take my most humble apologies. This misunderstanding is just a byproduct of my poor command of the English language.
Regarding your other valid points; my IQ is definitely different from an IQ of a carrot, a carrot usually does not have negative IQ.
Unfortunately I did not exactly got your references to the Republican morale and juvenile detention centres, while both of them may be very well known to you, they’re not that clear for someone not acknowledged with the joys of the American way of life. If you could shed a little light on these for a humble Breslauer, I’d be most grateful.
Sincerely
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 22, 2008 at 5:51 pm
‘Breslauer Illuminatus’,
We wrote about Mono in Debian before. You can search the archives.