Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

All GPLed Code Removed From MonoDevelop

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the those-who-write-the-code-make-the-rules dept.

Novell 443

rysiek writes "A few days ago, Miguel de Icaza wrote on his blog that the whole of MonoDevelop is now 'free' of GPL-licensed code. 'MonoDevelop code is now LGPLv2 and MIT X11 licensed. We have removed all of the GPL code, allowing addins to use Apache, MS-PL code as well as allowing proprietary add-ins to be used with MonoDevelop (like RemObject's Oxygene).'"

cancel ×

443 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Use java instead (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544060)

Well, now I'm even less like to use mono. Miquel is a cossack cock. Remember folks, Java is now GPL. Support free software, use java not infectious microsoft crap.

Re:Use java instead (2, Informative)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544470)

LGPL *is* free software.

Re:Use java instead (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544698)

This article was about the IDE, MonoDevelop. Do you refuse to use Eclipse for Java development because Eclipse is not GPL? Or are you just too dumb to understand what the article is talking about?

I know it's now LGPL but I couldn't resist ... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544076)

Thus begins the Free-Free Software movement.

Re:I know it's now LGPL but I couldn't resist ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544742)

It's like the Land Before Time but with less anal sex!

Does anyone really use it? (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544078)

I know I'm an old fashioned luddite (I code with nedit, gcc and Makefiles), but does anyone use MonoDevelop?

MS does free (but not open) versions of its dev tools already, and frankly if you're using Mono you're probably an MS guy who wants his stuff to work on linux rather than a *nix dev anyway. Aren't you?

Re:Does anyone really use it? (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544128)

I think it would be more likely you're a Linux/Mac developer who for some reason needs to write something for Windows. If you were a Windows developer you'd probably just use MS's tools and test with Mono.

Re:Does anyone really use it? (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544486)

Then I would use Java or Python or Ruby or Perl or, hell forgive me, JavaScript.

Re:Does anyone really use it? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544592)

Absolutely. I'd use Python and Qt myself. But if you wanted to write a native app for Windows and you didn't HAVE Windows (or didn't care to be subjected to it), what would you use?

There aren't really a lot of options.

Re:Does anyone really use it? (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544676)

MonoDevelop was designed to get Visual Studio Windows developers to use it to develop for Linux, Mac OS X, and other platforms that Mono exists for.

This is because high schools and colleges teach in C# and Visual BASIC instead of ANSI C++, Java, Python, and nedit with gcc and Makefiles. The programming students can keep their Visual Studio skills and still develop for Non-Windows platforms without having to learn new things very much.

Re:Does anyone really use it? (1)

randallman (605329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544712)

If you're doing .NET, you're married to Microsoft.

In my eyes, the main thing mono has done is prove that .NET is not cross platform.

Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsoft. (3, Insightful)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544082)

No GPL? Actually is Mono really that important any more? Most new software development is going to be on iPhone BSD, Android, and Maemo Linux. Needing legacy .net is nothing anyone cares about.

I think this shows Miguell's true pawn colors.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (3, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544188)

So you're saying you think that most new software development will be for mobile-only OSes? Mobile apps may be okay for lots and lots of things, but I don't think that mobile apps will ever completely replace the traditional desktop applications. If anything, I see home-based computing moving in the direction of more and more LAN integration and more and better multimedia capability, with the hottest toys these days being media servers, wireless networking, faster broadband connectivity and more and more personal communications, including voice, video, IM, teleconferencing, etc.

The corporate network as it stands today will remain mostly the same, but with everything converging more towards service-oriented architectures, virtualization and cloud computing with dynamic, demand sensitive services and networks.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (3, Informative)

AlexBirch (1137019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544200)

To be fair, OpenOffice.org isn't GPL, yet that's the text editor / presentation software I use.
Are you going to stop that as well?
You'd be surprised at how many corporations are going with Sharepoint, it's the silent Apache HTTPD killer and yes, it uses .NET. That said, I've never heard of anyone using it with Mono.
.NET and C# are pretty amazing technologies, especially with LINQ and Lambda expresssions, couple that with IronPython and you have a cool system.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544306)

You'd be surprised at how many corporations are going with Sharepoint, it's the silent Apache HTTPD killer...

I hate to break it to you, but Sharepoint isn't an HTTP server.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544354)

You'd be surprised at how many corporations are going with Sharepoint, it's the silent Apache HTTPD killer...

I hate to break it to you, but Sharepoint isn't an HTTP server.

It appearsAlexBirch's point missed you: SharePoint Server replaces several uses of HTTP servers such as IIS, Lighttpd, and Apache. The idea is to switch the intranet from web apps to SharePoint and reserve the web servers for customer-facing sites.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1)

AlexBirch (1137019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544472)

You'd be surprised at how many corporations are going with Sharepoint, it's the silent Apache HTTPD killer...

I hate to break it to you, but Sharepoint isn't an HTTP server.

Have you got SharePoint to work with Apache's HTTPD Server? You probably just use IIS and Windows Server 200X instead of using Linux and Apache HTTPD. Just go to Dice and look for SharePoint jobs, there are tons of them and there's no way to migrate away from it easily.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (5, Funny)

backwardMechanic (959818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544320)

OpenOffice.org is your TEXT EDITOR? Oh boy.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (2, Funny)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544518)

OpenOffice.org is your TEXT EDITOR? Oh boy.

Well at least he can do his own custom syntax highlighting without messing around in the "Preferences".

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1)

krelian (525362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544652)

You'd be surprised at how many corporations are going with Sharepoint, it's the silent Apache HTTPD killer

How does sharepoint compete with a web server? Isn't IIS the Microsoft competition to Apache?

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544692)

That said, I've never heard of anyone using it with Mono.

Beer is very good and healthy drink. I've never heard of anyone drinking it from wine glasses.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544378)

Yes the world is centered around client side applications...

Mono strength is for portability across server side applications. The problem is not Mono, it is the fact the GPLv3 is too strict. It is not necessarily any point is bad but all of them together makes it too strict.

The GPL is an attempt to push an Ideal, not necessarily good policy...

I wouldn't be surprised as knowledge about open source increases that more and more pressure to not be GPL will come up.

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544420)

> ...it is the fact the GPLv3 is too strict.

GPLv2 still exists and is still used (the Linux kernel, for example).

Re:Why doesn't Miguel just go to work for Microsof (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544540)

Rumor is that he tried and failed.

BURN HIM !! BURN HIM !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544084)

Burn him !!

Re:BURN HIM !! BURN HIM !! (1)

chrisxcr1 (1210984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544432)

Only if he floats. Quick! Someone toss him in the pond!

Awesome. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544102)

GPL is a pain. I am in the midst of a code review to remove all GLPed code as well for that same reason. I should have realized going into my (open-source) project that GPL is one way of saying that the code is useless.

GPL is SHIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544118)

Richard Stallman smells like the GPL.

Debugger (5, Funny)

Spykk (823586) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544122)

It looks like MonoDevelop finally gets a debugger. That was really the last thing tying me to Visual Studio for .net development.

Re:Debugger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544666)

same here !!

Good. (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544146)

People who want to work for/shill for/suck up to Microsoft directly or indirectly should do that.

Those who don't support that sort of thing should work to cut them off at the knees by not using their software and discouraging others from doing so.

Re:Good. (1, Funny)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544404)

And people who do neither can continue to complain on Slashdot.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544632)

Right, because Microsoft is making a profit off licensing the .NET framework. Wait, you mean they don't charge a cent for it? And C# is a better language than Java, with the Mono project providing cross-platform compatibility, so Windows users have an easier time migrating to Linux if they so choose? Clearly I should listen to random /.er and forswear all use of anything that "supports" "Microsoft products" in any way, including the OpenOffice; after all, it lets people read and write Office documents, and by doing so, indirectly enables the Microsoft hegemony.

P.S. Yes, C# being better than Java is personal opinion. I've used both, Java for two years in school and one and a half years in the workforce, C# for a little under a year in school and half a year in the workforce (plus a few years of various other languages, mostly C/C++ and, yes, Perl). For developers, the lack of rigid ideological adherence to OO dogma is quite helpful; delegates for callbacks and "pass-by-reference" for arguments instead of inane wrapper classes for both (yes, pedantic types, I know it's all pass by reference, but you know what I mean), not needing to think about auto-boxing as much (since .NET collections of primitives really are primitives, not boxed primitives), operator overloading and structs to enable the creation of relatively efficient and easy to use numeric types, etc. I think both languages have merit, and I think both languages are improved by the competition (e.g. without C#, I'm not sure Java would ever have introduced generics, since it violated the spirit of OO). But I'm not going to reject C# just because MS made it.

Mono Blows (hint, where's FW 3.5) (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544150)

You know, if you are going to devote your life to making a C# clone on Linux, then at least quit screwing around with applications and focus on the language. I mean, come on, where's WPF? Where's WCF? Where's LINQ to SQL?

Mono, you suck.

Re:Mono Blows (hint, where's FW 3.5) (1)

wh1pp3t (1286918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544222)

According to the second link [tirania.org] in the summary, WCF and LINQ to SQL have been addressed in Mono 2.6.

Re:Mono Blows (hint, where's FW 3.5) (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544254)

Tis not done yet.

WCF client and server, the subset exposed by Silverlight 2.0.
LINQ to SQL using DbLinq.
More complete 3.5 API coverage.

So they are missing stuff.

Re:Mono Blows (hint, where's FW 3.5) (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544710)

Wow. Imagine, an open source project cloning the functionality of a commercial product that doesn't support the latest features of the commercial product. Given what I know of MS release cycles, it took them at least a year and half to write the 3.5 release, and they frequently were writing wrappers around functionality that either already existed, or was handed to them by the OS team. It's been two years since 3.5 released, and the Mono team has got a lot of the functionality exposed, without the advantage of OS support for many of the features. Give them a break, Rome wasn't built in a day either you know.

Re:Mono Blows (hint, where's FW 3.5) (1)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544620)

WPF and WCF have nothing to do with the C# language. If you're going to make a snide remark, at least put some effort in it. As for L2S, I heard that's coming along pretty well.

good start! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544168)

maybe next they'll remove all the non-GPL code as well.

Now for business use (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544170)

Businesses really don't like the GPL. I'm not allowed to use any GPL stuff anywhere unless it absolutely, positively will never leave the intranet. However, many businesses love the LGPL. It doesn't restrict them. So, it still stays open source, and businesses will create plugins. I write open source software on my own time, so I appreciate open source, but if I was a manager, I wouldn't touch any of the GPLv2/3 programs/code ever.

Re:Now for business use (2, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544230)

There's a huge difference between GPL tools (which we at HUGE_CORP I work for use lots of) and GPL code/components.

We use binaries only, source could potentially lead to allegations of copying. And we make sure not to use any GPL code or components in our products so that we don't need to open them.

But all-out avoid GPL? No way. We use linux as a dev platform (amongst others) and we use all sorts of FOSS tools with a huge variety of licenses in addition to some commercial stuff.

You'd be a fool to make avoiding the GPL some sort of mandate.

Re:Now for business use (-1, Offtopic)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544576)

"You'd be a fool to make avoiding the GPL some sort of mandate."

Well - there is no shortage of fools in the world. Off topic, but look at Houston. Little more than 1 in 10 voters bothered to vote. Apparently there were no issues that anyone cared enough to vote about, that either candidate bothered to address. Utter apathy, really. But - the winner has this supposed "mandate" to do all kinds of stuff. Among other things, she's gay, so she has a mandate to make Houston gay. Yeah, I know - I already mentioned that I'm off topic. But, fools and mandates go together.

Re:Now for business use (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544380)

You mean the company you work for hates GPL. The last 5 I worked for, that includes fortune 100 companies like AT&T and Comcast, Loved the GPL and OSS. You should find companies that are nor run by undereducated management that is afraid of the GPL.

Define "use" (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544476)

I'm not allowed to use any GPL stuff anywhere unless it absolutely, positively will never leave the intranet.

If you run a publicly accessible web site on a LAMP server, the only GPL programs involved are Linux and MySQL, and no copy of Linux or MySQL leaves your server. If you run a web site, only two kinds of programs are ever "distributed" (GPLv2) or "conveyed" (GPLv3) to the public: 1. in-page scripts written in JavaScript, ActionScript, or Java, and 2. software packages explicitly offered for download.

Re:Now for business use (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544564)

If using GPL software is so dangerous for business, why are so many companies running Linux in production environments? These are some of the most successful companies in the world, and they have been using Linux for a while -- where are the problems that you seem so sure would ensue from such a situation? If you remain close minded about the GPL, you will be missing out on a lot of high quality software...

Re:Now for business use (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544658)

That's funny: the business I work for LOVEs GPL stuff. However they are an ISP.

Is this the closing of Mono? (4, Interesting)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544182)

Does this sign the closing of the Mono project? And can anyone tell me, since this fundamentalist stance against the GPL and the alleged impending patent sword hovering over the Mono users' heads, what exactly is there to attract people to adopt it as their developing platform?

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544258)

what exactly is there to attract people to adopt it as their developing platform?

Commercial-friendly licenses tend to make businesses more likely to contribute code to the open source community. See Darwin and Apache for examples.

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544618)

Darwin's Apple's project, and they're pretty much the only entity "contributing" to it. I don't believe there's any base of either non-commercial or commercial entities contributing to Darwin, indeed I believe the Windows kernel, which is closed source, has a larger base of contributors (because Microsoft occasionally goes out and commissions third parties to write bits and pieces, such as many of the device drivers.)

Apache has, indeed, attracted a fair amount of third party support, but it seems to be largely in a minority of non-GPL projects to do so.

The BSD operating systems have very few commercial developers involved.

On the other hand, WebKit, Mozilla/Firefox, the Linux kernel itself, GNU, GNOME, and to a lesser extent KDE, are all GPL'd or mostly GPL'd, and have substantial third party support and most of the big names associated with Apache, such as Sun and IBM, have also contributed substantially to one or more of the projects I just named.

So if the GPL is not "commercial friendly", then it would appear the point is wrong.

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544426)

There are plenty of other FOSS licenses that aren't the GPL...a lot of them are, in fact, less restrictive than the GPL when it comes to the use of other licenses in the same suite. Not that I really have a lot of personal experience with it, but I do know there are a lot of businesses (and government) out there that won't even touch GPL (proper, not LGPL) software for the licensing ramifications if they were to extend it, etc.

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544484)

Not that I really have a lot of personal experience with it, but I do know there are a lot of businesses (and government) out there that won't even touch GPL (proper, not LGPL) software for the licensing ramifications if they were to extend it, etc.

Could you please provide an example of those lots of businesses and governments that "won't even touch the GPL" due to licensing ramifications?

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (1)

DMiax (915735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544440)

It is still LGPL, there are plenty of libraries like that including Qt and Gtk and no one bitches about them being less free. I would never use Mono (Qt is so much better in every way), but please do not spread misinformation about software licenses. This licensing choice is perfectly good for Mono as it is for other projects.

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544606)

My main concern isn't Mono's license by itself but the objective behind GPL purge. It is stated in the article that the reason behind it is to, and I quote:

We have removed all of the GPL code, allowing addins to use Apache, MS-PL code as well as allowing proprietary add-ins to be used with MonoDevelop

So the Mono people are intentionally opening the doors to allow closed-source components to be a part, possibly even a fundamental part, of the whole Mono platform. I don't know how exactly is it possible to maintain a platform open when you, as the platform's gatekeeper, are intentionally embracing proprietary components.

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544628)

And by "mono platform" I mean "mono development platform". They are not the same thing.

Re:Is this the closing of Mono? (3, Insightful)

AntiDragon (930097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544456)

Actually, this.

LGPL is not "closed" - you still have to release the source code if you distribute software containing LGPL components. But what version of the LGPL are we taking about here? Since it's very easy to combine or cripple the LGPL'd parts so that they either rely on propritary or patent encumbered components in a way that can't be acheived with a full GPL product. Does the LGPL v3 protect against Tivoisation in the same manner intended by the GPL3? (Yes, I could go read the license but...it's long...and I'm tired..and others already have done so!).

By the way, I'm not commenting about the suitability or preference of a particular licence - I'd just like to know what the implications are in this case.

I think it's funny (2, Insightful)

gregarican (694358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544198)

Reading all of these comments and then seeing them modded as Troll or as Flamebait. When actually the comments are pretty much correct. Who really uses Mono? After all, isn't it loosely based on .NET version 1.1 still? What's the point?

For Windows-based development you can fire up Visual Studio 2005 or 2008 Express edition without paying a dime and those are based on .NET 2.0 or 3.x, correct?

Unless Mono has upped the ante and has actually moved beyond 2003-era frameworks I don't see its relevance...

Re:I think it's funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544234)

Mod parent up

Re:I think it's funny (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544260)

They are up to 3, and have a lot of 3.5 finished, but why let facts get in the way

Re:I think it's funny (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544328)

you mean their experimental subproject "olive"? uh, some people might not want to run developmental crap on production systems

Re:I think it's funny (4, Interesting)

miguel (7116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544430)

Various pieces from "olive" graduated into main Mono in the past year, including WCF, LINQ to Objects, LINQ to XML and WindowsBase (they are all in Mono 2.6)

The missing pieces (Workflow Foundation and Presentation Foundation) are not part of our plan.

Re:I think it's funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544732)

Great. I wish I knew what the hell you just said. Get back to me when I can run XNA apps in mono. Cheers.

Eternal game of catch-up (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544508)

By the time Mono finishes compatibility with .NET Framework 3.5, Microsoft will have finished Visual Studio 2010 and .NET Framework 4.0. Likewise, Moonlight is perpetually a version behind Silverlight, rendering it unable to view actual web sites that use Silverlight.

Re:I think it's funny (1)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544362)

Reading all of these comments and then seeing them modded as Troll or as Flamebait. When actually the comments are pretty much correct. Who really uses Linux? After all, isn't it loosely based on MINIX version 1.1 still? What's the point?

For Unix-based development you can fire up vim or emacs without paying a dime and those are based on the Hurd, correct?

Unless Linux has upped the ante and has actually moved beyond 1991-era frameworks I don't see its relevance...

Ah, I see what you're saying!

A Prelude to Charges... (3, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544208)

By removing GPL code, the Mono team has laid the groundwork for a closed source, commercial implementation. You watch. Mono is going to become a product, something that will be an instant-cripple for any Linux distribution that comes to rely on it.

Re:A Prelude to Charges... (5, Insightful)

codewarren (927270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544280)

That makes sense only if the next step in this plan is to make it work, add the features people want, and get people to actually use it.

Re:A Prelude to Charges... (1)

wh1pp3t (1286918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544308)

I don't think this would affect the major, commercially supported distros, such as RHEL -- their adoption to the latest/greatest in packages lags quite a bit (with good reason). Mono would have to become way more relevant in every aspect of the server and desktop. I just don't see that happening (and if it does, Novel and RedHat will have none of it).

Regarding the Linux users and enthusiasts, they will cut Mono off in a heartbeat. It's a very dynamic group and I suspect the developers will find a workaround or rebuild with other tools.

Re:A Prelude to Charges... (1)

wh1pp3t (1286918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544360)

I don't think this would affect the major, commercially supported distros, such as RHEL -- their adoption to the latest/greatest in packages lags quite a bit (with good reason). Mono would have to become way more relevant in every aspect of the server and desktop. I just don't see that happening (and if it does, Novel and RedHat will have none of it).

Regarding the Linux users and enthusiasts, they will cut Mono off in a heartbeat. It's a very dynamic group and I suspect the developers will find a workaround or rebuild with other tools.

replying to my own crap reply.

Didn't dawn on me, the relationship between Novel and Mono project. My previous comment is null/void

Re:A Prelude to Charges... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544668)

"My previous comment is null/void"

Maybe not, though. Novell is not really representative of the entire Linux and/or FOSS community. Your first comment is right - most of the community will work around and obsolete MS' work. It won't matter much that Novell provides an island for MS to piddle around on. In fact - MS' piddling may scare off some of Novell's best developers. Only time can tell - I'm just seeing possibilities here, not predicting.

Re:A Prelude to Charges... (1)

greed (112493) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544322)

The LGPL code that remains can't be closed. But it still isn't the blanket get-out-of-open-source-free card that a lot of people think it is.

For example, libraries based on LGPL libraries remain LGPL and therefore open source. (LGPL 2.1 #2.)

Applications must use a pluggable library system (such as shared objects with a dynamic or runtime linker), or provide re-linkable binaries, otherwise the application must be open source. (LGPL 2.1 #6. Failing to qualify for an exception means you go back to the other requirements in the license.) BTW, C++ with templates makes qualifying under this section pretty much impossible, as the templates must appear as source in the translation unit that references them. (Or your library only provides fully-instantiated templates of pre-defined types, which kind of defeats the point.)

Remember, the GNU licenses are about the end-user getting freedom to modify the code they receive, and not the developer/vendor having rights.

Re:A Prelude to Charges... (1)

DMiax (915735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544368)

They will simply not package the closed source version, ship the last open source one and deprecate the use of Mono for the future. Remember: there is no lock-in with Free Software. It cannot happen, period.

Re:A Prelude to Charges... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544454)

By removing the last of the GPL code (inherited from forked SharpDevelop) from the IDE: MonoDevelop, it is now possible for people to write commercial/non-GPL plugins for MonoDevelop, just like the article says.

This puts it on equal ground with Eclipse, except MonoDevelop is LGPL which is GPL compatible, and Eclipse has their own license which is not GPL compatible.

This has nothing to do with Mono itself, which has always been LGPL.

This makes sense (4, Interesting)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544210)

The GPL is great for standalone applications but if you want to allow developers to make addons you really have to rethink it. Yes, it ensures that any addon made for the application will be free software however you have to consider the tradeoff; GPL it: everything is GLP'd, some companies/people won't develop or release addons; Other license: non-freesoftware addons may be developed, companies/people will have no reason now to release their software but it may not be open.

So it depends on what you value more; having the software but maybe not the freedom, or not having the software.

Obviously Stallman would rather the software was never created if it wasn't open, so the GPL wins for him there.

Personally I prefer the Artistic License 2.0; all the freedom and protection of the GPL without the virality.

False dichotomy (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544288)

And can we lose the 10 year old whining about the GPL being "viral" now please. If you don't like the license you don't have to use the code.

Without the GPL a lot of stuff would never have been opened. It still would have been written but the community would be poorer (look at linksys firmware, for instance). Maybe you would have a few less plugins, but at the cost of allowing your code to be used by commercial interests without them playing ball and releasing source back to their users.

Re:False dichotomy (0, Flamebait)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544370)

And yet, you continue to whine about it. Like it or not, it -is- viral. And these people -have- chosen not to use it, just like you suggest. And here you are whining about them actually taking the very same action you recommend.

The fact that many projects wouldn't exist without GPL has absolutely nothing to do with this project. It would exist either way.

Re:False dichotomy (0, Troll)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544424)

What? Where did you see me whine about their decision?

Go on, point it out. I'm waiting.

*cough* *strawman argument* *cough*

Re:False dichotomy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544554)

Your complete original post sounded like whining to me. After all, whining is a tone and that's the tone I got from your post.

Richard Stallman (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544262)

Dear Santa, please mod this comment -1 Troll so it will say "Richard Stallman (Score:-1, Troll)" at the top.

Thank you, AC

Re:Richard Stallman (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544734)

You're welcome.

GPL is not "useless" (1)

Corson (746347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544294)

As a software developer, if you want to showcase your intelligence then you release the code under a license that allows people to examine the code but not repackage and sell it (e.g., the GPL). If you want to commercialize your intelligence then you release your software under a commercial license. Anything in-between is a trade-off: free marketing for the bigger fish and small bites for the rest. Managed code will always depend on the latest .Net/Mono update.

Re:GPL is not "useless" (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544314)

Commercial interests can do the repackaging and selling thing with GPL software. They just have to play ball by opening their stuff up too.

Re:GPL is not "useless" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544402)

And in doing so allow other people with 0 investment to sell the software they worked on, cutting into their revenues. Successful commercials software under a GPL license, such as it is, makes its money off of support and gives the product away. Can you imagine Adobe open sourcing Photoshop and changing from a sales based revenue stream to a support based revenue stream?

Re:GPL is not "useless" (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544460)

Given the number of people on the internet that have photoshop without any sort of license at all, one has to wonder if it would make much difference...

And in doing so allow other people with 0 investment to sell the software they worked on...

Which is exactly what they would be doing with the hypothetical GPL component we're imagining them to have included. It swings both ways.

(BTW, no I don't think that GPL works everywhere, for everything. It suits some business models and not others)

Re:GPL is not "useless" (1)

Corson (746347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544582)

I agree. BTW, it's funny how the open-source evangelists evaluate posts... Anyway, the idea is that, if IT businesses are reluctant to embrace the GPL then there must be a reason. If your business model is to sell software then you probably don't want to open-source it. But again, I think the GPL has an important role to play in the IT landscape as it ensures that some code is shared at little or no cost. That is how the Homebrew started and all.

Sorry, Miguel (5, Funny)

seebs (15766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544310)

Bill's still happily married. I really don't think this is working.

Re:Sorry, Miguel (1)

Michael135 (1068062) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544398)

A bold move nevertheless. And I wonder like you, if there are some non-technical reasons for this.

So was Tiger.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544400)

Bah, married...

Miguel doesnt mind being road beef for when Bill is on the tour with Monsanto.

You dont understand anyways: Miguel loves him. Really, really, really loves him.

Re:Sorry, Miguel (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544412)

Miguel never sees Bill's wife being Bill's butt-lick. Hopefully this crap gets thrown out of open source OS distributions, we don't need to be trying to play catch-up every time Microsoft developers have a brain fart

"Free" is relative. (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544382)

The "free" portion of open source licenses varies. Some licences provide more freedoms to the original developer and less to down stream developers. Some provide more to down stream providers, but less to implimenters. Some provide more freedom to those that impliment, but less to the authors.

Going from GPL to LGPL doesn't mean Mono is any less "free" it just means that there has been a tiny change in who it is that experience the greatest "freedom".

Then again, this is /. the article talks about a license change for a Linux implimentation of a MS technology. To prevent myself from getting modded -1 troll for not insulting Microsoft, I'll add: "rable rable rable! M$ tuk r jorbs!"

-Rick

Re:"Free" is relative. (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544690)

Frankly I could care less. The Mono guys can do anything they like. I wouldn't touch Mono with a ten foot pole, for two reasons. First of all, I see no point to using it. Second of all, I wouldn't trust Microsoft with a nickel, let alone anything I was developing.

sigh (2, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544390)

wake me up when mono is ms-patent-free

Re:sigh (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544512)

Don't go into a deep hibernation just yet [arstechnica.com]

Stinky Europeans (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544418)

Europeans stink. They stink stink stink. Stinky stinky stink. Smelly euro-trash Euros.

Am I confused about the GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544550)

From what I understand the GPL is simply a license for those that choose to use it (in particular have and/or examine the source code of a particular product). Is there any reason why the copyright holder can't negotiate a seperate license with a private company that would not bind them to all the restrictions of the GPL?

I'm confused by the idea that a license would restrict the issuer, as I was under the impression that it was about defining terms to the issuee.

Removing the GPL code. (5, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544588)

We removed the GPL code in MonoDevelop for a couple of reasons:

(a) to allow it to become a platform that third-party plugin and add-in developers can target.
(b) to allow us to consume open source code that would otherwise conflict with the GPL (MS-PL licensed code, Apache licensed code, and original BSD licensed code).

Notice that (a) is the norm for Eclipse and Visual Studio, and that the ecosystem of third party plugins relies on this, both Eclipse and Visual Studio would be severely limited if they limited the plugins to be all GPL licensed. As I explained on the blog post, there are current users that need to run their non-GPL code inside the IDE.

We want more third party developers to target MonoDevelop, and we want these third parties to consider MonoDevelop a platform that they can target without forcing a license on them. Similar to how the Linux operating system can run code licensed under any license.

The second reason is just a practical one. In the .NET open source ecosystem there are plenty of libraries and tools available under the MS-PL, Old and New BSD and Apache 2 licenses and we want to be in a position to use those libraries without rewriting it. We already do, and it has saved us a lot of time.

Re:Removing the GPL code. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544612)

The holier than thou community can always fork MonoDevelop into GplDevelop and force everyone to use GPL.

While they are at it, they should fork Eclipse into GplEclipse

Re:Removing the GPL code. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30544750)

The Work you do is great. It upsets me that people dislike your work since it is so closely linked to Microsoft. You are a Hero.

Other licenses (1)

Idiot with a gun (1081749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544702)

Okay, so I know there are other open source licenses. And some of them are quite good. But that's not the point. The point is that they've suddenly declared an ideological issue with the GPL, and thrown away (probably) good code.

This is the sort of in fighting that hurts open source a lot. Although admittedly, I do not believe that MonoDevelop is a good program. It hardly provides anything beyond a context aware editor. The Mono projects I looked at (Gnome Do and its plugins specifically) had long since abandoned MonoDevelop for their project management, and merely used it as an editor (if even). I personally had nothing but problems with its project files being constantly broken. We will see how this will go over, but overall I think this will hurt the growth of the MonoDevelop project.

MonoDevelop? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544720)

I've got to wonder if these developers' time would be better spent getting Visual Studio to work under Wine. Since they've pulled all the GPL code out of MonoDevelop, it's obvious they're pragmatic more than anything else.

Whining little babies. (-1, Flamebait)

hackus (159037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30544740)

You know I get sort of sick of hearing about how the GPL should be more business friendly.

The internet was basically built on the GPL, and most of the code that makes it go was built using the GPL.

Don't like what the GPL has done or has to offer?

Why don't you try and imagine a internet only built for the highest paid players for a moment?

Yeah I sort of though so, so stop your whining corporate America and just be HAPPY most of us GPL authors don't organize and actually make you play by your own rules.

For one thing, making you pay for all of our code you are secretly using for free. Slightly hypocritical, yeah, but that is how business is. It is only business if you can rip someone off in a "unresticted" manner.

That is completely OK.

I for one have had enough of the whining about the GPL and how restrictive it is.

It seems to me, its only restrictions is you can't rip people off.

-Hack

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?