Re: request for a mono vote.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 01:36:43PM +0300, aprekates wrote:
> O/H Gregory Seidman ??????:
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:06:31PM +0300, ???????? ?????????? wrote:
>>> As a dedicated debian user i want to express my concerns and worries
>>> regarding mono inclusion in main and i ask for a vote for mono in
>>> non-free/main because:
>>>
>>> 1) I feel like microsoft is not clear about the license issues.
>>
>> This seems pretty clear:
>>
>> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
>> http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-moves-C-NET-CLI-to-community-license-helps-Mono/1246980965
>>
>>> 2) MS is a monopoly in desktop OS market and its monopoly aggresive
>>> behavior has been proven in courts and is evident every day. see
>>> netbook market for example. Wouldnt a pro-ms pro-monopoly move harm
>>> the excellent name Debian has build?
>>
>> That has nothing to do with Mono. Mono is not tied to MS in any way. The
>> software has been implemented independently and under open source
>> licenses (GPL, LGPL, and MIT X11, depending on which piece):
>>
>> http://www.mono-project.com/Mono,_a_technical_whitepaper#Mono_Licensing
>>
>>> 3) Is essential to me and the way i perceive the debian identity to has
>>> a clear position out of middleware rivalries of multinationals
>>> companies not favoring or taking sides.
>>
>> I can't parse this sentence. Rather, I can't tell whether you are
>> claiming that Debian should or should not have a clear position. It
>> doesn't matter, of course, since Debian has a clear position on
>> licensing, not software rivalries.
>>
>> Perl, Python, PHP, Ruby, TCL, etc. are all available in Debian main, as
>> are a couple of Java interpreters. As long as they are under open source
>> licenses and are unencumbered by patent threats (or stupid encryption
>> export laws), they belong in main.
>>
>>> +1 for a voting procedure.
>>
>> +1 for understanding the relevant patent licensing, code licensing, and
>> Debian policy
>>
>> -1 for calling for a vote without that understanding
>
> I think you see the technical angle and not a broader concern that i
> tried to draw, maybe hastily , vaguely or not expert-legaly i admit. I
> see the fog of a middleware battle going on for decades and mono is the
> linux implementation of MS middleware .
I don't think you understand what Mono is. It is an implementation of the
Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) and the C# language as laid out in
ECMA-335 and ECMA-334 (ISO/IEC 23271 and ISO/IEC 23270), respectively, plus
a bunch of libraries including a GTK+/GNOME library (GTK#) and
reimplementation of several .NET libraries, plus a few applications built
for it.
While the included .NET libraries do include MS-designed middleware (e.g.
ASP.NET), they are not required to use Mono nor any of the GTK#-based GNOME
applications. The applications included with the Mono distribution also
generally do not require any reimplementations of Microsoft's
non-standardized .NET libraries.
> Also i dont see how Perl, PHP , Ruby , TCL are compared with the extent
> of a middlewe API like java,or .net. Do they provide the same
> functionality in scope ? Correct me , but i think that that argument is
> valid for java mainly. Not sure, but i think that java and .net are more
> ambitious than scripting languages , and programming languages . So i
> think it'be vary informative to draw a parallel about mono and java free
> implementations and discuss about merits ands risks for possibly default
> inclusion in debian and generally in dists.
Perl, Python, PHP, Ruby, and TCL are all languages with language runtimes,
compilers/interpreters, and libraries, as are Java and the CLI. They are,
indeed, similar in scope.
In terms of risks, both (some implementations of) Java and (the
standardized and GTK# portions of) Mono are entirely Free and free. There
is no greater risk in including Mono or, say, OpenJDK than there is in
including PHP or Perl. In terms of merits, there is a great deal of
excellent FOSS built for all of the above, and it's desirable to be able to
package and include that software in Debian as well.
> Finally forgive me for being suspicious about the benevolent monopolist
> who runs from court to court! .Dont expect me to sympathize with pro-ms
> pro-monopolist moves.
Developing applications for Mono, especially when not relying on .NET
libraries, has nothing to do with supporting Microsoft in any way. Running
applications on Mono has nothing to do with supporting Microsoft. Your
suspicion of Microsoft has nothing to do with Mono.
You may weigh them differently depending on your values and needs, but the
only reasonable things to judge software on are freedom, price, and
quality. As long as your software freedoms are protected, as they are with
Mono, all that's left are price and quality. The price is right (free), so
it's just a question of quality, and Mono is high quality software.
Furthermore, the design of the CLI and the C# language are excellent
(though I'm not 100% thrilled with the design of the core library),
regardless of origin.
I might be inclined to put the reimplementations of non-standardized .NET
libraries in separate packages. Those packages should still be in main,
since they're still properly FOSS, but none of the GNOME Mono apps would
require that package anyway. In fact, that's already the case in Debian.
Your concerns are unfounded. Stop spreading anti-Mono FUD. It is no more
appropriate than Microsoft's anti-Linux propaganda.
>>> chomwitt
>> --Greg
> chomwitt
--Greg
Reply to: