Ximian to Change License for Mono

A Commentor writes: "According to news.com Ximian is changing the license to Mono from GPL to a variant of the XFree license. Apparently this is due to a partnership with Intel." Update: 01/28 15:03 GMT by T : There's a story at NewsForge as well, where RMS weighs in firsthand on the license choice.

Comments

Funny how that happens...

[sterno]

Always fascinating to see the how the ethics start sliding when the money from big corporations starts floating around. I mean, using another open source license is hardly unethical, but it's just deciding to change it because of Intel that grates on me. Seems like it would be doing the community a service to try to convince Intel of the value of a GPL'd product.

Granted, Ximian is a business, and it's not their job to evangelize the GPL. That's RMS' job last time I checked :).

Re:Funny how that happens...

[Enahs]

I'd ordinarily label this as "flamebait" and move on, but I've got to say...y'know, you're onto something.

I just had an online argument with a GNUbite and a GNOMEite about his/her (don't know which) "boycott" of KDE, because its mere existence had somehow put the Free desktop in jeopardy.

Well, here's the thing.

When I first started using Free systems (I used Linux for years, then went to FreeBSD, and back to Linux) the best I could come up with was TkDesk, and RMS didn't even like that because of Tcl licensing. At that point, GNUstep was little more than a pipe dream ('96) but now ('02) it's getting closer.

I look at it like this: the KDE project was based on Qt due to it being a nice toolkit and due to the naivete of the core team. They just weren't aware of the implications, and couldn't understand it because, let's face it, programmers aren't lawyers. Later on, some of the KDE project people worked to make Qt GPL-friendly, a fact that was completely ignored by the GNUbite crowd, and largely ignored during RMS's crowing after Qt was dual-licensed under the GPL/QPL. To admit that both sides wanted the same thing would be to admit that the GNUbites were a bit wrong to spew so much venom at the KDE crowd.

Doggone it, news items like this just show how harmful having GNOME around is for the Free desktop. Nowadays, to be free-from-cost in the KDE world, one has to release their code under a Free license. To do otherwise is to pay a princely sum to Troll Tech, which most people don't want to do. The GNOME project, however, has wanted to get into bed with commercial projects since the beginning, and this is a great example. Such a license is bad for the Free world, though they'll not admit that their darling environment would be so.

If anyone's been harmful to the Free desktop, it's GNOME, not KDE.

sorry to get on the KDE vs. GNOME tangent again; it just bothers me that GNOME, the GNU darling, is getting so darned commercial-friendly. Seems a tad contradictory. I'm not really a Free zealot at all. :-)

I see RMS objects to the change

[KNicolson]

And in other news, bears object to urban toilet facilities.

What the..?! What point is that part of Mono then?

[sudog]

So, let's see here, and think for a moment. Well, let me think (or some semblance thereof). You read.

Mono was designed to specifically compete with Microsoft's .NET. One thing that helped Mono keep any sort of competitiveness was the GPL--Microsoft couldn't nab some of the code if it was superior to theirs, add it to their own, and include Mono's featureset in their own product, thus ensuring their superiority. (Mono+.Net > Mono).

Now they can steal a chunk of Mono at will and include it in their own software whenever they choose. Ideas, concepts, and whatever else is included in those classes might as well be written for Microsoft, for free. Great job guys! Just do Microsoft a favour and virtually work for them for free while you're at it! This isn't XFree! This is a direct competitor to Microsoft!

And by the way, isn't the spirit of the rest of the components' licensing, which hopefully will remain GPL, that improvements be available to the original author? That's the whole point! Now just because they are looking for some coders from Intel to help them out suddenly GPL isn't good enough?

de Icaza, what are you doing?!

Doh!

GNU FUD

[__past__]

can be made non-Free at any moment

Sorry, but while this argument is quite commonly used to propagate the GPL, I think it's plain wrong. Nobody can make any Mono component, or any other Free-and-not-copylefted code, non-free. There is no "taking away our freedom".

All that is possible is to release derived work without a Free license. It's not as if the original Free code would go away. You do not lose anything - you just do not get more. That's quite a difference.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[rhysweatherley]

The X11 license is a non-copyleft license. As such, it does not guarantee that future versions remain free.

While it is true that there are no Mono components that are currently under a non-free license, Ximian has made no guarantee to the community that this will remain the case. I have.

Re:Given up on Ximian

[TurboRoot]

So why don't you use Java based groupware/spreadsheets?

.NET is Wrong and "Bad". Mono is akin to having classes to teach women methods to feel less pain when they get beat by their husbands, ignoring the fact that getting beat is a bad thing.

By supporting Mono you are giving in to M$ and really just spreading their reign. Because face it, Mono will only succeed if m$ allows it.