Conversation
Notices
-
@sampattuzzi Point being that the license (any license) is worthless if the licensor is not the patent holder or its agent.
Saturday, 13-Jun-09 18:44:17 UTC from web-
If you're switching to !KDE because of Mono, you probably left KDE because of the QPL in 2000. STOP. SPREADING. FUD.
Jacob Peddicord likes this. -
@magus maybe he just likes compiled languages :-D
-
@jefferai good point, but what about Python, Perl, and pretty much every interpreted language? There are C# bindings for Qt and KDE, too.
-
@sampattuzzi That's what I'm trying to get at. Mono is GPL and people are complaining because it "might not be free."
-
@sampattuzzi ... and Trolltech changed their license. All of Qt is GPL or LGPL on all platforms. I still hear about Qt not neing free enough
-
@sampattuzzi I'm confused how software can be both free and encumbered. I thought GPL was mutually exclusive of patent encumbrance.
-
@sampattuzzi I wasn't! The QPL was ditched for a good reason!
-
@sampattuzzi I hadn't thought of it that way, but I figured you can't legally GPL code if you don't have the applicable patents.
-
@sampattuzzi I was also under the impression that you can't enforce patents on published standards.
-
@sampattuzzi But if you have the license, can you publish the code under GPL? Wouldn't that violate both the license and the GPL?
-
@sampattuzzi The parts of Mono that are non-standard and not built on other Free Software are only for Microsoft compatibility ...
-
@sampattuzzi and aren't fully implemented and are not even needed for free Mono development.
-
@sampattuzzi The scary parts are only to let encumbered non-free things work on top of Mono. That is, if the scary parts get implemented.
-
@sampattuzzi I didn't think you /could/ publish code under GPL without giving every user a license to use the patent.
-
@sampattuzzi that's exactly what I needed to hear! GPL code (ie Mono) implicitly gives a license to use the patent. ergo, no patent threat.
-
@sampattuzzi I know my logic is flawed, but I'm too stubborn to admit it at this point. Seems like Mono's GPL could be made invalid.
-
@sampattuzzi thanks! I'll listen to it tonight!
-
@magus @sampattuzzi If the patent holder didn't agree to !GPL, then mono might be illegally GPLed. Isn't that what the hullabaloo is about?
-
@spinochet I didn't really understand that part until @sampattuzzi walked me through it.
-
@spinochet the scary underlying problem is that if there is some patent issue it will be because of GPL 3, and could happen again
-
@magus It was a joke...
-
@jefferai sorry, I got over-emotional with the Mono thing. i didn't mean to take it out on you.
-
@magus No problem. Meant to lighten your load with some humor, I'm just sorry it fell flat :-P
-
@jefferai no worries, i'm just stubborn. Thanks for trying! :)
-
@spinochet @sampattuzzi this is correct. If the holder of patents relevant to #mono did not consent to GPL then the GPL provides no rights.
-
@spinochet @sampattuzzi in that case, the best the community could hope for is "adverse possession" against the patent: http://ur1.ca/5n0s
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the