[Mono-list] any comments out there about this article

[Jay Freeman (saurik)]

Sebastien:

Actually, this may be even worse.  One of the really nice things about the
MS VM is that you can talk to the VM and work with the GC, telling it when
to run and so on.  We have a 3D engine we've been working on, and if we
decide to migrate our structure to .NET we would need features like this.
In this case, there isn't even the concept of "someone else is providing the
same interfaces" as the interfaces wouldn't be compatible with the ones that
MS is providing: the app would have to directly link to them (likely through
a custom abstraction layer they wrote, of course, so it would work on either
VM).

Note that I'm looking at this from the perspective of mixed
managed/unmanaged apps (which I consider to be where most of the thought
that Microsoft put into .NET went, and I worry about the same thought not
being put into Mono correctly ahead of time).

Sincerely,
Jay Freeman (saurik)
saurik@saurik.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastien Lambla" <sebastien.lambla@6sens.com>
To: <atai@atai.org>; "Nathan Torkington" <gnat@oreilly.com>; "Brian
Mastenbrook" <cbm067@email.mot.com>
Cc: <mono-list@ximian.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 1:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] any comments out there about this article


> Andy,
>
> I totally agree on the need for the JIT, compiler and such to be relased
in
> GPL. My problem is for the class library. If a non-free software with a
> non-free license is run on top of a GPL'd mono class library, what
happens?
>
> Sebastien Lambla