[Mono-list] Re: mono-hackers --> mono-devel-list
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:07:37 -0800 (PST)
--- Paolo Molaro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 02/03/03 Adam Treat wrote:
> > > Adam, this was already explained to you both on IRC an on this list.
> > > The policy for inclusion is very easy: do something for mono. Miguel
> > > has handed out subscriptions to the list and cvs accounts very
> > > liberally.
> > I have already 'done something for mono' in case you haven't noticed. Just
> I know, that's the reason you were on the list in the first place,
> nobody has ever denied that. In the same mail you replied to, I said you
> helped mono since the beginning, trying to misrepresent my views won't
> help your cause.
You said, 'policy for inclusion is very easy: do something for mono' ... if this were the case
then I would be included. This is not the case. So when you say that is the 'policy' and you
also acknowledge that I've 'done something for mono' ... hence the inevitable question 'then why
am I not on the list'?
I am not trying to misrepresent your views, I am just struggling to understand why you would say
this is the 'policy' when you acknowledge that I've 'done something for mono'. If I've
misrepresented your views then I apologize, but please do clarify.
> > > Your exclusion has very little to do with your interest in others CLRs
> > > (pnet uses my own code and I'm still subscribed to mono-hackers:-).
> > > The mono-hackers access is a matter of trust.
> > > You lost the trust when you proposed to fork the code in the mono
> > > assemblies.
> > This again. I never proposed to fork the code despite your contentions to the
> > contrary. Some more context ... one day while lurking in the Portable.NET
> > IRC channel I asked about the status of Portable.NET's System.Xml. After
> > receiving the answer that it was incapable of generating the Qt# bindings I
> > suggested that Portable.NET use Mono's System.Xml instead of duplicating the
> [07:23] <t3rmin4t0r> we could use other licenses outside pnetlib
> [07:23] <t3rmin4t0r> or fork mono's System.Xml
> [07:23] <manyoso> well, mono's System.Xml is X11 so we should be able to
> relicense it with GPL+Linking
> [07:24] <manyoso> yah, i think that sounds good
> [07:25] <manyoso> i think forking System.Xml is a good idea, but then
> we'd also want to patch as mono's System.Xml is improved
> I'm not a native english speaker, but in the free software world the
> word 'fork' has a very precise meaning. When you also talk about
> relicensing the forked code with an incompatible license, that means that
> fixes and enhancements can't be folded back: this is as bad a fork as you
> can get.
> > effort. This is entirely analogous (as I've pointed out to you and to Miguel
> > in numerous conversations and have yet to hear a reason why this is
> > considered 'forking') to Mono's inclusion of Portable.NET's I18N libraries.
> No, it's completely different. The I18N code was kindly donated by Rhys
> under the X11 license: the code is not forked. In mono we have just a
> copy and we send back to Rhys all the changes done there (that aren't
> irrelevant to him, such as integration in the mono build setup).
> We're not relicensing the code to make it incompatible with the pnet
[09:42] <t3rmin4t0r> manyoso: are you game to port mono's System.Xml to pnet ?
[09:42] <manyoso> am interested in that
[09:42] <manyoso> i can take a look at that soon
[09:42] <manyoso> am working on Binge at the moment
[09:43] <manyoso> when it does work, i think we should maintain it in pnet's cvs and mail patches
back and forth alla the i8ln libs
[05:36] <manyoso> t3rmin4t0r: i've talked to lupus about copying System.Xml into pnet
[05:36] <manyoso> he has no problem as long as pnet sends fixes/patches/additions back to
mono-list when something changes
[05:37] <manyoso> kinda like they do with the i18n libs
[05:38] <manyoso> so for everything to be good pnet'd have to license all fixes/patches/additions
back to mono ...
[05:38] <manyoso> t3rmin4t0r: you think that'll be an issue?
[05:38] <t3rmin4t0r> manyoso: we already licensed some of *our* code already to mono
[05:38] <raciel> manyoso: is there troubles with System.Xml ?
[05:38] <manyoso> cool. sounds good.
[05:38] <manyoso> that's what i thought, i just wanted to make sure
[05:39] <manyoso> raciel: no, no troubles. am just talking about reusing the Mono System.Xml in
When I said the above I was not thinking of maintaining an incompatible change. I was only
concerned with pnet supporting our binding generator. I've since then clarified this with Miguel
and with you and all of this settled. Mono's System.Xml was not forked. If this is reason enough
for you and/or Miguel to lose trust in me, then ok ... *sigh*. The current dispute really has
nothing to do with this anyway. As I've already said ***I am not asking for miguel to let me in on
his secrets*** I am only asking to participate in developer discussions about Mono. Once again,
this was settled and I dropped it completely. I am only asking for Miguel to follow through. The
initial email that sparked this thread was a simple, 'Hey, what's up with mono-devel'?
> > In fact, Miguel has publicly stated that Portable.NET, DotGNU, Rotor, Intel,
> > Evil Company are all welcome to work on and use Mono's class libraries (this
> The license allows that. The license doesn't allow them to pretend to
> have access to the mono-hackers list.
Whaahhh? I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Once again, I am not asking for access
to Ximian secrets or 'confidential information'. You've asked that I not misrepresent your views
and I would kindly ask the same.
> > was the reason stated for the X11 license change) so I find this issue of
> > 'forking' to be dubious. Anyways, I've asked for clarification on what
> > Miguel would like done WRT System.Xml and have explained that I never wished
> > to 'fork' any of Mono's libraries and this has been met with near silence.
> We talked about this on IRC and you said your words (quoted above) have
> been misunderstood (despite them being quite clear in the meaning).
> But once you loose trust on some people, it takes some
> effort to gain it back, it's not as simple as saying that what you said
> was not what you wanted to say. And instead of patches, bug reports,
> suggestions and the like, what did we get? Flamewars on mono-list :-(
Hey, I am sorry if this has developed into a flame war. I did not intend for this to be the case.
My initial email was simply asking for a heads up.
> > > The fact is, though, that since then, you have done
> > > _nothing_ to regain the trust.
> > Why should I continue to contribute when it is so readily apparent that Miguel
> > is interested in excluding me completely.
> Miguel doesn't want you excluded, he even told you on IRC that if you
> start contributing again it would raise significantly the priority of
> setting up the mono-devel list and making it an effective list
> for mono developers.
> > I have not seen Mono do _anything_ to regain my trust.
> Mono doesn't exist as a person, so I'm not sure what that would mean.
> If I lost your trust, let me know privately what I should do to gain it
> back (hey, if you ever travel near Venice or Padua here in
> Italy, be sure to send me mail and we'll share a bottle of wine:-).
> If you have similar issues with someone else in the project, do it
> privately, a public mailing list is not the best medium for settling
> personal issues. If you can't reconcile the positions, ignore
> some people and carry on with your contributions, like many people do
> in large projects.
I was just responding to what you said about how I should 'do something' to gain trust. It is
difficult to not take this personally. Nevertheless, I understand that Miguel does not trust me.
Fine. Once again, I am not looking for access to any confidential information. I just think the
mono development discussion should take place in an open forum as we have all agreed. I don't
think I should be required to write some silly (and broken) patch in order to see this
Thank you for your nice invitation. Next time you visit Boston I'd like to extend the same
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.