[Mono-list] AppServer code is posted

Kunle Odutola kunle.odutola@virgin.net
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:55:47 -0000

> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 19:10, Brian Ritchie wrote:
> > Thanks for all of the "instructions" on open source.  I'm by no means a
> > veteran in the "movement", but just a hacker trying to add some
> value to a
> > worthwhile project.
> I'm sorry if I came off as harsh. It's just I've never seen so much
> Microsoft IP in a purportedly X11-licensed open source project.

If Microsoft's license allows this (and I don't know that it does), why do
you feel this is an issue?

> Moreover, I don't think it reflects well on the efforts other members of
> the project have put in.

I don't see how this is relevant at all.

> Specifically, it's your choice of name that I
> disagree with. It's not fair that Mono should be associated with your
> AppServer in any way.

Fair?. What would be a fair use of the Mono label in your _opinion_?

> I don't think you should try to represent this as an "open source"
> issue; it's far more fundamental, and what you're doing would be no more
> acceptable were you writing proprietary software.

If the license permits wholesale usage and redistribution, I see no problem

> > The Microsoft portion that you are referring to is a component
> of the system
> > that could be easily removed.  It could be replaced, for
> example, with the
> > XSP code from Mono.  I can remove it if it is causing
> problems...but I'm not
> > sure if it is...Here's a link from MS that says the code is free:
> > http://www.asp.net/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?tabindex=1&PostID=77371
> > Any legal advice is appreciated, I'm no expert on licensing issues.
> There's a very good reason why the Mono developers didn't first take
> sscli/Rotor and then slowly replace Microsoft code line-by-line at their
> own leisure.

The fact that Mono began before sscli/Rotor was released is one very good
reason I would have thought. Fears about possible MS patent claims is
another. And then there is the issue of license violations. None of this
reasons, except the license issue seem to apply to Cassini.

> > If the graphics are an issue, they too could be replaced.  I've
> seen many
> > open source projects using such images, but if it is a
> problem...then by all
> > means, lets remove them.  Do you have links to some free images?
> It's not a matter of "if". You're are redistributing the Microsoft
> artwork right now and passing it off as your own.

This is just plain wrong. He very clearly states on his website that Cassini
is embedded. He also attributes other tools/portions appropriately. I
haven't downloaded the source though.

> This doesn't disturb
> me at all -- I've seen it all before. However, I don't think it's fair
> on Mono developers for you to redistribute it under the "Mono" moniker.

Then why kick up such a fuss?. A simple reply that queried the licensing and
copyright issues is all that was needed.

> Where does original work end and re-branding begin?

Why is the difference important as long as contributors are fairly
attributed and their license permits such re-branding?

>I draw the line
> where Microsoft artwork and source code are included byte-for-byte
> without accreditation in a project that claims (in readme.txt) to be
> under the X11 license.

See Brian's - or rather the AppServer's - website.

> Copying on this scale cannot be an oversight. This is wholesale
> re-duplication. Considering the lack of accreditation, it could also be
> classified as plagiarism.

See above. I would have thought that Mono would benefit more if people
contribute well-tested, properly attributed code - copied or not - rather
than flaky, all-invented-here code.

> > I'm happy to make changes that would bring this software more
> in line with
> > the Mono project.  Hopefully we can discuss these changes in a more
> > constructive way in the future.
> Good rule to go by: Call it Mono* the day it hits the Mono CVS servers.
> Of course, I'd be rather surprised if getting your AppServer in there
> from its current state is possible.

If it is good enough and there are no licensing/patent issues, I can see no
reason to exclude it from Mono. However, I fear that the Cassini license
properly forbids what Brian has in mind.