[MonoDevelop] Licensing concerns.

Chris Turchin chris@turchin.net
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:37:25 -0700 (PDT)

The thing I cannot get over with regards to this whole licensing debate is the
irony that #d would not even exist were it not for the major exceptions to the
GPL which they have cut out for themselves:

 13.   In addition, as a special exception, AlphaSierraPapa gives permission to
link the code of this program with the Microsoft .NET library (or with
modified versions of Microsoft .NET library that use the same license as the
Microsoft .NET library), and distribute linked combinations including the
two. As a second exception, AlphaSierraPapa gives permission to link the code
of this program with the  DockPanel Suite (or with modified versions of
DockPanel Suite that use the same license as the  DockPanel Suite), and
distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU
General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than
the Microsoft .NET library and the DockPanel Suite.
If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the
file, but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete
this exception statement from your version.


So its okay for #d to link against non-OSS and even proprietary closed-source
code bases when it is to their advantage, but making a compromise to support an
accepted OSI licensing scheme for #d or monodevelop AddIns is asking too much...

seems more like a case of 'do as we say, not as we do' than any real
fundemental ethical standpoint with regards to OSS/free software...


[disclaimer: i know, #d is not the only project using this kind of exception
(which I guess means I DO read licenses now and again :P), but it certainly does
not change the gravity or the nature the exception being made...]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Bernhard Spuida wrote:

> Hi,
> > On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 07:17 +0200, Christoph Wille wrote:
> > > We've decided to take this to the FSF, to get an independent and especially
> > > a professional clarification on this matter. I'm sure that everyone here
> > > agrees on the authority of the FSF in OS licensing issues.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, what exactly are you taking to the FSF, because it
> > seems like in the last 2 days, a lot of different issues/concerns
> > regarding licensing have been touched upon.
> >
> Your decision regarding to only accepting future contributions
> licensed under X11. This in our understanding has a number of issues
> affecting monodevelop in its entirety:
> 1) As the existing files are under GPL, and you now only accept X11,
> those files can no longer in any way be modified. This would be a
> very serious issue for the further development of MD unless of course
> you accept GPL'd contributions.
> 2) Add-ins that make use of the GPL'd interfaces, namespaces, methods
> etc. have to be licensed under the GPL as well. See
> <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLAndPlugins> as quoted
> in a previous email by me. In effect, your decision would prevent the
> development of add-ins making use of any part of the
> #develop/monodevelop add-in architecture.
> 3) Add-ins that do not in any way use or depend on the
> #develop/monodevelop infrastructure and which can be used in other
> programs are fine. I just cannot see how those would work (call me
> unimaginative if you like).
> As I am quite certain that this is not exactly your interpretation of
> the issue at hand, we decided to ask the professionals.
> Regards,
>                  Bernhard Spuida
>                  #develop senior word wrangler
> 365/24 - so expect support for only 15.208333 days a year
> _______________________________________________
> Monodevelop-list mailing list
> Monodevelop-list@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodevelop-list