[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet

From: Adam Treat
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:40:33 -0800

> It makes the co-operation mutually reinforcing, because
> each party needs the other to survive.  But from what
> you said, Mono is not willing to give up any core survival
> pieces.  This creates an imbalance in the relationship.
> Barry has made some suggestions, so I won't raise any
> others at this time.

So, you really are interested in Mono cutting off it's nose to spite it's 
face.  This would serve no purpose other than to make you feel better.  Why 
should Mono cripple itself as a gesture of goodwill to you.  This makes no 

> You are in this position only because you didn't base
> Mono on pnet's design in the first place.  Deliberately
> changing all of the API's to be incompatible and then
> saying "but yours isn't compatible so we can't use it"
> isn't very ingenious.

What you are basically saying is that there is no reason for Mono as a 
project and that Ximian et al should have just helped you develop pnet.  If 
you can't understand that Mono is designed differently because the developers 
of Mono have different goals, then this talk of a truce and cooperation is 

> > There may be more room for cooperation in the C# libraries, but here
> > again we can't use your code unless you allow us to, while you can reuse
> > our code. So, it's really up to DotGNU to decide what degree of
> > cooperation they want with mono. Or am I missing something?
> In the case of the DateTime class, I was not asked by
> a designated Mono authority (e.g. yourself or Miguel) if
> I was willing to contribute the code.  I was asked by
> some minor contributor about the difference in licensing
> between corlib and pnetlib, and how GPL interacts with
> X11, which I answered truthfully.  I had thought that the
> question was theoretical.

Blah, blah blah.  First, don't go insulting people by calling them 'minor' 
contributors.  This is a community and no one is supreme dictator.  People 
contribute because they want to, not because they are told to.  Second, you 
still haven't indicated your willingness to re-license code for Mono, except 
to insinuate that you want Mono to cripple itself in return.  I can only 
suppose that you do not intend to re-license anything unless Mono makes a 
sacrifial offering to you.  Fine.  Don't re-license.  Mono and pnet will 
continue to develop along seperate paths, but understand that it doesn't have 
to be this way and what you are suggesting for 'cooperation' is foolish and 

> I only found out later that the question was in the context of
> "maybe we should replace Mono's DateTime with pnetlib's
> better implementation".  By then the Mono group had already
> jumped to the conclusion that I wasn't willing to re-license
> the code.  Which was incorrect, but by then it was too late.

Ok, now you are willing to relicense... Paolo has already asked, but I'll ask 
again:  What in your estimation is pnet willing to relicense without asking 
Mono to tear itself apart.  Think about the reverse scenario for a second.  
How about pnet get rid of cscc and then you can use Mono's libraries.  Oh 
wait, you _already_ can reuse Mono's libraries...

> In the past, I have initiated all contact with Miguel, and
> each contact went badly.  It's his turn to initiate contact
> with me.  Perhaps it will work better in the other direction.

Miguel is one of the nicest, easy-going developers that I've ever had the 
pleasure co-developing with.  If contact went badly, then I suggest you do 
some introspection and realize that many of the demands^^ err..  suggestions 
you make do not meet Mono's project goals.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]