[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU

From: Gopal.V
Subject: Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables))
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:32:50 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

If memory serves me right, Carsten Kuckuk wrote:
> > With the exception of C# programs, probably, because
> > corresponding free libs are under construction so that no
> > non-free libs are going to be necessary for running
> > typical compiled C# programs.
> That's correct.

        It is obvious for C#. But the problem here is that most 
people are not trying for C#. The major point of adoption has
be VB.NET (by smalltime programmer) and VC.NET (by companies).
C# has not yet become the "Java Killer" -- so most of the .NET
programs will be either of these languages :( .

> etc. This is what the MSVCRT.DLL is all about. So not only
> MFC programs, but also command line tools compiled by Microsoft
> Visual Studio.NET are affected by this license change and
> must not be run under non-Windows operating systems.

        AFAIK, the MFC has been emulated an extent by Wine. And
I have been able to demo some simple MFC apps in Wine. IIRC,
after the Lindows incident Wine is going GNU GPL .

> Well, the end-user has a contract with the ISV and not wirh
> Microsoft, so Microsoft would have a difficult time sueing
> the end users. 

        So copy MSCVRT.dll from somewhere and run your apps in 
GNU ?. 

Also Microsoft has been infamous for using its license only 
where it makes business sense. For eg in India , piracy has been 
somewhat ignored to counter FS penetration into the home user 
segment . But the corporate sector is being bled dry. So if
this goes to help MS extend their control on to GNU platform
,they will ignore this now and make trouble after it kills

> desktops. If the company is really big and its stock is listed,
> then they have to disclose this fact to their shareholders.
> Do you really think a CIO is going to take this risk?

        Only if the cost factor is of such great advantage. The real
place where DotGNU has to acquire acceptance is the business -- 
unlike GNU . GNU intended to provide almost all software running 
on GNU as free. We cannot promise this due to obvious constraints
of manpower. 

        So, we have to make DotGNU flexible & quick-on-its feet. And 
with MS going in for a "NO WARRANTY" license , DotGNU will gain 
more acceptance in corporate sector, especially those who don't 
want Passport involved. 

 The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success

reply via email to

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