[DotGNU]Mono/DotGNU integration

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

There has been much discussion about whether or not DotGNU should look to
Mono to fill in some parts of this effort, or to stay separate.

First, let me state that I am of the opinion that having two Free Software
projects whose goals are similar but not identical is healthy, particular
when the technology is new and nothing like it has been attempted in Free
Software yet.

Mono and DotGNU may overlap in some areas, and that is probably healthy,
if they approach the given problems in radically different ways.  For
example, if DotGNU decides to support C# in a radically different way than
Mono (such as writing a C# front-end for GCC, or trying to improve the
existing Portable.NET work), I think that's reasonable, healthy, and
useful.

However, I encourage each and every DotGNU to pay attention to all
GPL-compatible software released by Mono, and keep an eye on its
development.  Make sure DotGNU isn't solving the same problem in the exact
same way.  That would certainly be needless reproduction of work, and the
job is big enough already.  In fact, I encourage DotGNU developers to keep
an eye out for *any* GPL-compatible Free Software program that seems to
get part of the job done.  GNU's policy always has been to look for
relevant Free Software and use it if is good (that's why we adopted X11
and TeX back in the day, for example).

What I want to avoid is the situation we have with KDE and GNOME.  GNOME
and KDE these days are very far from each other, and it seems that every
time talks have been entered, they have failed.  There was once a good
reason not to integrate GNOME with KDE: KDE depended on a proprietary
software library, Qt!  But, by the time Qt was GPL'ed, the rift was too
big.

The situation here is different: Mono seems to be all GPL'ed or LGPL'ed.
Let's see how it goes, and see what shortcuts Mono can provide for the
DotGNU effort.  If you are itching to take a radically different strategy
for a given component, go for it.  But, please don't reimplement on a
purely "Not Invented Here" principle.

Does this strategy sound reasonable to everyone?

--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Vice President
Free Software Foundation     |  Phone: +1-617-542-5942
59 Temple Place, Suite 330   |  Fax:   +1-617-542-2652
Boston, MA 02111-1307  USA   |  Web:   http://www.gnu.org

pgpQgn9AC0JWe.pgp
Description: PGP signature