[Fsf-friends] Re: DotNet

[Sandip Bhattacharya]

Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> I am not very sure what exactly transpired between FSF and Miguel, but
> here are few useful links.
> 
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00100.html
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00089.html

Thanks a lot for the links Mahesh. I spent quite a while on all the threads 
of the conversation. Thanks again for the lead. My comments below.

>    ``So I  would be interested in knowing  what you have in  mind as a
>      way to improve the connection, *other* than the `GNU/Linux' vs
>      `Linux' debate, which myself and most others in the current board
>      are tired of.

I believe you are trying to damn Miguel using the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate.

<light-hearted-banter>
I have seen too many lawyer dramas on TV :), so this gives me a feeling 
similar to lawyer tactics of damning a persons character before letting the 
real issues come out in the court - thereby prejudicing the jury. ;)
</light-hearted-banter>

If this is the single argument against Miguel/Mono, you dont need to read 
the rest of my mail here. I am not trying to trivialize this issue here, I 
just feel this (much dwelled) debate be better left on some other thread. I 
have pretty strong (although unconventional) views regarding this which I 
will post sometime later when this debate is in focus.

Anyway, these links you posted were about a debate which flared up when 
Gnome website software map included a non-free software called ggobi. RMS 
sent a mail explaining why he felt it was not appropriate 
(http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-June/msg00008.html), 
which I personally totally agree with. BTW, interestingly, in this mail he 
admits having an understanding with Miguel of having GNOME libraries 
licenced not under GPL, but under LGPL for some of the same reasons as 
libc. In one of the links I will refer to below, Miguel has been accused 
(by who else, but Register?) of having done this singlehandedly.

The debate somehow ended inconclusively after this great summary of the 
real issue by Havoc 
(http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00102.html).

Some great mails by RMS on this debate:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00061.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00077.html

In particular I loved this excerpt:

"
If some day GNOME, GCC, GNU Emacs, and all of GNU are obsolete and
forgotten, but computer users generally are free to share and change
the software they use, these programs will have done their job well.
If, on the other hand, GNOME and the rest of the GNU system are widely
used in combination with proprietary software, they will have
succeeded only superficially, and a big task will remain ahead of us.
"

However, the purpose of our thread here was not Gnome, or Miguel's personal 
views of Linux vs. GNU/Linux, etc. This was about FSF's attitude towards 
dotNet.


> http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/04/03/2344211.shtml

This doesnt have much content for the debate.

Let's look at RMS's historical views on dotNet. A sensationalistic article 
by (who else?) Register (again!) at 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/01/gnome_to_be_based/ , I believe 
misled RMS to cause him to say 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/05/explain_yourself_miguel_demands_rms/

Miguel later clarified at 
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002-February/msg00031.html 
that the Register article twisted his personal ideas as some sort of Gnome 
project plan.

In Miguel's own words - "The headline does not reflect any statements I
made on the interview (if you read the interview you will notice this). 
[...] I am not the GNOME foundation or control GNOME like Linus controls 
his kernel, I am just its founder and a contributor. [...] So effectively I 
have no "maintainer" control."

However, this previous link is the best peek into Miguel's plans about 
Mono. That, and one of his early mails on the subject - 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/09/why_it_pays_to_embrace/.

Excerpt:
"I'm not interested in ostracising a technology because a company is ugly," 
he told us today. "I'm interested in finding the best technology and 
implementing it so developers can write nice applications."

An important point raised by Miguel to be read by those who would be 
jumping about implementations of proprietary API's or libraries or software.

"GNU is a free re-implementations of Unix. Linux is a re-implementation of 
the Unix kernel.  Before the advent of Linux and the Berkeley Unix, Unix 
was a proprietary technology, built by ATT (which back in the day, was a 
monopoly).

Still, developers took what was good from Unix, and reimplemented a free 
version of it.   Down to the Unix programming language: C (which was also 
invented at ATT).  Even C++ was invented at ATT.

Think of Mono as following the same process: we are bringing the best 
technology out there to our beloved free software platform.  And at the 
same time it serves to be a magnificent upgrade on the development platform."

He has a point - isnt the flagship Free contributions to the world - libc, 
gcc/g++, Linux (the kernel), bison, etc. all Free reimplementations of 
proprietary developments? Why is AT&T,  etc. suitable companies whose 
technologies can be reimplemented, but Microsoft isnt *by default*? AT&T in 
those days was probably as bad as M$ today (honestly, I wouldnt know much 
about this though).

Or is there an unwritten FSF rule now to opposed any technology innovation 
coming out of basically proprietary companies? By that logic, Java should 
have been ostracised too. But we do have 
(http://directory.fsf.org/search/fsd-search.py?q=java) today, dont we?

Yes, I know Microsoft has had a really bad reputation behind them, and it 
is highly unlikely that they can ever get better other than with a federal 
axe. But if we are careful enough to watch where we are treading in the 
dotNet swamp, cant we remain dry?

I would really like to know RMS's view on this. :) Thanks and sorry for the 
long mail.

- Sandip


-- 
Sandip Bhattacharya    *    Puroga Technologies   *     sandip@puroga.com
Work: http://www.puroga.com        *         Home: http://www.sandipb.net

PGP/GPG Signature: 51A4 6C57 4BC6 8C82 6A65 AE78 B1A1 2280 A129 0FF3