'You can have a couple of your own chicken'

[balanbe]

Some time in the not so distant past, I heared when the Albanian commmunists
allow people to have a couple of their own chicken at home. This was in an
effort to make communism a 'little bit attractive'. A great incentive!

Is it true that the Open Source movement's ximian or something is going to
allow to keep what ever one adds to an open source code private? It is not
that I am surprised, just to confirm.

TIA

[Jay Glynn]

That's kinda the way I read it.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-823734...sn.cdf.hl.ne_8
614838

If they didn't then HP and Intel would not have have become involved.

>
> Is it true that the Open Source movement's ximian or something is going to
> allow to keep what ever one adds to an open source code private? It is not
> that I am surprised, just to confirm.
>
> TIA

[Rob Teixeira]

While Open Source is supposed to benefit the "greater community", it doesn't
do much for business. Even companies with existing GLP licensed software
tell you it's rarely a good business model ( http://news.com.com/2100-1001-276056.html
).

Ximian's take on it, from i read on the Mono site a while back, is that writing
parts of Mono itself will constitute GLP. IWO: Mono code will remain open
source. Code that "uses" the Mono class library will fall into an extended
license that allows it to be closed source (proprietary) - subject to modification
limitations, etc. I think this is the "loophole" that got Intel into providing
some extended bits of the framework as well.

Actually, I just ran back to the Mono site to confirm, and here's the real
scoop:
* The C# compiler is GPL
* The runtime libraries are under "Library GLP" or "Lesser Public License",
which allows you to combine your work, which may not be Free to a Free License
library
* Further class libraries are MIT-X11 license

-Rob

"balanbe" <balanbe@balcha.eth> wrote:
>
>Some time in the not so distant past, I heared when the Albanian commmunists
>allow people to have a couple of their own chicken at home. This was in
an
>effort to make communism a 'little bit attractive'. A great incentive!
>
>Is it true that the Open Source movement's ximian or something is going
to
>allow to keep what ever one adds to an open source code private? It is not
>that I am surprised, just to confirm.
>
>TIA

[Cali LaFollett]

"Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c55b187$1@10.1.10.29...
>
>
> While Open Source is supposed to benefit the "greater community", it
doesn't
> do much for business. Even companies with existing GLP licensed software
> tell you it's rarely a good business model (
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-276056.html
> ).
>
> Ximian's take on it, from i read on the Mono site a while back, is that
writing
> parts of Mono itself will constitute GLP. IWO: Mono code will remain open
> source. Code that "uses" the Mono class library will fall into an extended
> license that allows it to be closed source (proprietary) - subject to
modification
> limitations, etc. I think this is the "loophole" that got Intel into
providing
> some extended bits of the framework as well.
>
> Actually, I just ran back to the Mono site to confirm, and here's the real
> scoop:
> * The C# compiler is GPL
> * The runtime libraries are under "Library GLP" or "Lesser Public
License",
> which allows you to combine your work, which may not be Free to a Free
License
> library
> * Further class libraries are MIT-X11 license

Yew, if you go out to http://slashdot.org they have a whole discussion on it
here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...43&mode=thread

They have gone to the XFree which means you can still get the source but you
don't have to distribute the source with apps you build. I like this license
much better the GPL.

Cal

[Kunle Odutola]

> They have gone to the XFree which means you can still get the source but
you
> don't have to distribute the source with apps you build. I like this
license
> much better the GPL.

The library was GPL and LGPL. You *didn't* have to distribute source in any
case (LGPL doesn't require source re-distribution). This was a condition of
Intel's involvement basically. Not sure what it buys but...

Kunle

[Rob Teixeira]

If you look at the breakdown:
* C# compiler = GPL
* runtime = LGPL
* classes = MIT-X11 (similar to what was used for XFree)

The GPL requires that the all parts of the C# compiler program be free and
that all source be exposed.

The LGPL means that the runtime (1) must be free, and (2) must have all source
available to public. However, programs linked to the runtime don't have to
be free.

The MIT-X11 license means that, in very simple terms, you can do whatever
you want.

If Intel helped to build classes under the LGPL, then they would have to
distribute the source code for those classes, even though programs linked
to those classes would not have to do so. Under the MIT-X11 license, Intel
retains the right to keep source code for the classes closed.

-Rob

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The library was GPL and LGPL. You *didn't* have to distribute source in
any
>case (LGPL doesn't require source re-distribution). This was a condition
of
>Intel's involvement basically. Not sure what it buys but...
>
>Kunle
>
>