I hope you will edit your post to reflect the new information.

Thanks for the comment!

I heard several times people mentioning that Umbraco was dismissive of Mono, so it is good you come to set the record straight, as it were!

The post you’re quoting is more than a year old, which is decades in das interwebs time

I think that both Umbraco and the Mono framework have seen loads of progress and I’m sure that we’ll see official Umbraco support on mono in a not too distant future.

Best,
Niels Hartvig
Founder, Umbraco

DeCSS doesn’t have a patent license but is still Free.

I hope you don’t use any evil non-copyleft code like, say, OpenSSH.

Because they are not copyleft, neither DeCSS nor OpenSSH are part of the live CD / default install set of my Linux distribution of choice. The same standard applies to Mono in said distro. The same standard should apply to DeCSS, OpenSSH *and* Mono in all distros – is my point.

I do use OpenSSH, but had to go out and install it explicitly, as mentioned above.

Dan Serban :

… the mix being GPL, LGPL, MIT/X11, and Ms-PL.

Here’s a very good question:
If you make a clone of someone’s patented technology, and they “release” some carefully selected bits of that technology under a non-copyleft community promise, can you still release the clone under a copyleft-type license, or is it really legally irrelevant wishful thinking on your part?

You can release code under a copyleft license anyway – DeCSS doesn’t have a patent license but is still Free.

However, in this specific case, it’s much more clear cut. A patent license applying to everyone everywhere ever is copyleft-compatible, as all recipients have the same coverage as you do. See also: Sun & IBM’s patent pledges.

How is absence of copyleft a bad thing?

This is a really subjective question. It might not be a bad thing for you, but some of us care about copyleft. Please don’t assume everyone thinks like you do. Whereby we’re back to the issue of informed choice.

I hope you don’t use any evil non-copyleft code like, say, OpenSSH.

… the mix being GPL, LGPL, MIT/X11, and Ms-PL.

Here’s a very good question:
If you make a clone of someone’s patented technology, and they “release” some carefully selected bits of that technology under a non-copyleft community promise, can you still release the clone under a copyleft-type license, or is it really legally irrelevant wishful thinking on your part?

How is absence of copyleft a bad thing?

This is a really subjective question. It might not be a bad thing for you, but some of us care about copyleft. Please don’t assume everyone thinks like you do. Whereby we’re back to the issue of informed choice.

Dan Serban :

Any stance which singles out one piece of Free Software as somehow unacceptable for no tangible reason …
I thought the tangible reason was pretty obvious: Mono is licensed under a non-copyleft license. The rest of the software you mentioned is copyleft.

As the cool kids put it, “lol wut?”

Mono is released under a mix of licenses (as is normal for large projects) – the mix being GPL, LGPL, MIT/X11, and Ms-PL.

How is absence of copyleft a bad thing? You are aware that Mit/X11 is a Free license under every known definition, right?

Related news:
Today, Microsoft attacked Linux again with patents:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/07/microsoft-signs-linux-patent-d.html

Dan Serban :

Jo,
I’d like to see an article on your blog where you clarify where you stand on the issue of informed choice mentioned above, specifically on why you think informed choice is bad. Your stance on having Mono preinstalled by default is automatically anti-informed-choice.

Already covered. Sorry, but I won’t rehash it in a new posting.

My stance is this: If a user wants to use a distro which bombards them with choices on installation, then they should do so. “Use Firefox or Epiphany? Warning, Firefox uses Xulrunner. Warning, Epiphany uses Webkit” and so on. If they want to use a barebones distribution which doesn’t give them any apps, then that’s fine too.

If people want a distro which comes with a selection of apps pre-integrated to make a coherent experience, then they should do that too. If the guys picking apps for a distro want to pick A rather than B, then they should do so – and as trickle-down, users of that distro end up with A rather than B. That’s a choice for the distribution folks to make, if they make that kind of distro. It’s a pre-made choice for users of that distribution.

None of the above is specific to Mono – it applies equally to any pre-selected app, e.g. Ubuntu’s recent change from Pidgin to Empathy.

Any stance which singles out one piece of Free Software as somehow unacceptable for no tangible reason is specifically about removing choice from the folks making a distribution – and helping to promote mediocrity in Free Software systems.

If an app made in Python is best, it should be used. If an app made in C++ is best, it should be used. If an app made in COBOL is best, it should be used. If an app made in C# is best, it should be used. If an app made in Perl is best, it should be used. That’s all there is to it.