Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet

[Paolo Molaro]

On 03/18/02 Rhys Weatherley wrote:
> > I'd really like to hear your suggestions:-)
> > I don't see how people can start cooperating if they both have to cut
> > one arm before starting...
> 
> It makes the co-operation mutually reinforcing, because
> each party needs the other to survive.  But from what

Two people that can't swim makes two people dead.
I happen to think cooperation makes sense if all the parties involved
are willing to do it for the best of each other and not because they are
forced to do it. It's clear we have two different views: we want
cooperation and you want control.

> you said, Mono is not willing to give up any core survival
> pieces.  This creates an imbalance in the relationship.
> Barry has made some suggestions, so I won't raise any
> others at this time.

Yes, Barry's suggestions at least make sense, there's a chance of
cooperating there.

> You are in this position only because you didn't base
> Mono on pnet's design in the first place.  Deliberately
> changing all of the API's to be incompatible and then
> saying "but yours isn't compatible so we can't use it"
> isn't very ingenious.

At the time I started working on mono, pnet was code tha looked like it
was based on reverse-engineering: we couldn't base a free-software 
project on that grounds.

> > There may be more room for cooperation in the C# libraries, but here
> > again we can't use your code unless you allow us to, while you can reuse
> > our code. So, it's really up to DotGNU to decide what degree of
> > cooperation they want with mono. Or am I missing something?
> 
> In the case of the DateTime class, I was not asked by
> a designated Mono authority (e.g. yourself or Miguel) if

I'm not a designated authority, I'm just a developer like all the other
mono contributors.

> I only found out later that the question was in the context of
> "maybe we should replace Mono's DateTime with pnetlib's
> better implementation".  By then the Mono group had already
> jumped to the conclusion that I wasn't willing to re-license
> the code.  Which was incorrect, but by then it was too late.

At least this long thread has been useful in that respect:
now people know that if the case arises, you're willing to consider
licensing your code for use in mono. Thanks. 
Does this hold also for the other DotGNU developers?

> You could have asked me.  You know my e-mail address.
> I don't read mono-list any more, so someone in authority
> needs to contact me directly on these issues.

We have no steering committee, every contributor can ask for
himself. I suggest that if the need arises, all such contacts should be
held in the open on public mailing-lists, though.

Cheers,
        lupus

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
address@hidden                                     debian/rules
address@hidden                             Monkeys do it better