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

[Gopal.V]

If memory serves me right, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> Two people that can't swim makes two people dead.

Ok, so you don't want to *depend* on Pnet ?. Then how can
we *depend* on you ?. (yeah two people dead).

> forced to do it. It's clear we have two different views: we want
> cooperation and you want control.

Hey, Hey ! Control is too much a word for "Interdependece".

> 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.

I think you were misguided by Rhys's coding speed ;-). 

Also there have been quite a number of Free Software that was reverse
engineered (SAMBA,device drivers.......).

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

If I can make a mistake "Andy Satori" for being a Mono contributor,
how can we be sure who is a contributor ?.

Also it is not very wise to license out code to someone you don't know.
(lupus -- we know ...is Mono......)
> licensing your code for use in mono. Thanks. 
> Does this hold also for the other DotGNU developers?

My code will be GPl/LGPL as of now. But in case DotGNU and Mono decide 
to "co-operate" rather than swap classes -- count me in.

Gopz

PS: lupus, I'm sort of a GPL fan -- I think you could read my 
    other suggestion in a previous mail.
-- 
 The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success
 //===<=>===\\
|| GNU RULEZ ||
 \\===<=>===//