Dotgnu Coding Competition 132
Honestly writes "Apparently DotGNU seems to be offering more than the 'warm fuzzy feeling' to its contributors. Somebody has funded about $4500 worth of prizes for code contributions. The developers have confirmed that the $$$ is in FSF Hands (good hands, I suppose). Here is the split up of prizes. It's almost strange to earn money writing open source. Especially when you're not even
employed by dotgnu. Anyway all I can say is ,I like it. It's ideal for a grad student with lots of free time. But hardly anyone seems to have seen
the Newsforge posts (except maybe me)."
System.Windows.Forms (Score:1, Interesting)
Rus
What about Mono (Score:4, Interesting)
pgp key? (Score:3, Interesting)
If anyone has DSA key 0x7525EC32, please speak up.
-molo
$300 per prize - is it too little ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides the chance of winning one of fifteen monetary prizes totalling US$ 4500
Though it is good start that there is some money, but what comes to my mind is why so little ... 15 prizes averaging $ 300 each
I wonder why doesn't some philanthropist wanting to donate to charity or some rich guy wanting to support Linux just give a couple of hundred thousand dollars, or may be a few millions, in prize money - so that it can support a critical mass of programmers that can devote a decent amount of time ..... rather than the tens of hours that are "economically feasible" now ....
I know ... linux is not about money and all .... but still ... why couldn't it be ... everyone does not have to pay - just those people wanting it very badly have to pay while the rest get a free ride so that society as a whole benefits ...
and seriously - this is not meant to be flamebait ...
License? (Score:4, Interesting)
I love free software and open source, use them, advocate them, and even write some small time stuff and license it LGPL. During the day, I work for a company that develops and sells a software program.
Here is a quote from the FAQ of DotGNU's Vision for WebServices [dotgnu.org] .
Now I thought the GPL would not prevent this sort of thing? Now I'm really confused.
I'm sure glad that GNU thinks they know what would be good for my employer's business and that my employer should charege more for their program (which is for schools).
I thought I had a good solid understanding of the GPL [gnu.org]. I've taken the GPL quiz [gnu.org] , read the GPL Faq [gnu.org] before.
I thought the GPL only applied to copying and distribution of a program or derrived work. Not to running it privately on my own web site.
If I distribute my proprietary program, along side a DotGNU program / platform that executes it, I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.
If I do NOT distribute my proprietary program, but merely run it at my site, and merely sell it as a service, then I was definitely under the impression that the GPL did not apply since no distribution takes place.
Still, back to the case where I distribute my program, and a seperate DotGNU program to run it, then I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.
Maybe I had better just stay completely away from DotGNU. Stick with Apache and various Java tools instead.
Just a side note about the customer having their data he
Re:fp (Score:3, Interesting)
stay away from all of them for now (Score:4, Interesting)
The Apache license is fine, but Java doesn't look like a big win to me. While Sun keeps proclaiming that the platform is open, in reality, large parts of the platform only exist as Sun proprietary code. Even if someone managed to reimplement them, Sun controls the compatibility tests and they can shoot down any implementation they don't like.
At this point, I'd not get involved with any of Java, PNET, or
Just wait for the dust to settle and for Sun and Microsoft to come to their senses with their outrageous intellectual property claims. Until then, you have plenty of other options--there is nothing technically new in any of those platforms.
Re:stay away from all of them for now (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, because I study the licenses before even proposing development, I would be considering such things.
Open source implementations of Java are on the horizon. Today, commercial Java runtimes are available from multiple vendors, so you are not likely to have one single vendor treat you badly.
It is not impossible that Sun could lose control of the standard once multiple mature Java implementations are around. What the rest of the industry does could become a de facto standard. Sort of how the PC architecture hasn't been dictated by IBM for a very long time. Or how modem command sets were no longer dictaged by Hayes. I'm sure there are other examples.
So whether Sun sets the standards in practice or not (in the event of multiple mature open source implementations) would really depend on how good the standards are, and on how nicely they play.
Java doesn't look like a big win to me. While Sun keeps proclaiming that the platform is open, in reality, large parts of the platform only exist as Sun proprietary code
It has the drawback you point out. It also is not as mature in some sense as Java. If the evolution of Mono fits my schedule, it might be the thing to use.
No, you weren't involved (Score:4, Interesting)
with Mono.
The first attempt was made by the DotGNU coreteam and the
Free Software Foundation, privately, immediately after the existence of the
Mono project had become public knowledge (that was in early July 2001).
You must be referring to the second of these attepts, which was not initiated
by the DotGNU project but by a third party (Martin Coxall)... making Mono part
of DotGNU was his idea, not ours... both Miguel (the Mono project leader) and
I posted in the thread which resulted from this proposal, and I got upset about some
of Miguel's comments, but in retrospect I think it's very understandable that
the Mono folks were not interested in talking about cooperation in the context
of such a proposal.
In April 2002, we made a third attempt to establish cooperation with Mono.
This attempt was much more promising than the earlier two, and it has involved
offering a sizeable chunk of pnetlib I18N code to Mono under the X11 license,
which they have integrated into their class library.
DotGNU is still open to discussing any mutually beneficial ways of cooperation.
For example, some parts of the class library could be developed jointly, using
a neutral cvs server. We have proposed this to the Mono project multiple
times, so far it seems that the Mono folks are not interested in this kind of
cooperation. The I18N code which was integrated into the Mono libs forked
immediately, so that doesn't count as a mutually beneficial form of
cooperation.
Your claim about DotGNU Portable.NET being "at risk of copyright infringement
claims" is totally false. Our procedures have been carefully checked and
declared ok by a competent lawyer (Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal
history at Columbia Law School). I do know however what discussion you
probably remember. Here is how it went: I asked whether Mono has proper
procedures for reverse engineering (in hindsight I regret having asked
this question publicly, I now think it would have been much more appropriate
to ask this kind of question privately), and Miguel replied that the Mono
project doesn't have the resources for that, and he added a verbal attack
against the procedures used by Rhys in the early days of the Portable.NET
project. You really shouldn't be concerned about what Miguel wrote about
Portable.NET in that message. First of all, reverse engineering for purposes
of interoperability is always legal in the country where that work was done.
(EULA clauses that forbid it are legally null and void in that country.)
Secondly, the early versions of Portable.NET achieved interoperability in a
manner that (in the judgement of Eben Moglen) would not have violated the terms
of the anti-reverse-engineering clause even if that clause wasn't irrelevant
anyway. (We had not informed Miguel about the details. Why should we? He
never asked.) Thirdly, the code to which these concerns applied has long since
been rewritten for technical reasons anyway.
Nota bene, both projects, Mono and Portable.NET, want to be compatible with
much more than just with what is described in the ECMA specs. So there is
reason to be careful. I can assure you that I've been working hard behind the
scenes of the DotGNU project to make sure that we're as careful as we
reasonably can be.
I don't know what you mean with the claim "there used to be a page around on
the DotGNU website (not sure if it's still there) badmouthing Mono." I
maintain the DotGNU website and I'm sure that we have never had any such
page. The DotGNU website moved to the Savannah CVS system on July 10, 2001
and all versions of all website files since then can still be reviewed at
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/proje
Since that website move was just one day after the initial public announcement
of the Mono project, if your claim was true, the evidence should be there. I
challenge you to check your claim against the available public record.
Greetings,
Norbert.