Why Mono/Gtk+/glib?
This is from any email I sent explaining my side on the best operating system to program on. I though it was interesting enough as it hashes up a bunch of feelings I know friends of mine have. Might sound a little bit more evangelistic (if thats the right word for it) that I orginally intented but I think its still a good read. Enjoy. 
“Honestly, I really don’t have a side. I have what I want on ether system now days to program efficently and I can make anything do anything I want on ether system so it really doesn’t effect me as much as it does the with the advocates of the operating systems might make out.
The main foundation of the reason I work on top of GTK+, glib, and Mono is that I believe in it because its platform independent, and I’m not on the side of the OS vendor but the side of the programmers who I don’t want to see taking part in the OS deciding battle as most are forced to that use technologies only provided by a single OS. I really don’t care about my customers not using open source operating systems (although I do like the security it provides to me as I can patch holes myself on my own systems), but I love the fact that the library I use for porting from system to system is open source (but not open source as in GPL because that is really to restrictive but open source as in public domain, X11, BSD, and LGPL) because it means that another company I can’t control can’t get its hands in where my software I’m writing can go or can’t go or what it can or can’t do.
It gives me the ability to let my customers choose the OS they want and if they don’t want to use Windows or FreeBSD or Solaris later they can switch without loosing my software which is better for me and my customers. It also gives me the ability to package as closed source for anything I want but retain that freedom as well. Also one of the greatest advantages is that if it doesn’t do what I want it to do in the library or its broken in some way, I can change it or reuse its code somewhere else that I come up with, unlike Java or many other libraries in the same catagory. Who can’t see the benefit in that? “
Tags: Linux, Mono & .NET, Personal, Politics
April 4th, 2005 at 8:22 am
I think Microsoft benefits the most from BSD licenced software. They can use the fruits of open source to enforce there monopoly on a lot of end-user software. They are already using BSD software and can even keep it quiet.
Open source needs a protection like the GPL in order to give the public the fruits. I think everyone can benefit from certain software beeing licenced under BSD licence but in general the public and the open source movement needs a GPL style licence for the majority of it works.
April 4th, 2005 at 9:41 am
But can you stop (evil) companies or individuals from “looking at” GPL-ed source code, and use it for “inspiration” when creating theire own closed-source-monster-software? BSD only seems less Copy/Past-able than GPL to me. All it takes, is a little bit work to make the code look a bit different, as I see it.
Another thing, who sues on GPL-s behalf anyway?
April 4th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Its very true we need GPL for applications, but I was more refering to QT then anything else. QT is ether buy it or go full GPL. I don’t believe in something like that not being LGPL.
April 5th, 2005 at 9:19 am
>but I was more refering to QT then anything else. QT is ether buy it or go full GPL.
i think Qt is a different think.
Qt is the only C++ GUI Toolkit and even more (a complete C++ framework) which runs native on mostly every platform.
I think this is a point were you can get a benefit out of it, either money or even better Free Software. Also compare with: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
On Gtk+ general and Gtk# and mono specifically, it’s a great Tookit for the Unix platform and has some cross-platform features but it don’t always looks 100% natively on windows and don’t run on MacOS without x-window. Also Gtk# has some competitors with windows.forms or java and there GUI Tookits.
So there the GPL would be a disadvantage and would lead people to non-free Software, therefore i think here the LGPL is a perfect solution.
But i wouldn’t say the LGPL is always the best solution for libs. If the lib is something special which has no non-free competition, i think it’s a good idea to use the GPL so that everyone can get something in return.
April 5th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
ops. mixup, should be: “GPL only seems less copy/past-able than BSD to me”.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Hah, here I’m writing a comment after a year of inactivity. Probably vanishes in a black hole.
Finn:
You said ‘But can you stop (evil) companies or individuals from “looking at” GPL-ed source code, and use it for “inspiration” when creating theire own closed-source-monster-software?’
Well, let them look, let them copy, whatever. They’ll be busy copying and we will we waay ahead once they are done.
>Another thing, who sues on GPL-s behalf anyway?
“On GPL’s behalf”? GPL is no legal entity, if you write GPLed software and someone tries to take away your freedom, you have to defend yourself.
However, if you transmit ownership to the FSF, the FSF will defend it.
Around here, old-style companies are reeeeeally careful whether to use GPLed packages in their non-GPL-compatible products.
And bad publicity like that could kill one commercially very fast.