From Fedora Project Wiki

< FWN‎ | Beats

(General)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
=== General ===
 
=== General ===
  
[[User:Kwade|Karsten Wade]] <ref>http://iquaid.org/2009/07/06/why-relicense-fedora-documentation-and-wiki-content/</ref>
+
[[User:Kwade|Karsten Wade]] presented<ref>http://iquaid.org/2009/07/06/why-relicense-fedora-documentation-and-wiki-content/</ref> the position for relicensing the Fedora documentation (wiki, docs.fedoraproject.org, upstream guides at fedorahosted.org) from OPL to Creative Commons (CC) Attribution-Share Alike (BY SA) 3.0.
  
[[User:Pfrields|Paul W. Frields]] <ref>http://marilyn.frields.org:8080/~paul/wordpress/?p=2604</ref>
+
[[User:Pfrields|Paul W. Frields]] outlined<ref>http://marilyn.frields.org:8080/~paul/wordpress/?p=2604</ref> the (shortened) development process and schedule going forward for Fedora 12. The feature freeze (July 28) rapidly approaches!
  
[[StevenFernandez|Steven Fernandez]] <ref>http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-red-hat-really-open-source-company.html</ref>
+
[[StevenFernandez|Steven Fernandez]] asked<ref>http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-red-hat-really-open-source-company.html</ref> "Is Red Hat really an Open Source company?" Steven explained the background behind the post: "This question keeps cropping up every once in a while on different LUG lists where I lurk. It is a fairly established fact now in the FOSS world (or for that matter in the software world) that businesses can be both Open Source as well as commercial (ie: for profit). However, the specifics of the mechanism for doing this is still not well understood."
  
[[User:Dchen|Ding-Yi Chen]] <ref>http://dingyichen.livejournal.com/14055.html</ref>
+
There was a bit of discussion in the blogosphere around Microsoft's recent decision<ref>http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx</ref> to apply their Community Promise<ref>http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx</ref> (covenant not to sue) to the C# language specification and Common Language Infrastructure (CLI). [[User:Olea|Ismael Olea]] excerpted<ref>http://olea.org/diario/archive/2009/jul-07-1.html</ref> an excited e-mail from the <code>fedora-mono</code> mailing list. Not everyone was quite so optimistic however.
  
[[User:Olea|Ismael Olea]] <ref>http://olea.org/diario/archive/2009/jul-07-1.html</ref>
+
[[MichaelDeHaan|Michael DeHaan]] reminded<ref>http://michaeldehaan.net/2009/07/07/before-you-congratulate-mono/</ref> us that only the core language and libraries are covered under the promise, and notably absent are some of the components that would make it useful including Windows Forms and ADO. Michael added "My long held theory is that mono was never to be considered a legal threat, it is a tool to be used in a strategy of erosion … insert a compelling technology, then provide a migration path by adding on proprietary extensions. It erodes Linux and it erodes OSS… and advocacy for it, even in purely legal/ethical ways, using just the free bits, and so forth, help enhance that position and acceptability."
  
[[MichaelDeHaan|Michael DeHaan]] <ref>http://michaeldehaan.net/2009/07/07/before-you-congratulate-mono/</ref>
+
[[User:Alexh|Alex Hudson]] pointed out<ref>http://www.alexhudson.com/blog/2009/07/07/mono-and-mcp/</ref> that "this is going to have a surprisingly negative effect within the community, however. It validates the arguments of people worried about Mono, and this proposed split of Mono into “Standard bits covered by MCP” and “Other bits not covered by MCP” is actually going to fuel the flames: inevitably, people will assume the non-MCP bits are a total patent mine-field, no matter what is actually in that area. Parts that people are quite happily shipping right now - such as ASP.net - will be targetted next by people “anti” Mono. And for the parts covered by MCP; well, I expect not much to change: certainly, it’s not likely to convert many people to Mono."
 
 
[[User:Alexh|Alex Hudson]] <ref>http://www.alexhudson.com/blog/2009/07/07/mono-and-mcp/</ref>
 
  
 
[[DavidWoodhouse|David Woodhouse]] <ref>http://www.advogato.org/person/dwmw2/diary.html?start=207</ref>
 
[[DavidWoodhouse|David Woodhouse]] <ref>http://www.advogato.org/person/dwmw2/diary.html?start=207</ref>

Revision as of 00:41, 12 July 2009

Planet Fedora

In this section, we cover the highlights of Planet Fedora[1] - an aggregation of blogs from Fedora contributors worldwide.

Contributing Writer: Adam Batkin

General

Karsten Wade presented[1] the position for relicensing the Fedora documentation (wiki, docs.fedoraproject.org, upstream guides at fedorahosted.org) from OPL to Creative Commons (CC) Attribution-Share Alike (BY SA) 3.0.

Paul W. Frields outlined[2] the (shortened) development process and schedule going forward for Fedora 12. The feature freeze (July 28) rapidly approaches!

Steven Fernandez asked[3] "Is Red Hat really an Open Source company?" Steven explained the background behind the post: "This question keeps cropping up every once in a while on different LUG lists where I lurk. It is a fairly established fact now in the FOSS world (or for that matter in the software world) that businesses can be both Open Source as well as commercial (ie: for profit). However, the specifics of the mechanism for doing this is still not well understood."

There was a bit of discussion in the blogosphere around Microsoft's recent decision[4] to apply their Community Promise[5] (covenant not to sue) to the C# language specification and Common Language Infrastructure (CLI). Ismael Olea excerpted[6] an excited e-mail from the fedora-mono mailing list. Not everyone was quite so optimistic however.

Michael DeHaan reminded[7] us that only the core language and libraries are covered under the promise, and notably absent are some of the components that would make it useful including Windows Forms and ADO. Michael added "My long held theory is that mono was never to be considered a legal threat, it is a tool to be used in a strategy of erosion … insert a compelling technology, then provide a migration path by adding on proprietary extensions. It erodes Linux and it erodes OSS… and advocacy for it, even in purely legal/ethical ways, using just the free bits, and so forth, help enhance that position and acceptability."

Alex Hudson pointed out[8] that "this is going to have a surprisingly negative effect within the community, however. It validates the arguments of people worried about Mono, and this proposed split of Mono into “Standard bits covered by MCP” and “Other bits not covered by MCP” is actually going to fuel the flames: inevitably, people will assume the non-MCP bits are a total patent mine-field, no matter what is actually in that area. Parts that people are quite happily shipping right now - such as ASP.net - will be targetted next by people “anti” Mono. And for the parts covered by MCP; well, I expect not much to change: certainly, it’s not likely to convert many people to Mono."

David Woodhouse [9]

Michael DeHaan [10]

Vincent Danen [11]

Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail [12]

Chitlesh Goorah [13]

Scott Williams [14]