Schestowitz wrong again
Tim Smith
Moonlight and Mono enable Linux users (and Mac PPC users) to watch
streaming Obama inauguration:
<http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jan-20.html>
Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never let Moonlight
advance to handle the current version of Silverlight. Well, not only
did they "allow" it, they provided help late into the night to help the
Mono/Moonlight developers test.
Not that any Linux user actually needed this to watch the inauguration.
Dozens of sites streamed it, in many different formats. Roy made it
sound like the Silverlight-based site was the *only* online way to
watch.
--
--Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Moonlight and Mono enable Linux users (and Mac PPC users) to watch
> streaming Obama inauguration:
>
> <http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jan-20.html>
>
> Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never let Moonlight
> advance to handle the current version of Silverlight. Well, not only
> did they "allow" it, they provided help late into the night to help the
> Mono/Moonlight developers test.
How very comforting.
> Not that any Linux user actually needed this to watch the inauguration.
> Dozens of sites streamed it, in many different formats. Roy made it
> sound like the Silverlight-based site was the *only* online way to
> watch.
Don't you realize that *you* are the only one who hangs on Roy's every word?
Everyone else takes his quips with a grain of salt.
Anyway, not that I'm tempted to check, but I note Debian is not listed as
compatible with Moonlight. Moon certainly isn't in the Debian repos, though
mono is.
--
Expert, n.:
Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides.
RonB
>> Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never let Moonlight
>> advance to handle the current version of Silverlight. Well, not only
>> did they "allow" it, they provided help late into the night to help the
>> Mono/Moonlight developers test.
>
> How very comforting.
Strangely enough I was able to watch the streaming video on my Linux machine
without mono or moonlight.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Hadron
cc
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > Moonlight and Mono enable Linux users (and Mac PPC users) to watch
> > streaming Obama inauguration:
>
> > <http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jan-20.html>
>
> > Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never let Moonlight
> > advance to handle the current version of Silverlight. Well, not only
> > did they "allow" it, they provided help late into the night to help the
> > Mono/Moonlight developers test.
>
> How very comforting.
>
> > Not that any Linux user actually needed this to watch the inauguration.
> > Dozens of sites streamed it, in many different formats. Roy made it
> > sound like the Silverlight-based site was the *only* online way to
> > watch.
>
> Don't you realize that *you* are the only one who hangs on Roy's every word?
>
Everyone hangs on everyone's word in here. It is the entire purpose of
COLA. I made a typo 3 years ago, and it will surely be shoved in my
face when needed. The idea is not to have Roy acknowledge his mistake,
because that never happens, and not just for Roy. But maybe next time
when the topic of moonlight comes up, he'll have new evidence to pull
from to make more informed posts.
Don Zeigler
> Everyone hangs on everyone's word in here.
No one hangs on yours. Fuck off.
--
... The trouble with apathy these days is nobody cares.
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
High Plains Thumper
Same here. Just more FUD from Tim. Nothing to see, move along ....
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Strangely enough I was able to watch the streaming video on my
> > Linux machine without mono or moonlight.
>
> Same here. Just more FUD from Tim. Nothing to see, move along ....
You *agree* with me, and then say it is FUD!? I specifically mentioned
it was available on dozens of sites and in many formats, so Linux users
didn't need to use Mono or Moonlight.
--
--Tim Smith
DFS
> RonB wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>> Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never
>>>> let Moonlight advance to handle the current version of
>>>> Silverlight. Well, not only did they "allow" it, they
>>>> provided help late into the night to help the
>>>> Mono/Moonlight developers test.
>>> How very comforting.
>>
>> Strangely enough I was able to watch the streaming video on my
>> Linux machine without mono or moonlight.
>
> Same here. Just more FUD from Tim. Nothing to see, move along ....
What FUD?
Tim made Spamowitz look like an uninformed zealous fool. Again.
chrisv
>>
>> Everyone hangs on everyone's word in here.
Really? I wonder how I could be "hanging on" the words of the two
dozen idiots who occupy my bozo bin?
Rex Ballard
> Moonlight and Mono enable Linux users (and Mac PPC users) to watch
> streaming Obama inauguration:
> <http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jan-20.html>
> Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never let Moonlight
> advance to handle the current version of Silverlight. Well, not only
> did they "allow" it, they provided help late into the night to help the
> Mono/Moonlight developers test.
And it still wasn't enough. I tried to install Moonlight on a RHEL5
Desktop system before the inauguration and it wouldn't install.
Microsoft's token efforts to give Mono legitimacy and avoid more
claims of monopoly building, backfired.
> Not that any Linux user actually needed this to watch the inauguration.
> Dozens of sites streamed it, in many different formats. Roy made it
> sound like the Silverlight-based site was the *only* online way to
> watch.
MSNBC - Micrcosoft's partner with NBC, announced a really nifty new
feature that was going to create a 3D image of the inauguration using
all of the cell phone pictures sent to MSNBC during the event.
Microsoft was providing the software - and you found out when you
tried to look at the picture, that you needed Silverlight to view the
nifty new picture. Of course, it didn't work on FireFox on Windows
either, and I didn't bother firing up IE, because - as you point out,
there were lots of "Traditional" feeds. In addition, CNN did a
similar composite using a Linux/Solaris based solution, which worked
pretty well on Linux.
I've been enjoying MSNBC, especially Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow,
for their light-hearted and often comical treatment of the news. I'm
sure it won't be long before they turn their guns on Obama. It seems
like MSNBC has found a "formula" of just tearing apart the current
administration, regardless of who it is. Chris Mathews is already
ripping into the Obama administration for Geitner. The irony is that
he was one of those recommended by the Republicans as well as the
Democrats.
Does this mean that Fox, the great defender of the status quo, will
suddenly become Liberal?
the MSNBC web site did have a "live" feed of the inauguration, but the
delay was substantial, and during the actual swearing in, the server
disconnected me. I wonder how many other people lost the feed at the
critical moment. Par for the course for Microsoft.
Fortunately, my DVR (*nix powered) recorded the critical moment, as
well as the Fox channel. I also watched the CNN feed via Internet.
> --Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
Strange that I can't see Snot Glassers idiocy. Or that from "cc", for that
matter.
Both are killfiled, and only quoting will elevate their drivel to make it
to my screen
--
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with
none.
Hadron
> On Jan 20, 9:21 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Moonlight and Mono enable Linux users (and Mac PPC users) to watch
>> streaming Obama inauguration:
>> <http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jan-20.html>
>
>> Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never let Moonlight
>> advance to handle the current version of Silverlight. Well, not only
>> did they "allow" it, they provided help late into the night to help the
>> Mono/Moonlight developers test.
>
> And it still wasn't enough. I tried to install Moonlight on a RHEL5
> Desktop system before the inauguration and it wouldn't install.
> Microsoft's token efforts to give Mono legitimacy and avoid more
> claims of monopoly building, backfired.
You are blaming MS for a Linux clone not installing on Red Hat?
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ High Plains Thumper on Wednesday 21 January 2009 13:43 : \____
>
>
> RonB wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>> Roy said this would never happen. Microsoft would never
>>>> let Moonlight advance to handle the current version of
>>>> Silverlight.
True. It's still true. Moonlight is "lead pony".
>>>> Well, not only did they "allow" it, they
>>>> provided help late into the night to help the
>>>> Mono/Moonlight developers test.
The generous Microsoft!!!
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-01-20-015-35-NW-SW-0009
" Microsoft will love you if you do.
However, before you do you should understand Microsoft’s thinking about
this topic. Jame Plamondon, although the first head of dirty tricks at
Microsoft he has done a mea culpa, wrote a training manual for his troops
entitled “Effective Evangelism”.
http://platformevangelism.spaces.live.com/blog/cns !37F174267DC274C!152.entry
Under the paragraph entitled “Evangelism is War” he wrote:
Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory;
every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat.
Total victory … is the universal adoption of our standards by developers, as
this is an important step towards total victory for Microsoft itself: “A
computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software.”
MONO and Moonlight are BIG victories for Microsoft, because it keeps some
developers and distros dancing to Microsoft’s tune. In the future, after
enough applications and distros have Microsoft technology buried too deep into
their work to be easily removed without starting over, they should not be
surprised when (not if) Microsoft pulls their plug by extending (sound
familiar?) those two technologies with patented and proprietary components
that leave them setting on a desert island unless they give up their FOSS
freedom completely and move onto the Microsoft plantation. THAT would be
the “total victory” that Microsoft strives for.
Fortunately, no current distro that I am familiar with depends on MONO for
its essential activities. You can check you installation by using the “locate”
command from a root console to search for “libmono”. If you find files with
those characters in their names use Synaptic (or what ever) to select those
libraries and remove them. Then reboot. If you distro doesn’t come back up
then your distro is hooked. IF it does come back up then check for “Beagle”
and other apps which use MONO and see if they still work. IF they do then
you’ve missed some mono libraries. If they don’t then remove them as well.
DON’T GIVE MICROSOFT ITS VICTORY!
—
GreyGeek"
>>> How very comforting.
>>
>> Strangely enough I was able to watch the streaming video on my
>> Linux machine without mono or moonlight.
>
> Same here. Just more FUD from Tim. Nothing to see, move along ....
Tim's stalking is bordering the disease and the miserable.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Every beginning must start somewhere
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl3ONwACgkQU4xAY3RXLo52GgCgm7P/ymswj+F/HEXnKgfXlfHT
bf4AnieWUiXaVIXwPXJqeS9l0wty2NMr
=0Gn6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
chrisv
>You *agree* with me, and then say it is FUD!? I specifically mentioned
>it was available on dozens of sites and in many formats, so Linux users
>didn't need to use Mono or Moonlight.
A fart that smells like roses is still a fart. 8)
Peter Köhlmann
And he is right. Moonlight is problematic to install on anything besides
SuSE/Novell. On those install is dead easy
--
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-01-20-015-35-NW-SW-0009
He's very confused. He doesn't seem to know the difference between
specifications and implementations, and between closed source and
open source.
...
> Tim's stalking is bordering the disease and the miserable.
You still haven't explained how it is "stalking" to occasionally read
your website, and occasionally point out the errors you make there.
--
--Tim Smith
Rex Ballard
Tim claims that Microsoft did everything they needed to do to support
Mono/Moonlight and make sure that it was ready for a major event that
was supposed to be a major demonstration of Microsoft's newest toy.
I pointed out that whatever Microsoft contributed, it wasn't enough.
Doug Mentohl
> He's very confused. He doesn't seem to know the difference between specifications and implementations, and between closed source and open source.
"When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono
runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to
relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms"
Peter Köhlmann
It was enough. Moonlight was ready for download for SuSE/Novell
--
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end
Miguel de Icaza
> And he is right.Moonlight is problematic to install on anything besidesSuSE/Novell. On those install is dead easy
I suspect you did not even try to install it, did you?
Moonlight is installed as Firefox plugin and we test this on all sorts
of Unix systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE) and it works like
this:
1. Click on download from www.go-mono.com/download (we auto-detect
your platform, so you do not need to do anything).
2. Click "Install" when you are prompted for install or cancel
3. Restart the browser.
The experience is *identical* for all the systems.
Miguel.
Peter Köhlmann
> Hello,
>
>> And he is right.Moonlight is problematic to install on anything
>> besidesSuSE/Novell. On those install is dead easy
>
> I suspect you did not even try to install it, did you?
I have installed it. Runs fine so far
> Moonlight is installed as Firefox plugin and we test this on all sorts
> of Unix systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE) and it works like
> this:
>
> 1. Click on download from www.go-mono.com/download (we auto-detect
> your platform, so you do not need to do anything).
> 2. Click "Install" when you are prompted for install or cancel
> 3. Restart the browser.
>
> The experience is *identical* for all the systems.
>
> Miguel.
Right. For *Moonlight* it is.
Now tell us all about the many default installations for Mono, needed to
run it. SuSE/Novell offer it by default. Most others don't
--
Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
a trail of destruction behind it.
Sermo Malifer
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> He's very confused. He doesn't seem to know the difference between
>> specifications and implementations, and between closed source and open
>> source.
" Why does Novell require a copyright assignment?"
> "When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono
> runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to
> relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms"
"This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties
that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code."
"Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime
engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release
those changes back. "
> http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
" What license or licenses are you using for the Mono Project?
We use three open source licenses:
* The C# compiler is dual-licensed under the MIT/X11 license and
the GNU General Public License
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html) (GPL).
* The tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public
License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html) (GPL).
* The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/library.html#TOC1) (LGPL 2.0).
* The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html) license.
Both the Mono runtime and the Mono C# Compiler are also available under
a proprietary license for those who can not use the LGPL and the GPL in
their code. "
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Miguel de Icaza on Wednesday 21 January 2009 21:46 : \____
Where does one acquire a licence to use it? From Novell?
You know, even Dan O'Brian acknowledges that it may be a patent problem.
You can't fool people forever.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl3pV8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7GFACdH+7VKqnIz3bwavALm9FFpW06
3UMAoLQKAWWCyGwmSe3GG64UOHJCokx+
=BpGH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Terry Porter
> Hello,
>
>> And he is right.Moonlight is problematic to install on anything
>> besidesSuSE/Novell. On those install is dead easy
>
> I suspect you did not even try to install it, did you?
>
> Moonlight is installed as Firefox plugin and we test this on all sorts
> of Unix systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE) and it works like
> this:
>
> 1. Click on download from www.go-mono.com/download (we auto-detect
Not Found
The requested URL /download was not found on this server.
Apache/2 Server at www.go-mono.com Port 80
> your platform, so you do not need to do anything).
> 2. Click "Install" when you are prompted for install or cancel
> 3. Restart the browser.
>
> The experience is *identical* for all the systems.
>
> Miguel.
And not available for Gentoo via the released packages.
gronk1 mnt # emerge -s moonlight
Searching...
[ Results for search key : moonlight ]
[ Applications found : 0 ]
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Terry Porter on Wednesday 21 January 2009 23:45 : \____
>
>
> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>> And he is right.Moonlight is problematic to install on anything
>>> besidesSuSE/Novell. On those install is dead easy
>>
>> I suspect you did not even try to install it, did you?
>>
>> Moonlight is installed as Firefox plugin and we test this on all sorts
>> of Unix systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE) and it works like
>> this:
>>
>> 1. Click on download from www.go-mono.com/download (we auto-detect
> Not Found
>
> The requested URL /download was not found on this server.
> Apache/2 Server at www.go-mono.com Port 80
>
>
>> your platform, so you do not need to do anything).
>> 2. Click "Install" when you are prompted for install or cancel
>> 3. Restart the browser.
>>
>> The experience is *identical* for all the systems.
>>
>> Miguel.
>
> And not available for Gentoo via the released packages.
>
> gronk1 mnt # emerge -s moonlight
> Searching...
> [ Results for search key : moonlight ]
> [ Applications found : 0 ]
That's a good thing. Well done, Gentoo.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Community is code, code is community
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Jan 15 09:01 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl3whcACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6WjACgs0egvciwabxU1845yj/J1R5P
pZsAoLSUVW46So67pH7xZN3KhKbDlXHP
=9BM0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sinister Midget
> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>> I suspect you did not even try to install it, did you?
>>
>> Moonlight is installed as Firefox plugin and we test this on all sorts
>> of Unix systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE) and it works like
>> this:
>>
>> 1. Click on download from www.go-mono.com/download (we auto-detect
> Not Found
>
> The requested URL /download was not found on this server.
> Apache/2 Server at www.go-mono.com Port 80
You weren't supposed to *try* it!
But I _did_ find the download link. Despite my using a version of
Ubuntu right now, it doesn't know what I have. But I can go to the
"unsupported downloads" section, where I'm told how to pollute my
sources.list with mono (which also happens to be the nickname for a
disease; coincidence?) if they aren't already polluted.
Which reminds me. Time to change distros again:
http://www.mono-project.com/Other_Downloads
Ubuntu
Official Packages
Mono is available in all Ubuntu releases, and installed by default.
To develop software with Mono, install the mono-devel package on
Dapper (6.06), Gutsy (7.10) or Jaunty (9.04), by pasting the line
below into your browser address bar (or using synaptic):
I don't think so. I choose to remain Microslop-free.
>> your platform, so you do not need to do anything).
>> 2. Click "Install" when you are prompted for install or cancel
>> 3. Restart the browser.
>>
>> The experience is *identical* for all the systems.
> And not available for Gentoo via the released packages.
>
> gronk1 mnt # emerge -s moonlight
> Searching...
> [ Results for search key : moonlight ]
> [ Applications found : 0 ]
Why would you want it anyway? It's not like there aren't other, safer
methods to view content.
--
If Bill Gates had a penny for every time a Windows box
crashed....Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Sinister Midget on Thursday 22 January 2009 01:10 : \____
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIQ7Y61nIY
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | $> apt-get -not windows
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 22.6%us, 5.0%sy, 0.1%ni, 70.6%id, 1.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.4%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl35RwACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5ngwCgh2B9vWgsHdYJ+KQzdgeQ5ljb
91EAnjnRw9JPydA4wNZRPQesRXCTTZFE
=hMt5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Terry Porter
> On 2009-01-21, Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> claimed:
>> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
>>> I suspect you did not even try to install it, did you?
>>>
>>> Moonlight is installed as Firefox plugin and we test this on all sorts
>>> of Unix systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE) and it works like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> 1. Click on download from www.go-mono.com/download (we auto-detect
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested URL /download was not found on this server.
>> Apache/2 Server at www.go-mono.com Port 80
>
> You weren't supposed to *try* it!
Always pays to check for validity :)
>
> But I _did_ find the download link. Despite my using a version of
> Ubuntu right now, it doesn't know what I have. But I can go to the
> "unsupported downloads" section, where I'm told how to pollute my
> sources.list with mono (which also happens to be the nickname for a
> disease; coincidence?) if they aren't already polluted.
>
> Which reminds me. Time to change distros again:
>
> http://www.mono-project.com/Other_Downloads
>
> Ubuntu
> Official Packages
>
> Mono is available in all Ubuntu releases, and installed by default.
> To develop software with Mono, install the mono-devel package on
> Dapper (6.06), Gutsy (7.10) or Jaunty (9.04), by pasting the line
> below into your browser address bar (or using synaptic):
>
> I don't think so. I choose to remain Microslop-free.
Ditto.
>
>>> your platform, so you do not need to do anything).
>>> 2. Click "Install" when you are prompted for install or cancel
>>> 3. Restart the browser.
>>>
>>> The experience is *identical* for all the systems.
>
>> And not available for Gentoo via the released packages.
>>
>> gronk1 mnt # emerge -s moonlight
>> Searching...
>> [ Results for search key : moonlight ]
>> [ Applications found : 0 ]
>
> Why would you want it anyway?
I *don't*. I was only checking to see if it was available for Gentoo, but it
isn't.
If it was, I would have installed it to see if it installed easily as
claimed, then uninstalled it.
> It's not like there aren't other, safer
> methods to view content.
Absolutely, besides I don't trust Novel post their Microsoft deal.
George Barca
Putting a / at the end of the link made it work for me, however
it was extremely confusing at that point so IMHO it's not a
simple download at all.
George Barca
georgeb...@geeeeemale.com
Miguel de Icaza
> >> besidesSuSE/Novell. On those install is dead easy
[...]
> Right. For *Moonlight* it is.
So we agree then: Moonlight is easy to install.
Your original post said that it was not, I accept your apology.
> Now tell us all about the many default installations for Mono, needed to
> run it. SuSE/Novell offer it by default. Most others don't
Moonlight 1.0 does not use Mono.
Moonlight 2.0 will bundle a subset of Mono, does not require a
previous install to work.
I am glad that I was able to provide some free education for you
today, you know, learn one new thing every day.
Miguel de Icaza
Correct. When you get Moonlight, you get it under the terms of the
GNU LGPL + MIT X11 license.
Btw, it is spelled "license", not "licence".
Miguel
Miguel de Icaza
> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> >> besidesSuSE/Novell. On those install is dead easy
>
> > I suspect you did not even try to install it, did you?
>
> > of Unix systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE) and it works like
> > this:
>
> > 1. Click on download fromwww.go-mono.com/download(we auto-detect
Ah, sorry about that.
I typed that from memory, the real url is www.go-mono.com/moonlight
Or the first google match for "Moonlight" or "Silverlight Linux"
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Miguel de Icaza on Thursday 22 January 2009 04:40 : \____
You're not Linus, Miguel <
http://apcmag.com/linus_torvalds_on_regression_laziness_and_having_his_code_rejected.htm
>. You could learn from Obama about humility. ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEUEARECAAYFAkl4SnUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6tGACY3YhFI2B1kdbtFDLs6Xn9piaE
jwCcC0xaLZw5floAJWC5EsfXE0KKxJ8=
=XNTn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Miguel de Icaza on Thursday 22 January 2009 04:42 : \____
Only in America.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Apache: commercial software's days are numbered
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 2075800k total, 1660792k used, 415008k free, 12460k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl4SfsACgkQU4xAY3RXLo75EgCcD2YnNGX7Y9D0E+MGX7stOUFQ
qIIAn1NZJ/sRMb7p2dfRs8qOMgF5+7ql
=Kmw/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
cc
> cc wrote:
> > Everyone hangs on everyone's word in here.
>
Well you certainly seem to.
cc
> >cc wrote:
>
> >> Everyone hangs on everyone's word in here.
>
> dozen idiots who occupy my bozo bin?
It was some hyperbole. No one hangs on your words because you're a
fucking inbred retard.
*PLONK*
cc
> chrisv wrote:
> >>cc wrote:
>
> >>> Everyone hangs on everyone's word in here.
>
> > Really? I wonder how I could be "hanging on" the words of the two
> > dozen idiots who occupy my bozo bin?
>
> matter.
> Both are killfiled, and only quoting will elevate their drivel to make it
> to my screen
Thanks for letting everyone know! We have never heard that from you or
William Poaster before!
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
>> Why would you want it anyway? It's not like there aren't other, safer
>> methods to view content.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIQ7Y61nIY
Hail to the Chief!
--
Woke up this morning, don't believe what I saw.
Hundred billion bottles washed up on the shore.
Seems I'm not alone in being alone.
Hundred billion castaways looking for a call.
-- The Police, "Message in a Bottle"
ml2mst
> S
*plonk*
--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin
|_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
|0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Chris Ahlstrom on Thursday 22 January 2009 12:28 : \____
>
>
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Why would you want it anyway? It's not like there aren't other, safer
>>> methods to view content.
>>
>> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIQ7Y61nIY
>
> Hail to the Chief!
I'm not sure he wrote the speech. He has PR manager/s.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Download Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl5FSgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7zpQCfUnNI6YxWxdeQzmOtbv9Epie8
KJYAoKjKaIeHdCO481WcI0O5ObkxvUS2
=+yoq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim Smith
ml2mst <ml2mst...@CAPSgmail.com> wrote:
> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> > S
>
> *plonk*
Well, at least now we know why you are such an idiot when it comes to
technology.
--
--Tim Smith
Homer
> I typed that from memory, the real url is www.go-mono.com/moonlight
>
> Or the first google match for "Moonlight"
Actually, it's at position six, after three entries for Moonlight the TV
series, and two YouTube videos (LeAnn Rimes - Can't Fight The Moonlight,
and Moonlight - Alex O'Loughlin).
> "Silverlight Linux"
The first entry is "Silverlight on Linux Already - Jesse Ezell Blog",
followed by several more pages of blogs, news sites, social networking
sites, and various Microsoft sites, including Port25. Your own blog is
listed at position 59. After ten pages, I gave up looking for any site
with either "novell" or "mono" in the domain.
However, I did follow your corrected link, installed the 64-bit version
of the Moonlight plugin for Firefox, and tested it on the following
listed test site:
http://www.mason-zimbler.com/festivegreetings/
I was subsequently greeted by a dialogue box entitled "Moonlight Codecs
Installer":
[quote]
Would you like to install the required add-on to play the content of
this page?
This page requires the Microsoft Media Pack to be installed to play
multimedia content.
If you choose, the software will be automatically downloaded and
installed from Microsoft's web site.
[] Do not ask me to install this add-on again
[Cancel] [Install Codecs]
[quote]
Clicking on "Install Codecs" results in this the following message being
displayed:
[quote]
End User License Agreement
Before the required software can be installed, you must first agree to
the End User License Agreement below.
MICROSOFT PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS
MICROSOFT MEDIA PACK 1.0
ONLY FOR USE WITH NOVELL'S MOONLIGHT 1.0 RUNNING IN AN INTERNET BROWSER
These license terms are an agreement between Microsoft Corporation (or
based on where you live, one of its affiliates) and you. Please read
them. They apply to the software named above, which includes the media
on which you received it, if any. The terms also apply to any Microsoft
- Updates (including but not limited to bug fixes, patches,
updates, upgrades, enhancements, new versions, and successors
to the software, collectively called "Updates"),
- supplements,
- Internet-based services, and
- support services
for this software, unless other terms accompany those items. If so,
those terms apply.
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept
them, do not use the software.
If you comply with these license terms, you have the rights below.
1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. You may install and use any number of
copies of the software only with the software identified above running
in an Internet browser on a personal computer.
2. TERM. The term of this agreement is until the commercial release of
Novell’s Moonlight 1.0 but in no event later than June 1, 2009.
3. PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE. This software is a pre-release version. It
may not work the way a final version of the software will. We may
change it for the final, commercial version. We also may not release a
commercial version.
4. FEEDBACK. If you give feedback about the software to Microsoft, you
give to Microsoft, without charge, the right to use, share and
commercialize your feedback in any way and for any purpose. You also
give to third parties, without charge, any patent rights needed for
their products, technologies and services to use or interface with any
specific parts of a Microsoft software or service that includes the
feedback. You will not give feedback that is subject to a license that
requires Microsoft to license its software or documentation to third
parties because we include your feedback in them. These rights survive
this agreement.
5. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement
only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all
other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this
limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this
agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations
in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You
also may not
- work around any technical limitations in the software;
- reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software,
except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly
permits, despite this limitation;
- publish the software for others to copy;
- rent, lease or lend the software; or
- transfer the software or this agreement to any third party.
6. NOTICE ABOUT VC-1 VISUAL STANDARDS. This software may include VC-1
visual decoding technology. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice:
THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR
THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO") OR (B) DECODE VC-1
VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND
NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER
LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE
IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.
If you have questions about the VC-1 visual standard, please contact
MPEG LA, L.L.C., 250 Steele Street, Suite 300, Denver Colorado 80206;
http://www.mpegla.com
7. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. The software is subject to United States export
laws and regulations. You must comply with all domestic and
international export laws and regulations that apply to the software.
These laws include restrictions on destinations, end users and end use.
For additional information, see www.microsoft.com/exporting
8. SUPPORT SERVICES. Because this software is "as is," we may not
provide support services for it.
9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement, and the terms for supplements,
Updates, Internet-based services and support services that you use, are
the entire agreement for the software and support services.
10. APPLICABLE LAW.
a. United States. If you acquired the software in the United States,
Washington state law governs the interpretation of this agreement and
applies to claims for breach of it, regardless of conflict of laws
principles. The laws of the state where you live govern all other
claims, including claims under state consumer protection laws, unfair
competition laws, and in tort.
b. Outside the United States. If you acquired the software in any
other country, the laws of that country apply.
11. LEGAL EFFECT. This agreement describes certain legal rights. You
may have other rights under the laws of your country. You may also have
rights with respect to the party from whom you acquired the software.
This agreement does not change your rights under the laws of your
country if the laws of your country do not permit it to do so.
12. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. The software is licensed "as-is." You
bear the risk of using it. Microsoft gives no express warranties,
guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under
your local laws which this agreement cannot change. To the extent
permitted under your local laws, Microsoft excludes the implied
warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and
non-infringement.
13. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF REMEDIES AND DAMAGES. You can
recover from Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to U.S.
$5.00. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential,
lost profits, special, indirect or incidental damages.
This limitation applies to
- anything related to the software, services, content (including
code) on third party Internet sites, or third party programs;
and
- claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, guarantee
or condition, strict liability, negligence, or other tort to
the extent permitted by applicable law.
It also applies even if Microsoft knew or should have known about the
possibility of the damages. The above limitation or exclusion may not
apply to you because your country may not allow the exclusion or
limitation of incidental, consequential or other damages.
[quote]
I don't agree with this EULA, therefore I can't install this software.
To resolve this problem, I downloaded the sources for Moonlight:
svn co svn://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/moon
The license for this software is as follows (from moon/LICENSE):
[quote]
* Moonlight source code (src/, plugin/)
Unless explicitly stated, this code is licensed under the
terms of the GNU LGPL 2 license only (no "later versions").
[/quote]
Why isn't Moonlight licensed under GPLv3?
[quote]
In addition to the GNU LGPL, this code is available for
relicensing for non-LGPL use, contact Novell for details
(mo...@novell.com).
We consider non-LGPL use instances where you use this on an
embedded system where the end user is not able to upgrade the
Moonlight installation or distribution that is part of your
product (Section 6 and 7), you would have to obtain a
commercial license from Novell (consider software burned into
a ROM, systems where end users would not be able to upgrade,
an embedded console, a game console that imposes limitations
on the distribution and access to the code, a phone platform
that prevents end users from upgrading Moonlight).
[/quote]
This seems to preclude distributing Moonlight on a LiveCD or other
immutable medium, which seems like a rather odd restriction. Perhaps you
could explain.
I then tried to build Moonlight by following the instructions given in
the link you provided:
[quote]
Download and install the moon tarball or moon SVN module from SVN:
* configure like this: ./configure
* Build and install, run: make && make install
* To install the plugin in your home: make test-plugin
[/quote]
moon]$ ./configure
bash: ./configure: No such file or directory
I notice you now use an autogen script, so I assume the above
information is now out of date. Perhaps you could update that page to
reflect this change.
After manually resolving difficulties with missing build dependencies
(expat-devel, firefox-devel), I then proceeded with the build, but
encountered this error:
"application.cpp:18:37: mono/metadata/appdomain.h: No such file or
directory"
And the build failed.
So I installed the following to meet this missing dependency (including
sub-dependants):
mono-core, mono-devel, mono-data, mono-winforms, mono-web
And tried again, but encountered yet another error:
checking for MONO... configure: error: Package requirements (mono >=
2.2) were not met:
Requested 'mono >= 2.2' but version of Mono is 1.2.5.1
After checking "./configure --help" for clues, I discovered that I
needed to disable managed code to remove this dependency, so I tried
again with the "--with-managed=no" flag set, but I still received
exactly the same error.
application.cpp:18:37: error: mono/metadata/appdomain.h: No such file or
directory
Even though this file does exist:
/usr/include/mono-1.0/mono/metadata/appdomain.h
At this point, I'm basically stuck.
So the question is, how do I, or anyone else who wishes to only use Free
Software, view the contents of that Web page?
Also, when can I expect to see a prebuilt package of Moonlight, built
against Free Software codecs rather than Microsoft's proprietary
software, in my distro's repo?
TIA.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
04:47:10 up 78 days, 12:30, 5 users, load average: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Miguel de Icaza spake thusly:
>
>> I typed that from memory, the real url is www.go-mono.com/moonlight
>>
>> Or the first google match for "Moonlight"
>
> However, I did follow your corrected link, installed the 64-bit version
> of the Moonlight plugin for Firefox, and tested it on the following
> listed test site:
>
> http://www.mason-zimbler.com/festivegreetings/
>
> I was subsequently greeted by a dialogue box entitled "Moonlight Codecs
> Installer":
>
> [quote]
> Would you like to install the required add-on to play the content of
> this page?
>
> <le waste de snippage>
>
> At this point, I'm basically stuck.
>
> So the question is, how do I, or anyone else who wishes to only use Free
> Software, view the contents of that Web page?
>
> Also, when can I expect to see a prebuilt package of Moonlight, built
> against Free Software codecs rather than Microsoft's proprietary
> software, in my distro's repo?
I'll check back for a response later.
Thanks, Homer.
--
Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?
chrisv
> (snip excellent post)
I predict "Miguel" slinking quietly from this thread. 8)
--
'And its KDE - nothing there for the Gnome purist. "Choice" diluting
the useful applications once again.' - "True Linux advocate" Hadron
Quark
Terry Porter
> Verily I say unto thee, that Miguel de Icaza spake thusly:
>
>> I typed that from memory, the real url is www.go-mono.com/moonlight
>>
>> Or the first google match for "Moonlight"
<snip excellent technical report re installing Moonlight from source>
> At this point, I'm basically stuck.
>
>
> So the question is, how do I, or anyone else who wishes to only use Free
> Software, view the contents of that Web page?
>
> Also, when can I expect to see a prebuilt package of Moonlight, built
> against Free Software codecs rather than Microsoft's proprietary
> software, in my distro's repo?
>
> TIA.
>
This may be the reason Moonlight does not exist as a *released* Ebuild
package for Gentoo, as Gentoo builds everything from source.
Homer
> This may be the reason Moonlight does not exist as a *released*
> Ebuild package for Gentoo, as Gentoo builds everything from source.
And also why it can never be distributed by any distro except Novell's,
since one must be a direct "downstream recipient" of that software from
Novell:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/covenant_silverlight.html
Therefore this is not Free Software, since it lacks at least one of the
necessary Four Freedoms (the right to distribute).
Although it is rather curious to note, that someone by the name of Jo
Shields seems to be attempting to poison Debian with Moonlight:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=501190
Quite how he intends to succeed in this ambition, I'm not entirely sure,
given the above covenant. A more important question, though, is "why"?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
04:56:28 up 79 days, 12:39, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.04
Terry Porter
> Verily I say unto thee, that Terry Porter spake thusly:
>
>> This may be the reason Moonlight does not exist as a *released*
>> Ebuild package for Gentoo, as Gentoo builds everything from source.
>
> And also why it can never be distributed by any distro except Novell's,
> since one must be a direct "downstream recipient" of that software from
> Novell:
>
> http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/covenant_silverlight.html
>
> Therefore this is not Free Software, since it lacks at least one of the
> necessary Four Freedoms (the right to distribute).
<doh!> of course. Sorry, I read your outstanding install attempt doco and
promptly forgot!
>
> Although it is rather curious to note, that someone by the name of Jo
> Shields seems to be attempting to poison Debian with Moonlight:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=501190
>
> Quite how he intends to succeed in this ambition, I'm not entirely sure,
> given the above covenant. A more important question, though, is "why"?
>
I can think of one possible reason .
The Lost Packet
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Terry Porter spake thusly:
>>
>>> This may be the reason Moonlight does not exist as a *released*
>>> Ebuild package for Gentoo, as Gentoo builds everything from source.
>> And also why it can never be distributed by any distro except Novell's,
>> since one must be a direct "downstream recipient" of that software from
>> Novell:
>>
>> http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/covenant_silverlight.html
>>
>> Therefore this is not Free Software, since it lacks at least one of the
>> necessary Four Freedoms (the right to distribute).
>
> <doh!> of course. Sorry, I read your outstanding install attempt doco and
> promptly forgot!
>
>> Although it is rather curious to note, that someone by the name of Jo
>> Shields seems to be attempting to poison Debian with Moonlight:
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=501190
>>
>> Quite how he intends to succeed in this ambition, I'm not entirely sure,
>> given the above covenant. A more important question, though, is "why"?
>>
>
> I can think of one possible reason .
>
>
I can't get it installed in Fedora 10-ppc either. SELinux screams blue
bloody murder about the fact that it isn't signed and flat refuses to
install it. Same with Flash 10. Only way around it I can think of (and
will be trying it later cos right now I can't be arsed) is to disable
the SELinux modules temporarily (which defeats the object of a hardened
kernel...) so the Moonlight and Flash plugins might install. Whether
they'll then run when the kernel modules are reactivated, is an entirely
different set of problems.
Aside: Fedora 10-ppc looks fargin' nice but the default active SELinux
kernel modules slow the system to a crawl.
Miguel de Icaza
>
> To resolve this problem, I downloaded the sources for Moonlight:
>
> svn co svn://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/moon
You should have downloaded the tarball release, which is our official
release.
Only developers use SVN checkouts (or GIT, or Mercurial, or CVS) as
the tree is not only in constant flux it usually requires newer
versions of software as you just witnessed. The same applies to
pretty much every open source project, regular people would not get
Linus' GIT tree as their stock kernel.
If you want plain instructions on building Moonlight with FFMPEG, you
can read the RPM spec files that exist for moonlight, there are plenty
of them.
> Why isn't Moonlight licensed under GPLv3?
Because whoever writes the software gets to choose the license they
use.
I have not researched the GPL3 in depth myself, so before I commit to
it, I need to spend time learning it, and understanding what that
means for the software I write. I know that Linus does not like it,
and for now his opinion on the license weights on my decision.
> This seems to preclude distributing Moonlight on a LiveCD or other
> immutable medium, which seems like a rather odd restriction. Perhaps you
> could explain.
You can upgrade Moonlight if you obtain it from a LiveCD.
miguel
Homer
>> software.
>>
>> To resolve this problem, I downloaded the sources for Moonlight:
>>
>> svn co svn://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/moon
>
> You should have downloaded the tarball release, which is our official
> release.
Well I was following the only available links to the source on that page
(even now, I'm having difficulty locating the release tarball).
Ah, I see the problem. For some strange reason that page uses Javascript
to generate the URL, instead of using a simple HTML tag, and since I use
the NoScript plugin for Firefox, it blocked that Javascript and thus the
link.
Having now downloaded the elusive tarball, I tried to compile the source
therein, but encountered yet /another/ error:
utils.h:60: error: ‘ssize_t’ does not name a type
And the build fails.
So now I'm right back where I started.
> Only developers use SVN checkouts
Yes, I did think it was strange that the only available link was to SVN.
> If you want plain instructions on building Moonlight with FFMPEG, you
> can read the RPM spec files that exist for moonlight, there are
> plenty of them.
I didn't see anything relevant on that site.
A quick Google for "Moonlight RPM spec" produces this:
http://dries.ulyssis.org/apt/packages/moonlight/info.html
But that just turns out to be "a free software modeller and renderer for
3D scenes".
I could spend the rest of my evening hunting for this spec file but I've
better things to do, and I'm not sure it would actually resolve this bug
anyway, unless there's some patch required to make Moonlight work (under
Fedora). If you're aware of such a patch, perhaps you could just tell me
about it, and save me some time.
>> Why isn't Moonlight licensed under GPLv3?
>
> Because whoever writes the software gets to choose the license they
> use.
>
> I have not researched the GPL3 in depth myself
Really?
You must be the only Free Software developer on earth who hasn't, then.
It's not exactly the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's a fairly short, and
quite unambiguous license, set out in clear and concise terms. It's has
also been available for nearly two years, and even before that in draft
form.
Why don't you read it now, it should only take you a couple of minutes:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
So what exactly are your concerns and questions about this license?
> so before I commit to it, I need to spend time learning it, and
> understanding what that means for the software I write. I know that
> Linus does not like it, and for now his opinion on the license
> weights on my decision.
So you've chosen to ignore something you don't yet understand, because
someone else holds a negative opinion of it.
Isn't that rather narrow-minded?
Or is there something else you're not telling me?
>> This seems to preclude distributing Moonlight on a LiveCD or other
>> immutable medium, which seems like a rather odd restriction.
>> Perhaps you could explain.
>
> You can upgrade Moonlight if you obtain it from a LiveCD.
That's an evasive and misleading response, since obtaining Moonlight via
the medium is not the issue, it's the ability to upgrade the distributed
software /in place/, which on an immutable medium, like a LiveCD distro,
is not possible, and thus contravenes this "anti-embedded" clause you've
added to the (otherwise) GPL license for Moonlight.
Now certainly there is the possibility that a LiveCD distro might use an
overlay using unionfs, to mitigate the immutability of the medium by use
of a persistent file on a HDD, but /equally/ there is also the perfectly
reasonable possibility that it won't ... and shouldn't /have/ to just to
satisfy Moonlight's unreasonable conditions.
Let's take another look at this clause:
[quote]
We consider non-LGPL use instances where you use this on an
embedded system where the end user is not able to upgrade the
Moonlight installation or distribution that is part of your
product
[/quote]
A LiveCD is a /product/ which is not able to be upgraded in place, which
includes any packages on that product, like Moonlight.
Your misleading response is only true if the user /installs/ that distro
onto a re-writeable media /from/ the LiveCD (and for this purpose, using
a persistent overlay is tantamount to a form of "install").
But what if the system lacks a HDD or any other form of writeable media,
or even the means to connect any, but instead comes with a Linux LiveCD,
for security or whatever other purpose?
It seems such systems are prohibited from distributing Moonlight.
Why?
And again, mainly for the benefit of those who lack either the capacity
or patience to try to build software from sources, I ask you to give me
some idea of when a pre-compiled binary of Moonlight, linked to ffmpeg,
will become available?
I suppose I should /also/ ask, will such a release violate Moonlight's
license, or be subjugated by the hidden pitfalls of any supplemental
restrictions imposed by either Novell or Microsoft?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
06:07:34 up 80 days, 13:50, 4 users, load average: 0.31, 0.38, 0.44
robert.e...@gmail.com
> >> Why isn't Moonlight licensed under GPLv3?
>
> > Because whoever writes the software gets to choose the license they
> > use.
>
> > I have not researched the GPL3 in depth myself
>
> Really?
>
> You must be the only Free Software developer on earth who hasn't, then.
>
> It's not exactly the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's a fairly short, and
> quite unambiguous license, set out in clear and concise terms. It's has
> also been available for nearly two years, and even before that in draft
> form.
Considering the fact that Roy Schestowitz himself was unable to
understand the implications of the GPL, as evidenced here:
I wouldn't be so quick to judge someone who actually wants to take the
proper time to understand it fully and properly.
> > so before I commit to it, I need to spend time learning it, and
> > understanding what that means for the software I write. I know that
> > Linus does not like it, and for now his opinion on the license
> > weights on my decision.
>
> So you've chosen to ignore something you don't yet understand, because
> someone else holds a negative opinion of it.
No, he's simply decided to postpone licensing his software under the
GPLv3 until he has the time to decide his position on it. What's the
rush? Gtk+ and Qt are also under LGPLv2, the Linux kernel is under
GPLv2, and a lot of other FLOSS software is staying under the [L]GPLv2
as well.
>
> Isn't that rather narrow-minded?
Just because he's not a knee-jerk reactionist like yourself doesn't
mean he's narrow-minded. I'm not even sure how you can even draw that
conclusion. I suspect it was just a personal attack?
>
> >> This seems to preclude distributing Moonlight on a LiveCD or other
> >> immutable medium, which seems like a rather odd restriction.
> >> Perhaps you could explain.
>
> > You can upgrade Moonlight if you obtain it from a LiveCD.
>
> That's an evasive and misleading response, since obtaining Moonlight via
> the medium is not the issue, it's the ability to upgrade the distributed
> software /in place/, which on an immutable medium, like a LiveCD distro,
> is not possible, and thus contravenes this "anti-embedded" clause you've
> added to the (otherwise) GPL license for Moonlight.
As we say here in Texas,
Boy, you got less brains than a woodpecker pecking away at an
aluminum telephone pole.
As you know, Miguel de Icaza is an authoritative voice on Moonlight.
He and his company own the copyrights. If he says that you don't have
to license Moonlight from him or Novell to distribute it on a LiveCD,
then you don't have to license it from him or Novell to distribute it
on a LiveCD; end of discussion.
>
> And again, mainly for the benefit of those who lack either the capacity
> or patience to try to build software from sources, I ask you to give me
> some idea of when a pre-compiled binary of Moonlight, linked to ffmpeg,
> will become available?
Considering that you and your friend, Roy Schestowitz, like to think
of yourselves as patent experts, I'm surprised that you've failed to
realize that ffmpeg is likely to infringe on patents held by the MPEG-
LA.
From the FFmpeg FAQ:
Q: Since FFmpeg is licensed under the LGPL, is it perfectly alright
to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. Sure, the LGPL allows you to
incorporate the code. However, there have been cases where companies
have used FFmpeg in their projects, usually for such capabilities as
superior MPEG-4 decoding. These companies found out that once you
start trying to make money from certain technologies, the alleged
owners of the technologies will come after their protection money.
Most notably, MPEG-LA (licensing authority) is vigilant and diligent
about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
Your dishonesty has already been called out on the BoycottNovell
website where even the site's founder, Shane Coyle, agrees that you
and Roy are being dishonest in this matter.
Give it up already, your continued antics are pathetic.
Miguel de Icaza
You win.
Let me correct my statement then: Moonlight will not be easy to use if
you insist in building things your way. But for regular users (those
that do not mind accepting the EULA, or those that do not mind getting
the RPM packages), standard packagers and someone with some minimum of
C experience it will be a breeze.
> I didn't see anything relevant on that site.
It is on the INSTALL file, the very first thing listed there.
> A quick Google for "MoonlightRPM spec" produces this:
>
> http://dries.ulyssis.org/apt/packages/moonlight/info.html
>
> But that just turns out to be "a free software modeller and renderer for
> 3D scenes".
Have someone with Google experience track this down for you.
> I could spend the rest of my evening hunting for this spec file but I've
> better things to do, and I'm not sure it would actually resolve this bug
> anyway, unless there's some patch required to makeMoonlightwork (under
> Fedora). If you're aware of such a patch, perhaps you could just tell me
> about it, and save me some time.
I am not aware of us having any patches specially for Fedora, but I
saw that Jeff checked in a patch for a missing include, maybe it is
related.
> Why don't you read it now, it should only take you a couple of minutes:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Reading it does not mean understanding it.
It took me years to understand the GPLv2 even if the first reading was
done in a couple of minutes.
> So what exactly are your concerns and questions about this license?
I do not know, I just do not have enough of an incentive to spend the
time to understand the side effects of it. You could try making a
case as to why I should adopt the GPLv3 instead of the LGPLv2.
> So you've chosen to ignore something you don't yet understand, because
> someone else holds a negative opinion of it.
English seems to confuse you. I am not ignoring it, I have chosen to
not adopt it until the point where I fully understand what it means to
adopt it.
The same applies to any contract you sign. Before you sign it, you
must understand it, not just "skim through it".
> That's an evasive and misleading response, since obtainingMoonlightvia
> the medium is not the issue, it's the ability to upgrade the distributed
> software /in place/, which on an immutable medium, like a LiveCD distro,
> is not possible, and thus contravenes this "anti-embedded" clause you've
> added to the (otherwise) GPL license forMoonlight.
I am pretty sure someone with a LiveCD can upgrade their Mono/
Moonlight if they choose to. In fact, you just gave an example of
how they can do it.
But in addition to the userfs sample, it seems that any user can take
a LiveCD ISO, mount it, upgrade any software they want, and reburn the
ISO, and redistribute the result at will.
So clearly, the LiveCD case is perfectly fine.
> And again, mainly for the benefit of those who lack either the capacity
> or patience to try to build software from sources, I ask you to give me
> some idea of when a pre-compiled binary ofMoonlight, linked to ffmpeg,
> will become available?
A google search turns:
http://packman.links2linux.org/package/moonlight
Or if you want a larger collection try:
> I suppose I should /also/ ask, will such a release violateMoonlight's
> license, or be subjugated by the hidden pitfalls of any supplemental
> restrictions imposed by either Novell or Microsoft?
The restrictions actually come from MPEG-LA, an organization that
relicenses the portfolio of patents required to implement VC-1, H264
and a handful of other media codecs.
The actual list of companies that own the patents shipped in the Media
Pack that you refused to install is:
http://www.mpegla.com/vc1/vc1-licensors.cfm
WIth upcoming Moonlight releases, when we integrate support for H.264,
the list will be augmented to contain:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-licensors.cfm
Miguel.
Homer
Verily I say unto thee, that Miguel de Icaza spake thusly:
> On Jan 25, 6:07 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> So now I'm right back where I started.
>
> You win.
>
> Let me correct my statement then: Moonlight will not be easy to use
> if you insist in building things your way. But for regular users
> (those that do not mind accepting the EULA
Translation: There is something inherently wrong with not supporting and
agreeing with Microsoft.
Well, I expected as much from you.
>> I didn't see anything relevant on that site.
>
> It is on the INSTALL file, the very first thing listed there.
cat INSTALL | grep -i rpm
[nothing]
cat INSTALL | grep -i spec
[nothing]
Still waiting for you to provide me with "RPM spec files that exist for
moonlight".
>> A quick Google for "MoonlightRPM spec" produces this:
>>
>> http://dries.ulyssis.org/apt/packages/moonlight/info.html
>>
>> But that just turns out to be "a free software modeller and
>> renderer for 3D scenes".
>
> Have someone with Google experience track this down for you.
Well I was hoping that /you/ could help, but then I forgot you thought
Moonlight's home page was listed at the No1 position on Google for the
search "Silverlight Linux", when in fact it doesn't even appear within
the first ten pages (or possibly more, since I gave up at that point).
> I am not aware of us having any patches specially for Fedora, but I
> saw that Jeff checked in a patch for a missing include, maybe it is
> related.
Link?
>> Why don't you read it now, it should only take you a couple of
>> minutes:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>
> Reading it does not mean understanding it.
Have someone with reading experience explain it to you.
> It took me years to understand the GPLv2 even if the first reading
> was done in a couple of minutes.
At just 674 words, over a 730 day period, that's a reading comprehension
rate of less than one word per day.
Impressive.
You could probably study to become a qualified lawyer quicker than that.
Have you met Hadron?
>> So what exactly are your concerns and questions about this license?
>
> I do not know
Naturally.
Although actually, I think you do.
>> So you've chosen to ignore something you don't yet understand,
>> because someone else holds a negative opinion of it.
>
> English seems to confuse you.
Some of it, yes - the lies mostly.
>> That's an evasive and misleading response, since
>> obtainingMoonlightvia the medium is not the issue, it's the ability
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You should really consider using a real Usenet client instead of Google.
You can't wait forever for Microsoft to release Outlook Express for GNU/
Linux, you know. Then again, maybe you're waiting for someone to release
a Usenet client written in Mono, before deeming it worthy enough to use.
>> to upgrade the distributed software /in place/, which on an
>> immutable medium, like a LiveCD distro, is not possible, and thus
>> contravenes this "anti-embedded" clause you've added to the
>> (otherwise) GPL license forMoonlight.
>
> I am pretty sure someone with a LiveCD can upgrade their Mono/
> Moonlight if they choose to. In fact, you just gave an example of
> how they can do it.
No they can't, unless they specifically configure the system to allow a
persistent overlay to be written to a HDD, which they may not have. And
the fact is that licenses pertain to /distribution/, so by distributing
an immutable media containing Moonlight /without/ a commercial license,
that distributor is violating your modified version of the GPL. Clearly
that is /not/ Free Software, and the fact you are claiming Moonlight is
licensed under the GPL is nothing but a sham. At best, this odd license
should be described as "LGPL2.1 with *further restrictions*", but since
the LGPL explicitly prohibits such "further restrictions" it would seem
your license is actually null and void, and Moonlight is essentially an
unlicensed piece of software (thus undistributable). Of course, we have
long known it was undistributable anyway, at least to anyone but Novell
customers:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080528133529454
> But in addition to the userfs sample
That's *unionfs*, Miguel.
Here's the project page:
http://www.filesystems.org/project-unionfs.html
> it seems that any user can take a LiveCD ISO, mount it, upgrade any
> software they want, and reburn the ISO, and redistribute the result
> at will.
Well I could take Moonlight and turn it into Swiss cheese, but then it'd
no longer be the product you shipped, nor subject to the same license. A
LiveCD is "the product", is immutable, and therefore if it's distributed
with Moonlight it violates your license, since the distributor can *not*
guarantee the recipients will necessarily have the additional provisions
required to turn something immutable into something mutable. A recipient
who /changes/ the shipped product into something else, is not using that
original product to which the license applies. /Distributors/ are liable
for the conditions of your license, /not/ the recipients, and the LiveCD
they ship does not fulfil the requirements of your license, therefore no
LiveCD can ever contain Moonlight without a commercial license.
> So clearly, the LiveCD case is perfectly fine.
Certainly ... if you're Novell or their business parters Microsoft.
>> And again, mainly for the benefit of those who lack either the
>> capacity or patience to try to build software from sources, I ask
>> you to give me some idea of when a pre-compiled binary ofMoonlight,
>> linked to ffmpeg, will become available?
>
> A google search turns:
>
> http://packman.links2linux.org/package/moonlight
Finally, a straight answer.
Here's what I want:
http://packman.links2linux.org/downloadsource/77524/moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.src.rpm
Now I'm on home turf.
rpmbuild --rebuild moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.src.rpm
Installing moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.src.rpm
warning: InstallSourcePackage: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID
9a795806
error: Failed build dependencies:
libffmpeg-devel is needed by moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.x86_64
alsa-devel is needed by moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.x86_64
mozilla-xulrunner181-devel is needed by
moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.x86_64
Hmm, looks like this needs to be un-SUSE-ed for Fedora.
Fedora has no separate "libffmpeg-devel", it's part of "ffmpeg-devel".
Conversely, on Fedora "alsa-devel" is actually "alsa-lib-devel".
XULRunner is a problem though, since it's not packaged for Fedora 8, and
I haven't yet determined if the F9 package will even build here, or even
if I can meet the dependencies for building it ... without /essentially/
upgrading my system to F9 or 10. I could (and will) do that, but not any
time soon (like I said, I have better things to do).
OK, so let's have a look inside:
rpm -ivh moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.src.rpm
warning: moonlight-1.0_beta1-0.pm.1.src.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature:
NOKEY, key ID 9a795806
1:moonlight ########################################### [100%]
If this works, I'll sign it locally, so I don't care about keys ATM.
vim rpmbuild/SPECS/moonlight.spec
Hmm.
Some observations...
A /copyright notice/ ... for a /spec/ file?
Really?
Here's the license for the package proper:
License: LGPL v2.0 only
Pfft.
Group: Productivity/Multimedia/Other
There's no such canonical group on RH/FC systems.
According to /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.4.2.2/GROUPS the nearest equivalent is
Applications/Multimedia.
Url: http://go-mono.com/moonlight/
Perhaps you should also put a warning in the comments, about the need to
enable Javascript to be able to actually /see/ the link to the tarball.
Version: 1.0_beta1
%define pkg_version 1.0b1
Release: 0.pm.1
Eugh!
Please try to use numerical-only major and minor version descriptors.
Patch0: 38166.txt
Patch1: 38168.txt
Again ... eugh!
Can we have meaningful patch names, please?
And why the *.txt extension? This ain't MS DOS, you know. Try *.patch or
even *.diff.
Well I've got to the end of the build opts, and there's nothing suggests
any way to disable the buildrequires for XULRunner at all, beyond simply
removing all references to it. Bad, bad, bad.
This made me laugh:
# Fedora options
%if 0%{?fedora_version}
%endif
Yes, quite.
Next up, we have the %description...
O h M y G o d!
A /credits/ list ... in an RPM spec %description!
Get over yourselves, Novell, and keep it concise. This field is supposed
to describe the package's /function/, it's not a PR exercise.
At least you got the first bit right:
"Moonlight is an open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight for
Unix systems."
I notice you didn't say "Free Software", because it certainly isn't.
%files -n libmoon0
%defattr(-, root, root)
Generally, the more explicit %defattr(-,root,root,-) is preferable. Rule
No1: Never make assumptions.
Overall the spec's layout is a bit of a mess. Currently you have all the
manifests dotted all over the place. My preference, and that of RH/FC is
to have a single manifest at the end of the spec, just before the change
-log.
Talking of which:
%changelog
* Tue Nov 11 2008 rho...@novell.com
This is who needs to see the above comments, assuming he cares.
> Or if you want a larger collection try:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/awz75g
It reads "Enable javascript to use LMGTFY" on a page that looks like the
Google home page. For all I know it might be a phishing scam, so I think
I /won't/ enable Javascript. That is just one of the many great things I
love about Free Software ... it works /for/ me, not against me.
>> I suppose I should /also/ ask, will such a release
>> violateMoonlight's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Urgh! Please, please, please just get a proper Usenet client. Please.
>> license, or be subjugated by the hidden pitfalls of any
>> supplemental restrictions imposed by either Novell or Microsoft?
>
> The restrictions actually come from MPEG-LA
No, the restrictions come from Novell, or whoever provides the software
for which I am licensed to use.
I don't recall ever downloading anything from anyone called "MPEG-LA".
I use ffmpeg, and I don't see any similar restrictions in /its/ license,
nor any mention of anyone called "MPEG-LA".
What kind of software does "MPEG-LA" develop?
> an organization that relicenses the portfolio of patents
Portfolio of what, now?
I don't use software patents ... I use software, so I really don't know,
much less care anything about such things, beyond the fact that software
patents seem to be a profoundly immoral protection racket run by equally
immoral racketeers. Apparently the ffmpeg developers think so too:
So, you were about to explain why you have this strange "anti-embedded"
clause in your license...
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
04:06:10 up 81 days, 11:49, 5 users, load average: 3.79, 3.93, 3.98
Hadron
>> So now I'm right back where I started.
>
> You win.
>
> Let me correct my statement then: Moonlight will not be easy to use if
> you insist in building things your way. But for regular users (those
> that do not mind accepting the EULA, or those that do not mind getting
> the RPM packages), standard packagers and someone with some minimum of
> C experience it will be a breeze.
>
>> I didn't see anything relevant on that site.
>
> It is on the INSTALL file, the very first thing listed there.
Aha. Now we know where the difficulty comes from.
You must understand : these are the same loonies who think that
*average* users should compile their own drivers and programs so that
they are not "dumbed down". I kid you not. When questioned how Sheryl at
the front desk would deal with dependency issues they told us that
Sheryl can "Google it up".
Amazing but true.
Welcome to "COLA".