Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.
We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 05:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Miguel.
Some time ago there were a anonymous user ( User:83.237.60.214) adding an sentence on Mono development platform about Portable.NET not having any problems with patents and licensing. I removed it, as I believe it's false.
I and the anonymous user started to discuss the matter on Mono's talk-page, but now I don't really now what to say and I wonder if you would like to contribute to the discussion.- David Björklund ( talk) 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no section on the critisizms of the Mono framework? Not just the patents but complaints from the MS camp about poor implimentation. I know there are such complaints, but I don't code so I cant talk!
For User:83.237.108.102: please stop this edit war; let's discuss here or in my talk page, please. No, Mono is definitely not proprietary, even if its development is leaded by a commercial company. You can say that it's commercial free software since it's presumably written (also) for a profit, but its license makes it inequivocably free sofware and open source. For another example of commercial free software I invite you to see GNAT; also many developers of GCC are paid, but this doesn't make the compiler proprietary. The same holds for many RedHat tools. -- positron 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The project can be either open source or not. If it is released under the open source license (GPL, LGPL and so on), it is the open source project, even if written by the devil himself. If there are any additional restrictions, or the license is specific, it probably is not. I downloaded the Mono sources, they contain the file Copying.lib with the text of LGPL. To be completely sure, it would be good to check if it builds. Novell is doing something very strange by not saying nothing direct about the license in the main homepage, but there is unlinked [1] that states all licenses are open source. Audriusa
Hi User:83.237.60.214. I reverted your edits (twice) about Portable.NET and the patents and licensing. Mono could have problems with licensing and patents, but to this day - nothing has happend. Also, the article has a section discussing the patents and licensing.
Your addition is an opinion more than facts. - David Björklund ( talk) 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it true that you do money from selling licenses of Mono? And that it is the main part of the money you get from Mono? And that you don't pay people who work on they free time on open source?
It sounds resonable. You said that the patents has the same effect to a software that was initially GPL, LGPL or X11. But in the GPL license i thought that if you contribute code you have to be sure that it doesn't have any problem with patents. Maybe there isn't such point in the X11? So that this is the reason of the patents problem?
And it really does sound when you edit the wiki page on Mono and are attacking me (without any real reason btw, even if I'm lurking on the #dotgnu and working on they JIT) as Bill Gates editing the wikipedia page on Windows :)
Hi,
the term "proprietary open source" exists, for example it can be meet in [2]. It is true I'm working on the problem and publishing articles for science conferences. For example in have written article [3] (in Russian, so you will need to translate to read it) about the problem of 'proprietary open source'. According to both analysis (not only mine)the problem of proprietary open source does exists. You said: "In addition, you have decided to remove all the text that records your actions." This is non-sense. We all know that we can hide nothing in the internet. I don't see what actions I should have to hide, but you said a lot of negative about me. I'm not attacking Mono, I'm just being objective, as it doesn't mean if you are have started the Mono project that my opinion is wrong just because it is different. We are all thinking people and if my opinion doesn't accord with your it doesn't mean that you are right and I'm wrong. Most probably the truth is somewhere between. And wikipedia is made to be objective and to reflect all opinions. So being said I would excuse your attack on me if you email a public excuse on the Mono maillist.
Hi, thanks for contributing here. I'm sorry you've immediately had to deal with conflicts. It seems you're generally handling it right, by discussing and asking for assistance from more experienced users. It's probably better not to write about yourself because it could be seen as a conflict of interest. You'll probably have more success just pointing people to the information you feel should be included. Also even though this user seems to be difficult, try not to revert things repeatedly that you don't agree with. Just explain your reasoning, ask for others to agree and if there is agreement, then ask everyone to pitch in to impliment the consensus. A good tool is to require sources to back up the edits, and if material is added without sources it can be removed. See WP:V. You have to be willing to do the same, because the quality of sources involved can be an effective tool to prevent bad information getting into articles and to justify the right material getting in. Finally, consider adding at least a couple words to your user page so that it doesn't show up as a red link. Anything I can be of assistance with, please let me know. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've added a chapter on Moonlight about Microsoft support. I've tried to present concerns that have arisen about the level of involvement of Microsoft in the project (even if they were coming from a bunch of uninformed pundits;-)), but also some answers you provided on your website about these critics. Feel free to comment on the article talk page, be it about accuracy, or tone. Hervegirod 09:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Toshok is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Toshok (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MB 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.
We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 05:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Miguel.
Some time ago there were a anonymous user ( User:83.237.60.214) adding an sentence on Mono development platform about Portable.NET not having any problems with patents and licensing. I removed it, as I believe it's false.
I and the anonymous user started to discuss the matter on Mono's talk-page, but now I don't really now what to say and I wonder if you would like to contribute to the discussion.- David Björklund ( talk) 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no section on the critisizms of the Mono framework? Not just the patents but complaints from the MS camp about poor implimentation. I know there are such complaints, but I don't code so I cant talk!
For User:83.237.108.102: please stop this edit war; let's discuss here or in my talk page, please. No, Mono is definitely not proprietary, even if its development is leaded by a commercial company. You can say that it's commercial free software since it's presumably written (also) for a profit, but its license makes it inequivocably free sofware and open source. For another example of commercial free software I invite you to see GNAT; also many developers of GCC are paid, but this doesn't make the compiler proprietary. The same holds for many RedHat tools. -- positron 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The project can be either open source or not. If it is released under the open source license (GPL, LGPL and so on), it is the open source project, even if written by the devil himself. If there are any additional restrictions, or the license is specific, it probably is not. I downloaded the Mono sources, they contain the file Copying.lib with the text of LGPL. To be completely sure, it would be good to check if it builds. Novell is doing something very strange by not saying nothing direct about the license in the main homepage, but there is unlinked [1] that states all licenses are open source. Audriusa
Hi User:83.237.60.214. I reverted your edits (twice) about Portable.NET and the patents and licensing. Mono could have problems with licensing and patents, but to this day - nothing has happend. Also, the article has a section discussing the patents and licensing.
Your addition is an opinion more than facts. - David Björklund ( talk) 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it true that you do money from selling licenses of Mono? And that it is the main part of the money you get from Mono? And that you don't pay people who work on they free time on open source?
It sounds resonable. You said that the patents has the same effect to a software that was initially GPL, LGPL or X11. But in the GPL license i thought that if you contribute code you have to be sure that it doesn't have any problem with patents. Maybe there isn't such point in the X11? So that this is the reason of the patents problem?
And it really does sound when you edit the wiki page on Mono and are attacking me (without any real reason btw, even if I'm lurking on the #dotgnu and working on they JIT) as Bill Gates editing the wikipedia page on Windows :)
Hi,
the term "proprietary open source" exists, for example it can be meet in [2]. It is true I'm working on the problem and publishing articles for science conferences. For example in have written article [3] (in Russian, so you will need to translate to read it) about the problem of 'proprietary open source'. According to both analysis (not only mine)the problem of proprietary open source does exists. You said: "In addition, you have decided to remove all the text that records your actions." This is non-sense. We all know that we can hide nothing in the internet. I don't see what actions I should have to hide, but you said a lot of negative about me. I'm not attacking Mono, I'm just being objective, as it doesn't mean if you are have started the Mono project that my opinion is wrong just because it is different. We are all thinking people and if my opinion doesn't accord with your it doesn't mean that you are right and I'm wrong. Most probably the truth is somewhere between. And wikipedia is made to be objective and to reflect all opinions. So being said I would excuse your attack on me if you email a public excuse on the Mono maillist.
Hi, thanks for contributing here. I'm sorry you've immediately had to deal with conflicts. It seems you're generally handling it right, by discussing and asking for assistance from more experienced users. It's probably better not to write about yourself because it could be seen as a conflict of interest. You'll probably have more success just pointing people to the information you feel should be included. Also even though this user seems to be difficult, try not to revert things repeatedly that you don't agree with. Just explain your reasoning, ask for others to agree and if there is agreement, then ask everyone to pitch in to impliment the consensus. A good tool is to require sources to back up the edits, and if material is added without sources it can be removed. See WP:V. You have to be willing to do the same, because the quality of sources involved can be an effective tool to prevent bad information getting into articles and to justify the right material getting in. Finally, consider adding at least a couple words to your user page so that it doesn't show up as a red link. Anything I can be of assistance with, please let me know. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've added a chapter on Moonlight about Microsoft support. I've tried to present concerns that have arisen about the level of involvement of Microsoft in the project (even if they were coming from a bunch of uninformed pundits;-)), but also some answers you provided on your website about these critics. Feel free to comment on the article talk page, be it about accuracy, or tone. Hervegirod 09:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Toshok is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Toshok (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MB 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)