use Perl

• rotor and open source contamination (Score:2)

  by TeeJay (2309)

  I would be surprised that any open source coders would go near ROTOR - it is known that even talking about it and then coding open source is a breach of its shared source licensing

  seriously though, I am very cynical about what rotor can offer to people who aren't activestate - mono provides 95% of rotor but without the cancerous / parasitic licensing.

  Shared source is typical microsoft 'heads we win, tails you lose' marketechture and best avoided.

  If microsoft really wanted CLI to be an open standard th

  --
  
  @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
  print reverse @JAPH;
  • Re:rotor and open source contamination (Score:2)

    by acme (189) on 2003.07.10 16:38 (#21959) Homepage Journal

    I hate licensing. mono and portable.net are reinventing the wheel for no good reason, apart from licensing.

    Actually, the license for rotor [microsoft.com] isn't too bad. It even contains the phrase "You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the Software".

    God I hate licenses.

    Reply to This

    Parent

    • Re:rotor and open source contamination (Score:2)

      by TeeJay (2309)

      I think there is more to mono than licensing, end even if it were just about licensing it brings some kind of diverity if not healthy competition.

      I am glad KDE and GNOME both exist because I prefer the approach the gnome people have taken and they have fed back into each other.

      At a later point maybe mono and rotor can share ideas that makes the CLI better implemented or more powerful. Of course this is limited by microsoft rather than ximian - again this boils down to licensing - there would not be a ne

      --
      
      @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
      print reverse @JAPH;