[kde-linux] KDE-4.8 BRANCH C# bindings

[James Tyrer]

On 01/04/2012 02:13 AM, Duncan wrote:
> James Tyrer posted on Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:18:35 -0700 as excerpted:
>
>> I finally managed to build all of KDE-4.8 but had some problems with the
>> C# bindings.
>
> FWIW, part of the issue there might be that a lot of devs won't touch
> mono/c# with a 3 meter pole, due to where it came from.  KDE isn't gnome,
> and it's rather ironic that the one of the same people that founded gnome
> due to license issues kde had at that time, has been so much the leader
> in pushing the mono technology that MS has yet to clearly and irrevocably
> free from patent claims and the like and apparently has no intention of
> doing so, into gnome.
>
The FSF is too fanatical.  If the source code is published and 
distributable, then that should be enough.  They made a serious error 
when they started GNOME rather than supporting KDE.

While I see your point that people don't like this because it is M$, 
there is a somewhat inverse point that is also valid.  If M$ created C# 
to have some sort of monopoly (I presume that that is where the name 
'mono' came from) then the Mono project certainly removes that advantage.

The IP issues have previously been decided by the PTO and/or the Courts. 
  A programing language can not be patented; it can not even be 
copyrighted.  The last significant case, IIRC, was when Intel claimed 
that the mnemonics for 8086 assembler were copyrighted -- they lost.

I am a bit disappointed by this as this would also apply to my 
programing language (PL/Fiv).  It was designed specifically with 
compiling a consideration and to run on a virtual machine that could be 
implemented in hardware.  Yes, I thought of it when I was in college and 
that was before Java.  However, it is possible that the methods used by 
the compiler could be patented if they are new and non-obvious -- 
different from a conventional compiler (which I see as rather 
inefficient and wasteful)

So, the one issue that remains unsettled -- and this is a general issue 
with M$ -- is their claims made in their EULAs that limit who can use 
something that is freely distributable.  I would bet on the snowball 
here (a snowball's chance in hell).

> But regardless of the political issues, there's little or nothing in
> mainline kde sc that requires those bindings and unless you REALLY want
> one of the fringe apps that might happen to require them, I'd say just
> let them be.  For most, at least most of those who'd choose to build it
> themselves, it's simply a component or two that nothing uses, so not
> installing it simply means not having to worry about updating it with
> every kde update they do, and that many less unused or extremely lightly
> used installed components to worry about the potential of someone finding
> a security hole to exploit.
>

This is also true, but the only relevant issue here was that I had 
appointed myself to a position and wrote a tutorial for compiling KDE, 
so if it it exists, I need to know how to compile it.

I don't know what the future for that is since someone deleted (not 
updated which would have been fine) but simply removed my tutorial.  The 
information regarding the dependencies for (B)LFS building of KDE are 
now in the wrong place, but they are there and probably need to be updated.

So, again, people wanting to build KDE from source are directed to the 
TechBase where the "instructions" are nebulous and vague -- as well as 
being written with the presumption that people will want to build TRUNK.

It appears that the authors responsible do not know what a tutorial is 
and don't seem to understand that vague suggestions are not going to 
help people to build KDE (as it is not that simple).

I really need the answers to some questions to write another editorial 
and this information simply doesn't seem to be available.

-- 
James Tyrer

Linux (mostly) From Scratch