Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Should the use of C#, Mono, and .NET still be discouraged?

[Jacob K]

On 1/28/23 01:01, bill-auger wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 14:21:08 -0600 Jacob wrote:
> > We also found .NET in Parabola [9], further confirming this.
>
> that does not really confirm anything - that package is imported
> automatically from arch - it would not be removed unless/until
> something non-free about it is reported and confirmed
>
> there have been several bug reports about mono and dotnet over
> the years; but only one which was conclusive - that was a library
> from microsoft for mono ('referenceassemblies') - that (and
> the mono IDE monodevelop) was removed at the time - that was
> before dotnet existed for *nix systems
>
> * "Microsoft redistributable assembly EULA"[1]
>
> the others are concerns about reproducibility and privacy -
> these were reported against dotnet, soon after it was rele3ased
>
> * "Arch version is not built from source"[2]
> * "dotnet-sdk, dotnet-runtime telemetry"[3]
> * ".NET spying"[4]
>
> around that same time

I think there are missing links in this part? I see "[1]", "[2]", and 
"[3]" with no corresponding links or notes. I am not sure if it is a 
problem on my end or your end though.

On 1/28/23 01:01, bill-auger wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 14:21:08 -0600 Jacob wrote:
> > Is using
> > OSSGadget (based on .NET) to help the Free Software Directory a good
> > idea?
>
> dunno - you did not explain what that program does, or how it
> could be helpful

I have not used OSSGadget at all yet, but based on README.md file it 
sounds like it can attempt to automatically get the source code and 
dependencies of a package, which are both steps involved in adding 
software to the Free Software Directory (Source code to check for 
obfuscation or nonfree license headers, and dependencies to check if a 
program depends on something nonfree.). For programs with many 
dependencies, OSSGadget could make the process of adding software to the 
FSD much easier. I am not sure how heavily the potential patent problems 
weigh against this usage.

On 1/28/23 01:01, bill-auger wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 14:21:08 -0600 Jacob wrote:
> > Regardless of the FSDG, should using C# implementations still be
> > discouraged?
>
> C# is only a language - it is neither free nor non-free; because
> it is not software - only the dotnet compiler and runtime would
> be subject to scrutiny

My understanding is that Microsoft holds many patents that would apply 
to typical implementations of C#, so patents could cause problems 
regardless of which C# implementation is used. That would be the reason 
to discourage use of the language itself.

OpenPGP_0x8EF548378E806320.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature