Thank you for the comment!

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here: are you suggesting that the covenant is only/primarily focused on browser support, and so by extension any non-browser support issues are irrelevant?

If so, I reject that because not only do I not see such a focus in the covenant, but Team Moonlight is seriously talking up desktop-application-in-Silverlight development; they are most definitely not focused on only browser support.

If not, I’m sorry but I don’t understand your point.

In either case, I appreciate your comments and welcome clarification.

Thank you for the comments!

It’s sad to see how certain “Open Source” proponents are busy scrambling head-over-heels to distance themselves from “Free Software” as too idealistic, yet are eager to embrace the corporate idealism of exclusivity and lock-in.

I don’t see how any proponent of the principles behind “Open Source” (let alone “Free Software”) can get behind the restrictions the Covenant requires for compliance.

The covenant clearly locks the source against anything done by anyone but Novell. Find a bug? Better ask Novell to fix it. If you fix it, bye bye covenant.

Note how the test suite is Moonlight-specific. Why not have a single Silverlight test suite? Isn’t that what Moonlight is supposed to implement?

The covenant only applies if it passes 90% (or some other Novell+Microsoft mutually agreed % which we aren’t guaranteed to be informed of) of the Moonlight test suite. What exactly does that tell us wrt Silverlight? Nothing, that’s what.

Novell should ask Bristol about partnering with Microsoft to implement Windows technology on *nix.

Do people ever get tired of playing the “religious zealot” card? Why don’t you just use a racial slur or a “Your Momma” bit? If you just want to insult someone, have some testicular fortitude about it.

In any case, there is a real and serious issue here, even divorced of Novell/Microsoft context: can extra-license conditions be imposed on a Open Source project and that project still be called “Open Source”?

Obviously Novell and Microsoft happily say “yes” – they have based their entire relationship around finding loopholes in licenses. I am of the opinion that license alone is not sufficient to ensure “Open Source”.

In an age where we as a society are debating – including in court – exactly how to treat so-called “intellectual property” this is hardly a religious or fanatical question. Especially since what one society may consider reasonable, another society may flatly reject (software patents are not treated the same the world over, in case you didn’t know.)

Of course, put back in the Novell/Microsoft context and you have front-row seats to a very interesting ball game indeed.

As an aside
I always love how people raise one issue and say that one thing is THE REASON people “run from Linux”. So stupid it burns.

Think Linux should come with DVD/MP3 codecs? That is THE REASON Linux is not on every desktop.
Think Linux should work just like Windows? That is THE REASON Linux is not on every desktop.
Think Linux should bury the command line? That is THE REASON Linux is not on every desktop.
Think Linux users are too idealistic? That is THE REASON Linux is not on every desktop.

If you stop and think about this rhetorical device, you’d realize using it isn’t making the point you are probably trying to make.

This is the reason people run from Linux, it is the religious cooks and their visions of “Free”!