4 ms·

> which paints Unity as the bad guy In what way at all? Entity A doesn't want to pay entity B $X. That's the only thing the comment of mine that you quote sa

> which paints Unity as the bad guy In what way at all? Entity A doesn't want to pay entity B $X. That's the only thing the comment of mine that you quote says. There are shops around that sell quadcopters for hundreds of dollars. I want a quadcopter. I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars. Have I just painted myself as a bad guy? I repeat: the only reason my comment sounds pro-Mono is because, at neutral, it resists the spin of the one that paints Unity as a victim and Mono as a fiend.

azakai 11y ago
"X wants Z, but doesn't want to pay Y for Z" implies several things. Perhaps you didn't intend them. But almost every reader will make those assumptions. In particular, it sounds like Y is offering Z at a standard rate, as in "Sam wants a Chipotle burrito, but doesn't want to pay Chipotle for the burrito." Sam doesn't look good here - does Sam expect to get the burrito for free? Why does Sam think he is entitled to that? Readers may not realize that there isn't a standard, objective rate for commercial licenses for Mono. Especially for the single biggest consumer of Mono, Unity, which uses it in products that its customers ship - a particularly complex situation. Again, maybe you didn't intend to, but it sounded like you were saying something very negative about Unity. A less biased way to say it might be "Unity and Mono could not arrive at mutually acceptable terms for Unity to license newer versions of Mono."
- carussell 11y ago
  The only thing I'm saying are very negative things towards people who read (or heard the story of) Unity's PR-level attempt to make it sound like the people behind Mono are jerks, and then bought in to it full force and now repeat the line at every opportune moment (and then some inopportune ones, too, like the comment I replied to). What we also don't know are the terms for the first negotiation. It's as possible that Mono made one offer and Unity countered with an insultingly lower one, then Mono accepted due to being a poor position to negotiate something "reasonable", but are no longer in a position to have to accept whatever is offered, now that Xamarin is off and running. We don't know. Hypotheses non fingo.

azakai 11y ago

"X wants Z, but doesn't want to pay Y for Z" implies several things. Perhaps you didn't intend them. But almost every reader will make those assumptions. In particular, it sounds like Y is offering Z at a standard rate, as in "Sam wants a Chipotle burrito, but doesn't want to pay Chipotle for the burrito." Sam doesn't look good here - does Sam expect to get the burrito for free? Why does Sam think he is entitled to that? Readers may not realize that there isn't a standard, objective rate for commercial licenses for Mono. Especially for the single biggest consumer of Mono, Unity, which uses it in products that its customers ship - a particularly complex situation. Again, maybe you didn't intend to, but it sounded like you were saying something very negative about Unity. A less biased way to say it might be "Unity and Mono could not arrive at mutually acceptable terms for Unity to license newer versions of Mono."

carussell 11y ago
The only thing I'm saying are very negative things towards people who read (or heard the story of) Unity's PR-level attempt to make it sound like the people behind Mono are jerks, and then bought in to it full force and now repeat the line at every opportune moment (and then some inopportune ones, too, like the comment I replied to). What we also don't know are the terms for the first negotiation. It's as possible that Mono made one offer and Unity countered with an insultingly lower one, then Mono accepted due to being a poor position to negotiate something "reasonable", but are no longer in a position to have to accept whatever is offered, now that Xamarin is off and running. We don't know. Hypotheses non fingo.