http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

[Matthew Woehlke]

drago01 wrote:
> So what about the patents owned by redhat?
> http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
> It's also just "promise".

True. However anything RH shipped as GPLv3 that uses a RH patent is no 
longer a mere promise, it's a legally binding patent license. Something 
that has yet to come out of M$.

(The same can be argued for GPLv2, just that v3 has a "better" license 
in this regard.)

...and I suspect you'd have more luck getting an actual license from RH 
if you asked for one.

>> In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
>> promise down the drain.
> 
> Same applies to Redhat.

The question to ask here is how this applies when an actual license has 
been granted, as in the case of distributing GPLv3 software. (Especially 
as I don't see "irrevocable" in Section 11... or, indeed, anything about 
the term of the GPLv3 implicit patent license. Hmm, this is actually a 
good question at first glance.)

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
You're on your own for the pony. -- Richard Hughes, on feature requests