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

[drago01]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra<rms at 1407.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphy<frankly3d at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is there any contingency plans in place,
>> > for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost?
>> > FesCo?
>> > Legal?
>> >
>> > Is there any searchable parameter,
>> > to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise)
>> >
>> >
>> > This is not the normal "**** mono" post.
>> > I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is:
>> > Fedora and *All* our Users
>> > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F)
>>
>> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
>
> Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing.
>
> You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it.

So?

> The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
> infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
>
> [1] => means you can't do it with GPL

It explicitly grant this right.

> [2] => means you can't do it with GPL3
>
> If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or RAND-Z
> patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it?
>
> Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, and
> they never fulfilled (even after insistence).
>
> I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it.
>
> You need to stop believing in Santa.

We already had the OIN protection and this is additional safety.

But I am not a lawyer so I leave the judgment to them.