[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villa<luis tieguy org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa redhat com> wrote:
>> On 07/07/2009 08:32 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> Just to make sure it's seen by the legal-minded, fwiw:
>>> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
>>> Doesn't have anything to do with our recent move of Tomboy -> Gnote
>>> for the Live CD, but worth noting for overall packaging and
>>> background.
>> It really doesn't affect our stance on Mono at all. Microsoft is
>> "covering" less than OIN does for us,
> While I haven't read the MCP in a while, and SFLC's caveats apply, if
> you take it at face value it is a *very* different sort of coverage
> than OIN.
> OIN is 'if they shoot first, we'll take them down with us, so they
> probably won't shoot first.' MCP at least purports to be an
> enforceable 'we won't shoot' promise. The second is certainly a better
> and substantially different situation to be in, if one can take it at
> face value.

By the way, I don't see Fedora listed as an OIN licensee on their
licensee page: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_licensees.php

If Fedora is indeed an OIN licensee, it would be good to know that and
to know what the license terms are.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]