[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 4:02 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa redhat com> wrote:
> On 07/07/2009 03:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, this is true, but without OIN's protection, and acting under the
> assumption that the MCP holds water, Fedora would probably only be
> comfortable carrying the ECMA bits covered by the MCP. The OIN coverage
> is for the whole mono tarball (including the ECMA and non-ECMA bits),

Ah, yes, the additional coverage matters; I didn't realize OIN's
coverage went out that far. (In retrospect, it is a shame no one took
the mono guys up on their offer of ages and ages ago to split up the
ECMA and non-ECMA bits.)

> So, from a Fedora perspective, the MCP changes nothing. The items
> covered by it are already covered by OIN. Now, if they had given
> additional grants covering areas outside OIN
> (*cough*silverlight*cough*), then it might have been more interesting to us.

Don't hold your breath. ;)


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