[Fedora-legal-list] Mono update

[Luis Villa]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villa<luis at tieguy.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa at 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.
>
> Fedora is a part of Red Hat, an OIN Member:
>
> http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php

So what coverage/license/protection do I, as a Fedora contributor but
not a RH employee, get?

(Extremely hypothetical, as I'm neither really a Fedora contributor
nor is MS likely to sue me personally. But work with me here.)

Luis