First, regarding Mono licensing. It appears to be a mix of GPL, LGPL, and X11 licenses. Does this combination allow me to develop commercial applications using mono and distribute them using the "free" licenses, provided that I am not distributed modified Mono libraries or components, and only my own code is closed source? Or does that require a different (non-free) license?
Second, and more critically, I have a question about the Microsoft patents(s) on the technology. I have read about this as much as I can find, and I am assuming I am simply missing something. It appears to me that the ECMA standard on which Mono is based, is also clearly covered by at least one Microsoft patent. The ECMA rules require that such patents be available for RAND licensing. In addition, there is the post from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - one of the patent inventors I believe, that the agreement is that in this case the RAND patent licensing is simply free (apparently both freedom and beer).
I have been in the software industry since the early 80s, and I know I am stating some well known items here, but long-term strategic anti-competitive behavior is a consistent hallmark of Microsoft, now standing convicted (albeit with minimal penalties) of anti-competitive behavior. Gnome, Linux, and open source are openly acknowledged as the biggest threats to the Microsoft empire. This empire includes a vast legal team, and a recent policy of "monetizing" intellectual property such as patents. They have declared themselves the enemy of Linux and open source, and campaign, undermine, and lobby against it.
My understanding of RAND licensing is that "reasonable" is a very subjective term. Should Microsoft begin to require a license for this technology, who is to say what reasonable is? There is no requirement that I no of that such license be structured to allow open source implementations, so long as it is "reasonable" in the legal sense, and non-discriminatory. Clearly relying on Microsoft's good nature is not going to work, and the interpretation of a court may be no better, though could come at great expense.
The post from jsmiller, while comforting, does not appear binding. He states the intent and agreement among the parties, but that is not a contract, and isn't binding. Who (lawyers?) has looked at this and confirmed that Microsoft can't turn around and make that ECMA standard non-free? What I guess I am looking for is the smoking gun that declares that the patents on the ECMA spec are free, will remain free, and can not be used against the OSS community at some later date. If Gnome 3.0 for example is intended to include a large investment in Mono technology, where is the guarantee that Microsoft simply can't announce a new policy that conveniently prevents part or all of Mono from being distributable under the GPL or LGPL, or even for free? A step like that could cause incredible harm to many communities and potentially result in a huge loss of effort and/or a legal mess comparable to the current SCO fiasco. Anyone who believes Microsoft would not find a way to do something like that if it were even remotely possible is, I believe, suffering from severe misconceptions. Even MySQL pulled a move like this by making their newer client libraries GPL or commercial only instead of continuing LGPL support.
I am assuming that this has been looked at, and the smoking gun exists that provides this exists or so much would not be planned around this technology. My problem is that I can not find it. I can't find that one clear solid item that clears up the risks. If someone could please point me to the discussions, documents, threads, etc. that present this, I would be greatly appreciative.
Mono does look cool, but I can't in good consciousness use it until I am sure that the underlying licensing model is secure.
Once again, many thanks in advance...
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
