Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villal...@tieguy.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@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. Luis ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update
On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villal...@tieguy.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@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 ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villal...@tieguy.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@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 ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update
On 07/07/2009 05:52 PM, Luis Villa wrote: So what coverage/license/protection do I, as a Fedora contributor but not a RH employee, get? You, individually? Probably none, although the likelyhood of Microsoft suing you, individually is very very very very very very low, since you are giving contributions to Fedora, who is then the distributor of said contributions. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/07/2009 05:52 PM, Luis Villa wrote: So what coverage/license/protection do I, as a Fedora contributor but not a RH employee, get? You, individually? Probably none, Just checking. ;) although the likelyhood of Microsoft suing you, individually is very very very very very very low, since you are giving contributions to Fedora, who is then the distributor of said contributions. Sure, though of course we know they've gone around suing using companies before, so if I were a company-based contributor to Fedora (or a mirror) I'd be a bit twitchy. Luis ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update
On 07/08/2009 03:43 AM, Luis Villa wrote: Sure, though of course we know they've gone around suing using companies before, so if I were a company-based contributor to Fedora (or a mirror) I'd be a bit twitchy. Then, it would be up to the company to consider joining OIN. You don't have to hold patents for that. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
