On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Mark Gollin wrote: > Hi, > > We've got a product that we're experimenting with Mono for in order to share > critical code between our Windows and Mac versions. The actual Mono use is > quite straightforward: we're simply compiling command line executables that > use regular-expression portions of the .NET 2.0 framework. We've been able to > use the OS X installation binary package directly, with no need to recompile > or modify any Mono source. The primary application does not use Mono at all, > it simply invokes these cmd-line executables to perform certain processing. > > Our problem is that our product exceeds the terms of the commercial license > available through purchase of the Mono Tools Ultimate package. 100K volume > would be okay, but we have revenues in excess of $2M annually. And my reading > of LGPLv2 makes it a non-starter: the C# code in question is extremely > valuable patent-protected intellectual property. > > We've sent mail (multiple times) via the web form on the FAQ for licensing > questions, but have received no reply. Is there anyone on the list that can > put us in contact with the right people to negotiate a license? Or can > clarify any way we can use/redistribute Mono runtimes legally without > revealing our source? > > --Mark A. Gollin > > VP Development > The Neat Company > www.neatco.com
Hi Mark, Mono is LGPLv2 licensed, but you don't have to license your code LGPLv2 if you're just using Mono to run the executables via the standard installed framework and not recompiling or modifying Mono source. As long as users can install an updated Mono (ie. you're not locking them down to a certain Mono and not providing the necessary object code to use a newer Mono), you're not violating the LGPL license terms. Best, Bojan
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
