Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote: > [...] if it is indeed required that the patent indemnity be > requested then from a patent license perspective, the Mono > implementation should fail Debian Legal's "Desert Island" and > "Dissident" tests for DFSG compliance[5] because upstream must be > contacted and the licensees identified. [...] > [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFSG#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance Oh what a terrible reference! It's a secondary source made from secondary sources. Cite the DFSG FAQ if you must, but this sort of postcardware has been regarded as breaking DFSG 1 for over a decade: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/08/msg00920.html Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.
Thank you for the detailed exploration of your understanding of these issues. saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com writes: > Not to conflate the issues of patent licensing with copyright > licensing, but if […] , the Mono implementation should fail Debian > Legal's "Desert Island" and "Dissident" tests for DFSG compliance[5] […] Actually I think that, far from being a conflation of issues, what you've done is an entirely-appropriate (and, by my understanding of debian-legal, entirely intentional to the purpose) focus on the effective freedom of the work. What matters for the DFSG, if I understand correctly, is the effective freedom that recipients have under the terms the work is offered to them. Patents, copyrights, license terms: these matter only in so far as they modify the effective freedom recipients have in a specific work. So, by focusing on freedom, you've drawn attention to the distinction that, while the judgement of Debian's ftpmasters seems to have been that most patent restrictions are *not* to be considered modifications of the effective freedoms in a work, this is one case that may well be different. -- \ “I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono | `\ album; no rhyme or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and | _o__) then it's over.” —Ian Wolff | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.
Quoting "Bradley M. Kuhn" : Steve Langasek wrote at 19:58 (EDT) on Sunday: we don't consider the existence of a software patent claim to be a sufficient reason to remove software from main. Well said. There are so many USA patents, if you tried to remove every piece of software from main that might be judged to practice the teachings of some patent, you'd do a *lot* of removing. Nevertheless, possible patents on Mono and what Novell/Microsoft's strategy is with regard to releasing this software is something to watch and be concerned about. The Mono Project assures us that Microsoft holds patents that cover the ECMA 334/335 technology; they even go so far as to identify one of the inventors[1]. The Mono Project does not state that they practice those patents, but they also do not suggest in any way that those patents are either invalid or that their practice is avoided in the Mono implementation of the ECMA standards. Instead the Mono Project asserts that a royalty-free, reasonable, and non-discriminatory patent grant has been provided by Microsoft. Both Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard have complied with ECMA requirements[2] in promising to offer their patents covering ECMA 334/335 under RAND terms[3]; and an archived email from the aforementioned inventor is cited by the Mono Project as further promising that the RAND licensing would be offered royalty-free[4]. However, if one examines the details of the patent declaration, Microsoft states that the RAND licensing is available "to any party requesting it". The royalty-free addendum by Jim Miller does not relieve this requirement to actually request the license from Microsoft. In addition, the patent declaration ensures its validity only for the duration of the ECMA standard. Not to conflate the issues of patent licensing with copyright licensing, but if it is indeed required that the patent indemnity be requested then from a patent license perspective, the Mono implementation should fail Debian Legal's "Desert Island" and "Dissident" tests for DFSG compliance[5] because upstream must be contacted and the licensees identified. Furthermore, the limitation of the validity of the patent declaration to the duration of the ECMA standard should fail the DFSG's "Tentacles of Evil" test. Now I would certainly agree that patent claims of persons or companies not involved in the development of a Free Software project should not be sufficient cause for exclusion of that software from Debian Main; however, it seems that when it is the Free Software project itself asserting the claims, and relies upon the licensing from the patent holder as justification for practicing those patents, it is appropriate to consider the actual terms of that licensing. [1] http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): here[3] [2] http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm [3] (PDF) http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ECMA-334%20&%20335/2001ga-123%20&%202002ga-003.pdf [4] http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFSG#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.
Steve Langasek wrote at 19:58 (EDT) on Sunday: > we don't consider the existence of a software patent claim to be a > sufficient reason to remove software from main. Well said. There are so many USA patents, if you tried to remove every piece of software from main that might be judged to practice the teachings of some patent, you'd do a *lot* of removing. Nevertheless, possible patents on Mono and what Novell/Microsoft's strategy is with regard to releasing this software is something to watch and be concerned about. -- -- bkuhn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:05:56PM +1000, Peter Dolding wrote: > This is going to cause upset I know pushing all the .net applications > out of mainline.My problem here is legal status. Debian has to > protect all its uses commercial and non commercial a like. Mono is > going to have to be treated like patent restricted formats. Mono > just happens to be one. Mono is treated like patent-restricted formats: we don't consider the existence of a software patent claim to be a sufficient reason to remove software from main. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.
moonlight ms conditions not to sue http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight_definitions.aspx#intermediate "Intermediate Recipients" means resellers, recipients, and distributors to the extent they are authorized (directly or indirectly) by Novell or its Subsidiaries to resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available Moonlight Implementations (whether the resale, licensing, supplying, making available, or distribution is on a stand-alone basis, or on an OEM basis as bundled with hardware or other software of the reseller or distributor, or otherwise, so long as it is not bundled with a Linux operating system other than Novell-branded operating system software), except for resellers, recipients, or distributors who are in the business of offering their own branded operating system software. Notice something here Debian does not have protection. So it is the end user downloading from Novell we need a old style wrapper .deb that was done with java for a long time for moonlight if I am reading this restriction right. Since that way it was not bundled with debian so avoids the clause and was directly provide to user by Novell. On mono there is no http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/default.mspx protection for commercial users again unless acquired from Novell. So I believe to follow debian requirements even that mono is open source code it license does not provide patent protection. There are known patent threats here so it should move to restricted for non commercial development only. For commercial usage Novell will have to provide. This is going to cause upset I know pushing all the .net applications out of mainline.My problem here is legal status. Debian has to protect all its uses commercial and non commercial a like. Mono is going to have to be treated like patent restricted formats. Mono just happens to be one. If there is some legal document proving I am wrong and debian can ship mono and moonlight to all users without putting users at risk it would be great to see. So far I have not found one. Peter Dolding -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
