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.as...
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.
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.as...
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, and it doesn't go anywhere near the areas we currently stay away from (Silverlight/Moonlight).
Full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.
~spot
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callawaytcallawa@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.as...
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.
and it doesn't go anywhere near the areas we currently stay away from (Silverlight/Moonlight).
That's correct.
Luis
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villaluis@tieguy.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callawaytcallawa@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.as...
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
On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villaluis@tieguy.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callawaytcallawa@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.as...
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
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callawaytcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villaluis@tieguy.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callawaytcallawa@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.as...
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:
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
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
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Tom "spot" Callawaytcallawa@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
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
On 07/07/2009 03:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
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.
Yes, this is true, but without OIN's protection, and acting under the assumption that the MCP holds water, Fedora would probably only be comfortable carrying the ECMA bits covered by the MCP. The OIN coverage is for the whole mono tarball (including the ECMA and non-ECMA bits), with the notable exception of moonlight/silverlight.
So, from a Fedora perspective, the MCP changes nothing. The items covered by it are already covered by OIN. Now, if they had given additional grants covering areas outside OIN (*cough*silverlight*cough*), then it might have been more interesting to us.
~spot
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Tom "spot" Callawaytcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/07/2009 03:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
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.
Yes, this is true, but without OIN's protection, and acting under the assumption that the MCP holds water, Fedora would probably only be comfortable carrying the ECMA bits covered by the MCP. The OIN coverage is for the whole mono tarball (including the ECMA and non-ECMA bits),
Ah, yes, the additional coverage matters; I didn't realize OIN's coverage went out that far. (In retrospect, it is a shame no one took the mono guys up on their offer of ages and ages ago to split up the ECMA and non-ECMA bits.)
So, from a Fedora perspective, the MCP changes nothing. The items covered by it are already covered by OIN. Now, if they had given additional grants covering areas outside OIN (*cough*silverlight*cough*), then it might have been more interesting to us.
Don't hold your breath. ;)
Luis