On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villa<luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
