On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
