On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 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 _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list