On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra<rms@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphy<frankly3d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Is there any contingency plans in place, >> > for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? >> > FesCo? >> > Legal? >> > >> > Is there any searchable parameter, >> > to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise) >> > >> > >> > This is not the normal "**** mono" post. >> > I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: >> > Fedora and *All* our Users >> > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F) >> >> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx > > Oh poo, and what's the difference? None. None whatsoever but more marketing. > > You can't distribute GPL'ed software unless you have the right to do it. So? > The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can > infringe that they won't sue *you*[2]. > > [1] => means you can't do it with GPL It explicitly grant this right. > [2] => means you can't do it with GPL3 > > If you want to do it with GPL'ed software, you need to obtain a RAND or RAND-Z > patent license. Who ever got it, could s/he please publish it? > > Microsoft promised to give it to a company that asked for it in Portugal, and > they never fulfilled (even after insistence). > > I know of several other people who have asked for it and never got it. > > You need to stop believing in Santa. We already had the OIN protection and this is additional safety. But I am not a lawyer so I leave the judgment to them. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
