On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:30 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 24.01.2006, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: > > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 11:43 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Am Dienstag, den 24.01.2006, 10:22 +0000 schrieb Paul F. Johnson: > > > >[...] > > > > > I only set a deadline for yesterday to allow people to hand in a > > > "fedora-extras should forbid mono packages in extras" proposal. Nothing > > > showed up so there is nothing to discuss for FESCo afaics (the FESCo > > > members were all quiet, too). > > > > > > So it seems the old rule applies: If it's allowed in Core it's also fine > > > for Extras. > > Grumble, once more: > > > > According to RH until recently, mono/C#/.net are subject to potential > > patent claims. > > Yes, until recently. > > > Some weeks ago, RH pushed Mono etc. in FC - I repeatedly had asked to > > explain (Last time on a PM to YOU in person, yesterday), to elaborate > > what made RH to consider their former claim to be invalid. > > > > No response, so far. > > "Business considerations that prevented certain Mono components from > being included in Fedora previously have now been resolved." This doesn't answer my question. RH business considerations are irrelevant here. We are having a legal problem here, which we needs to be clarified to protect ourselves and FE's users. > I (as most other people outside of the Fedora Foundation or Red Hat) > don't know more details. Great, ... master piece of communication with RH ... ;) How about you asking your predecessor GDK, on behalf of FESCO? http://fedora.redhat.com/About/contact.html lists him as the FF's "legal inquiries" contact person. > > I am willing to reconsider this opinion, should some RH or FESCO > > spokesperson be able to elaborate the legal situation of Mono etc. > > I can't give more details because I don't know more. But I'm willing to > trust Red Hat here Well, RH and your fellow RH-employed FESCO members had been very verbosely rejecting any Mono-related request, because they claimed severe legal concerns. Now, this out of a sudden all their vocalize has become invalid without explanation? I hope you don't mind, if I cann't find such a rotating course to give much reason for trust. > -- they allowed it for Core and I see no reason why > we should forbid it in Extras. That would look quite odd anyway... There is a substantial difference: None of us has control over Core, but anybody being actively involved into FE, packaging packages for FE or using such packages could potentially be subject to legal action. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
