Mono (& Moonlight) Licensing? Revisited

[Frank Murphy]

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1

Not intending to burn the house down.
But, going by this article:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
Dated 25th May. Unease sets in.


Frank

-- 
msn: frankly3d  skype: frankly3d
Mailing-List Reply to: Mailing-List
Still Learning, Unicode where possible

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 05/31/2009 12:42 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:
>  http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
>  
>  Not intending to burn the house down.
>  But, going by this article:
>  http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
>  Dated 25th May. Unease sets in. 
It is not clear what your intend is? Moonlight is already marked as not
permitted

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight

Mono is in due to OIN

http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html

Rahul

[Frank Murphy]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  On 05/31/2009 12:42 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:
> > http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
> >
> > Not intending to burn the house down.
> > But, going by this article:
> > http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
> > Dated 25th May. Unease sets in.
>  
>  It is not clear what your intend is? Moonlight is already marked as not
>  permitted 
Available Packages
Name       : mono-moonlight
Arch       : i586
Version    : 2.4
Release    : 19.fc11
Size       : 1.5 M
Repo       : fedora
Summary    : All the parts required for moonlight compilation
URL        : http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
License    : MIT
Description: mono-moonlight are all the parts required for moonlight 
compilation


>  
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight
>  
>  Mono is in due to OIN
>  
>  http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html 

Doesn't clarify things for me.

Frank

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 05/31/2009 03:41 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
>  Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 05/31/2009 12:42 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:
> >> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
> >>
> >> Not intending to burn the house down.
> >> But, going by this article:
> >> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
> >> Dated 25th May. Unease sets in.
> >
> > It is not clear what your intend is? Moonlight is already marked as not
> > permitted
>  
>  Available Packages
>  Name       : mono-moonlight 
This is not moonlight itself.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492048

Rahul

[Jonathan Underwood]

2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) <frankly3d(a)gmail.com&gt;:
> > http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
>
>
>  Doesn't clarify things for me. 
Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up
- most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell.
Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now
weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like
this could really do with being revisited by Legal.

Some interesting commentary on some aspects of the article originally
linked to by the OP:

http://www.osnews.com/story/21586/Mono_Moonlight_Patent_Encumbered_Or_Not_

J.

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 05/31/2009 06:28 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>  2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) <frankly3d(a)gmail.com&gt;:
> >> http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
> >
> >
> > Doesn't clarify things for me.
>  
>  Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up
>  - most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell.
>  Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now
>  weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like
>  this could really do with being revisited by Legal. 
If you have specific concerns, take it fedora-legal list. Developers
cannot give you any legal opinions.

Rahul

[Jonathan Underwood]

2009/5/31 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  On 05/31/2009 06:28 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > 2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) <frankly3d(a)gmail.com&gt;:
> >>> http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Doesn't clarify things for me.
> >
> > Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up
> > - most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell.
> > Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now
> > weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like
> > this could really do with being revisited by Legal.
>
>  If you have specific concerns, take it fedora-legal list. Developers
>  cannot give you any legal opinions. 
I wasn't asking them to.

[Neal Gompa]

If you are as scared of legal issues as you seem to be, then just pull
ASP.net, ADO.net, and Winforms out. You would make a lot of people mad, but
if you are really paranoid...
Look at this for more info: http://mono-project.com/License#Patents

<http://mono-project.com/License#Patents>Also, regarding Moonlight 2, it is
merely a subset of Mono, with some extra APIs suited for it, the only real
difference between Moonlight and Mono is codecs. And you don't even have to
include those, since Moonlight by default does not require them and can
download them automatically when they are needed.

I really don't see why you should freak out over Moonlight, if Mono is
protected, then Moonlight 2 should be protected, since it is a form of Mono
itself.

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Jonathan Underwood <
jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  2009/5/31 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  > On 05/31/2009 06:28 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>  >> 2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) <frankly3d(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  >>>> http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> Doesn't clarify things for me.
>  >>
>  >> Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up
>  >> - most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell.
>  >> Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now
>  >> weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like
>  >> this could really do with being revisited by Legal.
>  >
>  > If you have specific concerns, take it fedora-legal list. Developers
>  > cannot give you any legal opinions.
>
>  I wasn't asking them to.
>
>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 05/31/2009 08:06 PM, King InuYasha wrote:
>  
>  I really don't see why you should freak out over Moonlight, if Mono is
>  protected, then Moonlight 2 should be protected, since it is a form of
>  Mono itself. 
The legal opinion is different and we got to go by that.

Rahul

[Kevin Kofler]

King InuYasha wrote:
>  I really don't see why you should freak out over Moonlight, if
> Mono is
>  protected, then Moonlight 2 should be protected, since it is a form of
>  Mono itself. 
Moonlight needs to go to RPM Fusion anyway because it needs to link to
FFmpeg, unless you want to use the proprietary codec pack from M$ (yuck!).
So it's no use arguing about whether Moonlight itself is patent-encumbered
or not.

        Kevin Kofler

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt;wrote:

>  King InuYasha wrote:
>  > I really don't see why you should freak out over Moonlight, if Mono is
>  > protected, then Moonlight 2 should be protected, since it is a form of
>  > Mono itself.
>
>  Moonlight needs to go to RPM Fusion anyway because it needs to link to
>  FFmpeg, unless you want to use the proprietary codec pack from M$ (yuck!).
>  So it's no use arguing about whether Moonlight itself is patent-encumbered
>  or not.
>
>         Kevin Kofler
>
>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>  
Then don't use FFmpeg. And since Moonlight itself will not contain the MS
codec pack, it can still fit in main Fedora repositories. If you don't want
to do that, then find someone knowledgeable in GStreamer to write a
GStreamer media backend for Moonlight.

[Kevin Kofler]

King InuYasha wrote:
>  Then don't use FFmpeg. And since Moonlight itself will not
> contain the MS
>  codec pack, it can still fit in main Fedora repositories. 
So you're suggesting we should promote the proprietary M$ codec pack instead
of the Free alternative just so we can ship a semi-working Moonlight with
no audio/video support in Fedora rather than RPM Fusion? That makes no
sense whatsoever.

And as has been said in this thread, Moonlight itself is also
patent-encumbered.

        Kevin Kofler

[Neal Gompa]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt;wrote:

>  King InuYasha wrote:
>  > Then don't use FFmpeg. And since Moonlight itself will not contain the MS
>  > codec pack, it can still fit in main Fedora repositories.
>
>  So you're suggesting we should promote the proprietary M$ codec pack
>  instead
>  of the Free alternative just so we can ship a semi-working Moonlight with
>  no audio/video support in Fedora rather than RPM Fusion? That makes no
>  sense whatsoever.
>
>  And as has been said in this thread, Moonlight itself is also
>  patent-encumbered.
>
>         Kevin Kofler
>
>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>  
Fedora has no trouble crippling software, so why would you think otherwise?