Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th May 2009 22:32 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Permalink for comment 366455
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-11-17
Perhaps it's my error, but I interpret this section of the GPL so that it does not need a court decision to trigger this clause. All it needs is
a.) a necessary patent license for implementing let's say an ECMA specification (which according to the articles seems to be necessary)
b.) with terms incompatible to the GPL
c.) and somebody starting to demand adherence to this license selectively
that distributing of Mono under the terms of the GPL and LGPL (well, at least those parts that are licensed this way) will have to stop.
This is exactly what I was trying to convey with my first response to your post, btw.
There would be no need for this ambiguity if there was
a proper patent license.
This is just plain double standards. Why don't you write Guido and ask him for a (legally binding) list of patents that python is infringing on?
Does Guido or any other of the Python devs have any patents which they may choose to license only in incompatible terms to the users of Python? Does Guido has a special patent covenant not to sue over patents with one mixed source vendor? Has Guido recently sued for example a hardware manufactor over his "special" implemenation of the vfat feature in the Linux kernel while silently collecting license fees from other vendors in a fashion which raises doubts about the conformance to the GPL?
Thought so.
If Mono is in a position (frankly, I have to claim irrogance on this point) to relicense the GPL/LGPL based parts of their project so that they don't have to deal with the patent fallout than this would indeed at least mitigate the risk of "pulling the plug" at mono. It does, however, leave a shallow taste.
I was not talking about the codecs, but about the "Covenant to Downstream Recipients of Moonlight" (at least it does not mention any mpeg or related patents, explicitly excludes any other technology not directly associated with the plugin in its languague, hence I have to assume that this covers the plugin itself and not the codec), which can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx
I may be wrong here, so please correct me if this is the case, but the definitions of "Downstream Recipients" and "Intermediate Recipients" in the document above seem to exclude a lot of potential parties to the GPL.
(e.g. downstream recipient is anybody who gets the software directly from novell and is not an intermediate recipient, intermediate recipients are not allowed to peddle their own branded version of operating sytstems).