On Mon, 06 Jul 2009, Peter Dolding wrote:
> non-free is the section I mean. Items in there have restrictions
> that could mean they are non free.
non-free is for things which we can distribute legally but do not meet
the DFSG. Things that are controlled by patents which are actively
enforced for w
On Mon Jul 06 21:04, Peter Dolding wrote:
> What is more worrying here is the progressions of license conversions
> it slowly looks like its completely converting to MIT so meaning
> Novell will not be blocked by shipping if Patent claims come.
GPLv3 would be the only thing which provided any such
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:49 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> Peter Dolding wrote: [...]
>> In fact the head of Microsoft has said That only Novell and other
>> people who have signed agreements is protected. So all the class
>> libraries of mono need to move to the restricted section. Hopefully
>> this will
Peter Dolding wrote: [...]
> In fact the head of Microsoft has said That only Novell and other
> people who have signed agreements is protected. So all the class
> libraries of mono need to move to the restricted section. Hopefully
> this will push the .Net wanting people to get clarification o
Peter Dolding writes:
> http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing
>
> Mono engine was pure GPL and Class libraries was LGPL at one point.
>
> These days the Mono engine is hybred MIT & GPL and the class libraries is MIT.
>
> This trend is something to be worried about. MIT does not provide any
> pate
5 matches
Mail list logo
