saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote:
> [...] if it is indeed required that the patent indemnity be
> requested then from a patent license perspective, the Mono
> implementation should fail Debian Legal's "Desert Island" and
> "Dissident" tests for DFSG compliance[5] because upstream
Thank you for the detailed exploration of your understanding of these
issues.
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com writes:
> Not to conflate the issues of patent licensing with copyright
> licensing, but if […] , the Mono implementation should fail Debian
> Legal's "Desert Island" and "Disside
Quoting "Bradley M. Kuhn" :
Steve Langasek wrote at 19:58 (EDT) on Sunday:
we don't consider the existence of a software patent claim to be a
sufficient reason to remove software from main.
Well said. There are so many USA patents, if you tried to remove every
piece of software from main th
Steve Langasek wrote at 19:58 (EDT) on Sunday:
> we don't consider the existence of a software patent claim to be a
> sufficient reason to remove software from main.
Well said. There are so many USA patents, if you tried to remove every
piece of software from main that might be judged to practic
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:05:56PM +1000, Peter Dolding wrote:
> This is going to cause upset I know pushing all the .net applications
> out of mainline.My problem here is legal status. Debian has to
> protect all its uses commercial and non commercial a like. Mono is
> going to have to be
moonlight ms conditions not to sue
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight_definitions.aspx#intermediate
"Intermediate Recipients" means resellers, recipients, and
distributors to the extent they are
kage uses
--with-cairo=system to use Debian's Cairo.
The Ms-PL stuff consists of two places - some Javascript files (which
are never compiled anyway, and are used as part of the test harness),
and Microsoft's Silverlight Controls (which would be enabled using
--with-managed=yes, default is
when I stated my comment was "more hypothetical",
it was precisely owing to the fact that the Moonlight packages are in
a third-party repository and that "a code website" should probably not
be considered under copyright law definitions as a ?joint work? ("...
a wo
debian-legal is an advice forum, and in no way has
a formal role regarding license compliance - that role belongs to
ftp-master.
>Firstly, there seems to be some inaccuracies on the Project's
>Debianwiki page
>(http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianMonoGroup/Moonlight).
This page isn
I would raise a few questions about the licensing terms of the
Moonlight Project's source and binary packages.
Firstly, there seems to be some inaccuracies on the Project's
Debianwiki page
(http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianMonoGroup/Moonlight).
The Moonlight licensing is de
daemon.. err Microsoft.. like Novell has.. Will I have to suffer
> > the shadow of Microsoft patents over Silverlight when using or
> > developing Moonlight?
>
> Not as long as you get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include
> patent coverage.
See: http://linux.slash
11 matches
Mail list logo