Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.

2009-06-04 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.

2009-06-03 Thread Ben Finney
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

Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.

2009-06-03 Thread saulgoode
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

Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.

2009-06-02 Thread 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 that might be judged to practic

Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.

2009-05-31 Thread Steve Langasek
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

mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.

2009-05-29 Thread Peter Dolding
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

Re: Moonlight Package Licensing

2009-04-26 Thread Jo Shields
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

Re: Moonlight Package Licensing

2009-04-25 Thread saulgoode
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

Re: Moonlight Package Licensing

2009-04-25 Thread Jo Shields
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

Moonlight Package Licensing

2009-04-24 Thread saulgoode
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

moonlight

2007-09-11 Thread Robert Millan
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