http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Argh... I know I said I wouldn't, but this one really needs to have some scale applied.

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:43:28AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > They just "promised" (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to sue you.
> 
> So what about the patents owned by redhat?
> http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
> It's also just "promise".

And it suffers from some of the "promise" and "not license grant" problems as well.

But I should point out a few things which must be duly noted in order to understand
the scale difference.

	(1) Red Hat does NOT have a history of attacking Free Software

	(2) Red Hat does HAVE a history of promoting Free Software with deeds and words

	(3) Red Hat opposes software patents:
	    «Red Hat has consistently taken the position that software patents generally
	     impede innovation in software development and that software patents are
	     inconsistent with open source/free software.» -- First phrase in Red Hat's
	     statement of position on software patents.

	    «A relatively small number of very large companies have amassed large numbers
	     of software patents. We believe such massive software patent portfolios are
	     ripe for misuse because of the questionable nature of many software patents
	     generally and because of the high cost of patent litigation.»

	(4) Red Hat fully acknowledges the most important Free Software Licenses:
	    «Approved License means any of the following licenses: GNU General Public
	     License v2.0 and v3.0; GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 and v3.0, IBM
	     Public License v1.0; Common Public License v1.0; Q Public License v1.0; Open
	     Software License v3.0; and any open source license granted by Red Hat.
	     Red Hat may add to this list in its sole discretion by publication on this page.

	(5) "any claim" (aka well defined) vs "necessary claims" (aka smoke screen)

As such, even though there are problems, Red Hat is a "good citizen", whilst Microsoft is a
several times repeating offender.

Who would you give the benefit of doubt, and whom would you demand proof from?

Rui