Mono Platform

Warren Togami wtogami at
Sun Mar 13 21:48:54 UTC 2005

Eric Warnke wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
>>>This is confusing ... are you saying that mono is incompatible with FC? 
>>>The Compiler and tools are GPL, the runtime is LGPL, and the class
>>>libraries are MIT X11.  I was so hoping to see them appear in extras
>>>especially with the growing number of mono gnome apps.
>>I'm saying the last time this was asked the answer, I believe, was
>>'patents prohibit us from including it'

Note that "GPL" and "patents" also describes the situation of mplayer.

> The appropriate page ( )
> indicated clearly that they take every possible step to avoid patents in
> the code libraries that might contain sumarine patents.  Yes, .NET has
> patents, but the patent holder has given a world wide royalty free
> license for whatever porpose when it submitted it to ISO/ECMA.
If you actually read what the Microsoft guy said, your paragraph and the 
way describes the situation is highly questionable.

Among the more obvious problems:
- RAND is incompatible with the GPL
- "patents ... (non-commercial) purpose" is too
- Is this vague post equal to a legally binding, perpetual and 
non-revokable license to use Microsoft's patents without being sued?
- Elsewhere Microsoft execs have threatened vocally to sue

I suppose we can ask legal, but I don't hold much hope.

> To avoid shipping useful free software because of threat of parents
> would wipe out the distribution, remeber there is still an outstanding
> SCO claim of $600/cpu for running the kernel.  The apache license
> specifically disclaims any patent protection.  Samba probably teeters on
> infringment for each new feature it implements. 
> So I pose it to the list again, why not include mono?

In the end should we follow the opinion of RH's legal, or some guy on a 
mailing list?

(Don't answer that.)

Warren Togami
wtogami at

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list