Mono Platform

[Eric Warnke]

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'
>
>
>  
>

The appropriate page ( http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing )
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. 

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?

Cheers,
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050313/7b4f8ccf/attachment.sig>