mono? true?

[D Canfield]

n0dalus wrote:

>On 1/10/06, seth vidal <skvidal at linux.duke.edu> wrote:
>  
>
>>I'd be most interested to know what changed from yesterday to today. Why
>>is it that for FC3 and FC4 mono was a no-go and now it is allowed in.
>>What was the magic solution?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I'd like to know too. I noticed wine is now in FC4 extras as well. Has
>Fedora changed its project goals?
>
>n0dalus.
>
>  
>
I think you're overlooking this section in the mono "announcement" (with 
my emphasis):

"This was for a variety of reasons; Some were *business-related* and 
others were *strategic* in nature but those don’t really matter right now."

That line doesn't say to me 'we got over the fear of patents, 
copyrights, and lawsuits.' That says to me, 'mono is related to Novell 
and/or Microsoft, and Red Hat didn't like that.' I'm in no way the type 
of person worries that Red Hat is out to screw over the community, and I 
realize that this 0xdeadbeef site isn't an official spokesperson for Red 
Hat, but in this particular case it sure looks like an admission that 
people weren't being entirely up-front about the motivations behind 
their actions. I'm not saying this to stir up trouble, but rather to 
point out how it appears so that those involved can clarify, if appropriate.

DC