http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
Not intending to burn the house down. But, going by this article: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1 Dated 25th May. Unease sets in.
Frank
On 05/31/2009 12:42 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
Not intending to burn the house down. But, going by this article: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1 Dated 25th May. Unease sets in.
It is not clear what your intend is? Moonlight is already marked as not permitted
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight
Mono is in due to OIN
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/31/2009 12:42 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
Not intending to burn the house down. But, going by this article: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1 Dated 25th May. Unease sets in.
It is not clear what your intend is? Moonlight is already marked as not permitted
Available Packages Name : mono-moonlight Arch : i586 Version : 2.4 Release : 19.fc11 Size : 1.5 M Repo : fedora Summary : All the parts required for moonlight compilation URL : http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page License : MIT Description: mono-moonlight are all the parts required for moonlight compilation
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight
Mono is in due to OIN
Doesn't clarify things for me.
Frank
On 05/31/2009 03:41 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/31/2009 12:42 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1
Not intending to burn the house down. But, going by this article: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1 Dated 25th May. Unease sets in.
It is not clear what your intend is? Moonlight is already marked as not permitted
Available Packages Name : mono-moonlight
This is not moonlight itself.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492048
Rahul
2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) frankly3d@gmail.com:
Doesn't clarify things for me.
Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up - most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell. Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like this could really do with being revisited by Legal.
Some interesting commentary on some aspects of the article originally linked to by the OP:
http://www.osnews.com/story/21586/Mono_Moonlight_Patent_Encumbered_Or_Not_
J.
On 05/31/2009 06:28 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) frankly3d@gmail.com:
Doesn't clarify things for me.
Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up
- most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell.
Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like this could really do with being revisited by Legal.
If you have specific concerns, take it fedora-legal list. Developers cannot give you any legal opinions.
Rahul
2009/5/31 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org:
On 05/31/2009 06:28 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) frankly3d@gmail.com:
Doesn't clarify things for me.
Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up
- most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell.
Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like this could really do with being revisited by Legal.
If you have specific concerns, take it fedora-legal list. Developers cannot give you any legal opinions.
I wasn't asking them to.
If you are as scared of legal issues as you seem to be, then just pull ASP.net, ADO.net, and Winforms out. You would make a lot of people mad, but if you are really paranoid... Look at this for more info: http://mono-project.com/License#Patents
http://mono-project.com/License#PatentsAlso, regarding Moonlight 2, it is merely a subset of Mono, with some extra APIs suited for it, the only real difference between Moonlight and Mono is codecs. And you don't even have to include those, since Moonlight by default does not require them and can download them automatically when they are needed.
I really don't see why you should freak out over Moonlight, if Mono is protected, then Moonlight 2 should be protected, since it is a form of Mono itself.
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Jonathan Underwood < jonathan.underwood@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/5/31 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org:
On 05/31/2009 06:28 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/5/31 Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) frankly3d@gmail.com:
Doesn't clarify things for me.
Yes, things have changed a fair bit since the OIN was initially set up
- most notably the agreements that now exist between MS and Novell.
Presumably, since Novell were a key player in the OIN, this now weakens the whole OIN effort, particularly w.r.t mono etc. Looks like this could really do with being revisited by Legal.
If you have specific concerns, take it fedora-legal list. Developers cannot give you any legal opinions.
I wasn't asking them to.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
King InuYasha wrote:
I really don't see why you should freak out over Moonlight, if Mono is protected, then Moonlight 2 should be protected, since it is a form of Mono itself.
Moonlight needs to go to RPM Fusion anyway because it needs to link to FFmpeg, unless you want to use the proprietary codec pack from M$ (yuck!). So it's no use arguing about whether Moonlight itself is patent-encumbered or not.
Kevin Kofler
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.atwrote:
King InuYasha wrote:
I really don't see why you should freak out over Moonlight, if Mono is protected, then Moonlight 2 should be protected, since it is a form of Mono itself.
Moonlight needs to go to RPM Fusion anyway because it needs to link to FFmpeg, unless you want to use the proprietary codec pack from M$ (yuck!). So it's no use arguing about whether Moonlight itself is patent-encumbered or not.
Kevin Kofler-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Then don't use FFmpeg. And since Moonlight itself will not contain the MS codec pack, it can still fit in main Fedora repositories. If you don't want to do that, then find someone knowledgeable in GStreamer to write a GStreamer media backend for Moonlight.
King InuYasha wrote:
Then don't use FFmpeg. And since Moonlight itself will not contain the MS codec pack, it can still fit in main Fedora repositories.
So you're suggesting we should promote the proprietary M$ codec pack instead of the Free alternative just so we can ship a semi-working Moonlight with no audio/video support in Fedora rather than RPM Fusion? That makes no sense whatsoever.
And as has been said in this thread, Moonlight itself is also patent-encumbered.
Kevin Kofler
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.atwrote:
King InuYasha wrote:
Then don't use FFmpeg. And since Moonlight itself will not contain the MS codec pack, it can still fit in main Fedora repositories.
So you're suggesting we should promote the proprietary M$ codec pack instead of the Free alternative just so we can ship a semi-working Moonlight with no audio/video support in Fedora rather than RPM Fusion? That makes no sense whatsoever.
And as has been said in this thread, Moonlight itself is also patent-encumbered.
Kevin Kofler-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Fedora has no trouble crippling software, so why would you think otherwise?
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Frank Murphy -
Jonathan Underwood -
Kevin Kofler -
Neal Gompa -
Rahul Sundaram