Re: New covenant published
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 15:14:40 -0600, Sir Gallantmon ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: Then I guess we shouldn't have AJAX either, since Microsoft developed one of the core technologies behind AJAX. And for the running foreign code on your machine adds extra risk above just running a complicated beast like a graphical web browser. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
New covenant published (was: Re: moonlight and the new covenant)
On 19/12/09 11:03, Alex Hudson wrote: The covenant is published as far as I can see here: No, that's the previous one which was not good enough. The new one is not yet published. Correction: it's now published here - http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/newmoonlight.mspx To my untrained eye, it seems to cover Moonlight fully, the termination clause doesn't work retroactively, it includes coverage for the Mono portions and it seems to apply for everyone - hopefully this is a good thing. It seems to remove previous objections about Novell-only-ness. Thanks Alex. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published (was: Re: moonlight and the new covenant)
Alex Hudson wrote: Correction: it's now published here - http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/newmoonlight.mspx To my untrained eye, it seems to cover Moonlight fully, the termination clause doesn't work retroactively, it includes coverage for the Mono portions and it seems to apply for everyone - hopefully this is a good thing. It seems to remove previous objections about Novell-only-ness. This is still non-Free: Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries, hereby covenants not to sue End Users for infringement under Necessary Claims of Microsoft and its Subsidiaries on account of such End Users’ use of Moonlight Implementations to the extent originally provided by Novell during the Term and, if applicable, the Extension or Post-Extension Period, but only to the extent such Moonlight Implementations are used as Conforming Runtimes. [...] “Conforming Runtime” means plug-in or other runtime functionality hosted by a Conforming Host for receiving and rendering, wholly within such Conforming Host, media and interactive applications compatible with Silverlight 3 or Silverlight 4. [...] “Moonlight Implementation” means only those specific portions of Moonlight 3 or Moonlight 4 that run only as Conforming Runtimes within a Conforming Host on a Personal Computer and are not licensed under GPLv3 or a Similar License. This appears to be a classical The license only applies if you comply to our standard restriction, which is non-Free because it doesn't allow using the code for a different purpose (nor to extend the standard, which is kinda ironic coming from a company which keeps extending everyone ELSE's standards with proprietary extensions). As the patent license is non-Free, Moonlight still has to be considered non- Free wherever software patents apply. So as far as I can tell, this is not acceptable for Fedora, sorry. (But of course spot and/or RH Legal will have the final word.) Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
On 12/23/2009 01:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: As the patent license is non-Free, Moonlight still has to be considered non- Free wherever software patents apply. So as far as I can tell, this is not acceptable for Fedora, sorry. (But of course spot and/or RH Legal will have the final word.) Well, patent licenses don't necessarily have to be Free, not at least in the way that we think of copyright licenses. With that said, this new covenant does NOT change our stance on Moonlight. It is still not permissible in Fedora. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote: On 23/12/09 18:46, Tom spot Callaway wrote: With that said, this new covenant does NOT change our stance on Moonlight. It is still not permissible in Fedora. Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is there some other problem? It's difficult to fix things if we don't know what's broken. The most obvious issue is that it does not cover Distributors besides Novell. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
On 23/12/09 18:58, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote: Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is there some other problem? It's difficult to fix things if we don't know what's broken. The most obvious issue is that it does not cover Distributors besides Novell. I thought that was the whole reason a new covenant has been issued, so that people other than Novell could distribute it. Looking over it, I don't really see where any distinction between Novell and anyone else is made. It would be useful to have some response from legal people about the exact issues which remain. It seems to me highly unlikely that problems are going to be resolved unless the problems are made clear; and the movement on this issue appears to be in the right direction. I realise a number of people don't care for Mono-related technologies, but it would be sad to see Fedora left out in the cold for this stuff. Cheers Alex. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
On 12/23/2009 02:10 PM, Alex Hudson wrote: On 23/12/09 18:58, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote: Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is there some other problem? It's difficult to fix things if we don't know what's broken. The most obvious issue is that it does not cover Distributors besides Novell. I thought that was the whole reason a new covenant has been issued, so that people other than Novell could distribute it. Looking over it, I don't really see where any distinction between Novell and anyone else is made. The new covenant is specifically worded to apply only to end-users, and makes the following noteworthy distinction: an entity or individual cannot qualify both as an End User and a Distributor for use of the same copy of a Moonlight Implementation. It grants no patent rights to Distributors, aside from those already granted to Novell in the previous covenant. What it practically means is that once you distribute, you stop being considered an End User by Microsoft, and are no longer protected by this covenant (unless you're Novell or Microsoft). It would be useful to have some response from legal people about the exact issues which remain. It seems to me highly unlikely that problems are going to be resolved unless the problems are made clear; and the movement on this issue appears to be in the right direction. It is very very unlikely (I'll go so far as to say impossible) for any Red Hat Legal people to discuss this issue in unprivileged forums. Lawyers rarely like going on the record, especially when patent concerns are involved, because any statements that they make in public could be used later to reflect varying degrees of intent in a patent trial, triggering possible issues such as treble damages. I would encourage interested parties to review Rob Tiller's slides from SCALE 7x, to gain a better understanding of the complexities and risks around software patents: http://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale7x/conference-info/speakers/rob-tiller http://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale7x-audio/Saturday/TrackA/Talk%235RobTiller.mp3 (Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3 format is not lost on me.) If Microsoft was serious about encouraging adoption of the Silverlight/Moonlight technology in FOSS, they would do so with an unrestricted patent grant for all end-users and distributors for code under any FOSS license (not just some). They are clearly unwilling to do that. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
On 12/24/2009 12:52 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: It grants no patent rights to Distributors, aside from those already granted to Novell in the previous covenant. What it practically means is that once you distribute, you stop being considered an End User by Microsoft, and are no longer protected by this covenant (unless you're Novell or Microsoft). This means, when you copy SUSE CD and give it a friend, you are not covered under this covenant either? That's... interesting. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
Tom spot Callaway wrote: (Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3 format is not lost on me.) Just think... one more year... one more year... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com said: Tom spot Callaway wrote: (Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3 format is not lost on me.) Just think... one more year... one more year... It doesn't look like that is the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Licensing_and_patent_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MP3#Patents -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: New covenant published
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Alan Milnes a...@linux.com wrote: 2009/12/23 Alex Hudson fed...@alexhudson.com: I realise a number of people don't care for Mono-related technologies, but it would be sad to see Fedora left out in the cold for this stuff. Actually it makes me very *happy* to have a distro untainted by this stuff. Never forget their MO:- Embrace - Extend - Extinguish Alan All thoughts are my own Then I guess we shouldn't have AJAX either, since Microsoft developed one of the core technologies behind AJAX. Their MO may be Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, but they are not in a landscape where they can do that without severe backlash. We get angry a lot over Linux FUD, but that doesn't mean you are given the right to spread FUD against Microsoft too. Mono is based on an open standard, a standard that is being updated periodically too. The parts that aren't part of the standard can easily be placed in separate packages and not installed, if you are really concerned about it. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
