Yes get up me I quoted the wrong distribution bit hard when they were the one firm. Fedora mono has been allowed kinda. Redhat enterprise mono is fully forbin not even in Redhat enterprise repos since 2006. Sorry I was word swapping the distro names.
** *From Fedora developers. * *“We do have some serious concerns about Mono and we’ll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part,” *Frields said. *“We haven’t come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out,” Frields said. “Right now we’re in a status quo. Gnote is a relatively recent development and unfortunately was too late in the Fedora 11 development cycle to include by default.”* Key thing here mono fans fail to read. "We haven't come to a legal conclusion". They did not come to the legal conclusion that it was safe either. That is status undefined it could be safe or you could get sued. With the means to a patent attack blocking imports its not a wise thing to include. Do you really what to trust your ass to undefined. Sure to hell I don't. Note size saving were not even talked about. Fedora maintainers are not happy either. Default packages are mono free due to legal and size. This is the wise way to be. Put mono and its applications in repo and not default install until legal status can be resolved. So if some legal issue does appear over mono your installer disks are still fine. Since the installer disks don't contain it someone cannot be a pain and block imports. If users get the applications after so be it. [email protected] Fedora forbin list is only for items that status is 100 percent sure to be legally doomed use it risk dieing inside days. Redhat enterprise forbin list include suspect. Also its like other codecs and times in the Fedora distributions where you require licenses to use that do not appear in redhat enterprise at all. My question remains the same is mono legally covered or not. Intel agreement over silverlight and other things might cover the risk. If it is legally covered what is the conditions so I know where is 100 percent safe. By the way banshee uses sections of .Net outside MS patent coverage promise. Sections of MS .Net not included in the official standard of .net. Ms promise only covered what was in the standard nothing more. Anything out side the standard you are on your own even if MS .Net includes it. Novell personal like *Jeffrey Stedfast *Don't want to admit this that their might be big legal trouble waiting for us. I would love some Novell personal to have the balls to state clearly what the legal status is for everyone regarding MS patents particularly covering items like Banshee that go outside MS patent promises. Size issue is another one we will want to fit as many applications on a disk as able. Mono really does not help use do that. Really a smaller download would be good with more applications in it. Performance of mono applications in low ram conditions is also really bad as with all JIT type items also Mono applications are not good for runing straight from Rom where native Linux applications are good due to copy on write being able to be performed over the rom for native applications. Ie less ram usage by native. We want Meego to have some advantage over android don't we? Run from rom if the rom is fast provides faster statup times of device and applications ie no copying into memory. Including a JIT is not to Meego advantage offer something different to compete with Android. Yes I hang out around boycottnovell. But my issues with mono existed way before I was even linked with Boycottnovell. I was looking at shipping products .net based and could not get straight answers on if I was or was not able to ship mono with my applications from Mono lead developer. This left me searching for indexs of information so lead to me being around boycottnovell. Still today I have not see a single straight answer covering such a simple question ie can I legally ship mono with my application without worrying about my ass. If there are conditions that could cost my ass what are they. Ie can I build own copy of mono to ship yes/no. Can I ship it with a commercial program yes/no. All I have ever been after with Mono is a few simple straight answers. No answers no trust. Java when it was still closed source I got the answers in under a day. Notice something else *Jeffrey Stedfast* did not point and say here is the legal documentation saying that mono is safe. Instead said I had to be a Troll. Dear *Jeffrey Stedfast* Trolls argument lines are killed by truth if it exists. If you don't have truth you are the troll not me. I have items from Redhats actions to base my treatment of mono on. That is a truth. Must be counted by a stronger truth. Really most of the people at boycottnovell over mono all they want is some simple straight answers what the legal limits are so they can then work inside the limits. Peter Dolding
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
