> I refer you to our licensing page, or to the wikipedia for the gory
> details.

>>> What will be the terms for commercial usage of Mono?

>> I refer you to our licensing page, or to the wikipedia for the gory
>> details.

> Thanks.

>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#License

>    Developers contributing source code to Mono upstream must agree to
>    distribute their code to Novell under a license that allows Novell to
>    relicense the code under other licensing terms. This practice is
>    similar to copyright assignment agreements used in other free and
>    open source software projects (used in many GNU projects and by
>    MySQL), however, this method allows the developer to retain
>    copyright of the original work while still preserving Novell's
>    ability to commercially license Mono for specific customers that
>    require different licensing terms than what is provided in general
>    release versions (such as running Mono in embedded firmware
>    environments).

>    . . .

>    This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[8]:

>        Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#.
>        Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that
>        Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think
>        it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono.
>        There's nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free
>        implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide
>        free implementations. We should have free implementations of
>        every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better
>        not do that.

>    On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement
>    whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for
>    patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de
>    Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell
>    developers and customers.

>> * Miguel de Icaza peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>> What will be the terms for commercial usage of Mono?

>>> I refer you to our licensing page, or to the wikipedia for the gory
>>> details.

> You merely copy that info thus making yet another redundant copy. You
> have made no comment and as usual your only currency is posting other
> peoples work with no apparent understanding or use for it. Almost as bad
> as HPT.

>>> What will be the terms for commercial usage of Mono?

>> I refer you to our licensing page, or to the wikipedia for the gory
>> details.

> Thanks.

>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#License

>    Developers contributing source code to Mono upstream must agree to
>    distribute their code to Novell under a license that allows Novell to
>    relicense the code under other licensing terms. This practice is
>    similar to copyright assignment agreements used in other free and
>    open source software projects (used in many GNU projects and by
>    MySQL), however, this method allows the developer to retain
>    copyright of the original work while still preserving Novell's
>    ability to commercially license Mono for specific customers that
>    require different licensing terms than what is provided in general
>    release versions (such as running Mono in embedded firmware
>    environments).

>    . . .

>    This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[8]:

>        Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#.
>        Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that
>        Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think
>        it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono.
>        There's nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free
>        implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide
>        free implementations. We should have free implementations of
>        every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better
>        not do that.

>    On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement
>    whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for
>    patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de
>    Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell
>    developers and customers.

>> * Miguel de Icaza peremptorily fired off this memo:

>>>> What will be the terms for commercial usage of Mono?

>>> I refer you to our licensing page, or to the wikipedia for the gory
>>> details.

>> Thanks.

>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#License

>>    Developers contributing source code to Mono upstream must agree to
>>    distribute their code to Novell under a license that allows Novell to
>>    relicense the code under other licensing terms. This practice is
>>    similar to copyright assignment agreements used in other free and
>>    open source software projects (used in many GNU projects and by
>>    MySQL), however, this method allows the developer to retain
>>    copyright of the original work while still preserving Novell's
>>    ability to commercially license Mono for specific customers that
>>    require different licensing terms than what is provided in general
>>    release versions (such as running Mono in embedded firmware
>>    environments).

>>    . . .

>>    This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[8]:

>>        Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#.
>>        Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that
>>        Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think
>>        it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono.
>>        There's nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free
>>        implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide
>>        free implementations. We should have free implementations of
>>        every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better
>>        not do that.

>>    On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement
>>    whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for
>>    patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de
>>    Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell
>>    developers and customers.

> Tes, got to have some competitive advantage, hey? ;-) You know, keep those
> nasty Ubuntu feet on fire.

>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#License

>>>    On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement
>>>    whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for
>>>    patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de
>>>    Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell
>>>    developers and customers.

> Oh god, I'd no idea that the Mono licensing terms were so awful for the
> authors of the code.  This is basically a BSD clause - you write, Novell
> get to take the code and give you nothing back.  This is atrocious, and
> I sincerely hope that nobody is stupid enough to contribute any code
> under such conditions.

>>> ____/ Linonut on Monday 03 March 2008 16:46 : \____

>>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#License

>>>>    On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement
>>>>    whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for
>>>>    patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de
>>>>    Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell
>>>>    developers and customers.

>> Oh god, I'd no idea that the Mono licensing terms were so awful for the
>> authors of the code.  This is basically a BSD clause - you write, Novell
>> get to take the code and give you nothing back.  This is atrocious, and
>> I sincerely hope that nobody is stupid enough to contribute any code
>> under such conditions.

>    http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_General#If_Microsoft_will_release_a_...

>     If Microsoft will release a port of their .NET platform under the
>     'Shared Source' license, why should I bother with anything else?

>     The Shared Source implementation will be expensive and its uses will
>     be tightly restricted, especially for commercial use. We are working
>     towards an implementation that will grant a number of important
>     rights to recipients: use for any purpose, redistribution,
>     modification, and redistribution of modifications. This is what we
>     call Free Software.

> The "Free Software" phrase is a link:

>    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

> At Novell:

>    http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.html

>    * Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono,
>      Samba, and OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server.
>    * All of these technologies will be improved upon during the 5 years of
>      the agreement and there are some limits on the coverage that would be
>      provided for future technologies added to these offerings.
>    * The collaboration framework we have put in place allows us to work on
>      complex subjects such as this where intellectual property and
>      innovation are important parts of the conversation.

>>>> ____/ Linonut on Monday 03 March 2008 16:46 : \____

>>>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#License

>>>>>    On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement
>>>>>    whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for
>>>>>    patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de
>>>>>    Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell
>>>>>    developers and customers.

>>> Oh god, I'd no idea that the Mono licensing terms were so awful for the
>>> authors of the code.  This is basically a BSD clause - you write, Novell
>>> get to take the code and give you nothing back.  This is atrocious, and
>>> I sincerely hope that nobody is stupid enough to contribute any code
>>> under such conditions.

>>     If Microsoft will release a port of their .NET platform under the
>>     'Shared Source' license, why should I bother with anything else?

>>     The Shared Source implementation will be expensive and its uses will
>>     be tightly restricted, especially for commercial use. We are working
>>     towards an implementation that will grant a number of important
>>     rights to recipients: use for any purpose, redistribution,
>>     modification, and redistribution of modifications. This is what we
>>     call Free Software.

>> The "Free Software" phrase is a link:

>>    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

>> At Novell:

>>    http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.html

>>    * Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono,
>>      Samba, and OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server.
>>    * All of these technologies will be improved upon during the 5 years of
>>      the agreement and there are some limits on the coverage that would be
>>      provided for future technologies added to these offerings.
>>    * The collaboration framework we have put in place allows us to work on
>>      complex subjects such as this where intellectual property and
>>      innovation are important parts of the conversation.

> Oh gawd... it just gets worse.  No wonder de Icaza is desperately trying
> to defend what he's done.  I couldn't sleep at nights if I'd done that.