There is also a potential problem related to patents: If you write software and release it under the MIT X11 license, and then you find out that someone has a patent on some idea(s) that you used in the program, this MIT X11 licensed program which you have written is actually proprietary software under the control of the owner of the patent.
For example, Microsoft has filed a patent application on the .NET APIs. What if the US Patent Office decides to grant this patent, and then Microsoft sends a "you must buy a license for using our patent" letter to Novell? Novell has already publicly stated that in this situation they would buy the offered license from Microsoft. The problem with this is that Microsoft's patent licenses typically don't come with sublicensing rights. This means that then only Novell would have the right to create and distribute modified versions of Mono. Mono would suddenly be proprietary software.
Réponse de mono :
Miguel de Icaza said: "In our case, if Microsoft in fact owns patents to the technology and they require the licensing of those, we are willing to license those for the sake of our users and customers."
Bref, ils feront comme toutes les boîtes qui diffusent du propriétaire avec des brevets dedans.
[^] # Re: mono vs DotGNU
Posté par fabb . En réponse à la dépêche Interview de Miguel de Icaza par O'reilly. Évalué à 2.
Passage intéressant :
Réponse de mono :
Bref, ils feront comme toutes les boîtes qui diffusent du propriétaire avec des brevets dedans.