[Mono-devel-list] ByteFX development

[Massimiliano Mantione]

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 09:37, Chris Turchin wrote:
> Am I then as a developer of this application in the position that I need
> to conform to all licenses which might apply to the possible data
> providers, just because I am using a DB provider factory that could in
> theory support them? This seems ridiculous to me, as I am just providing
> someone with the opportunity to use another DB provider if they want, I
> am not distributing it with my application. If this is the case,
> however, then suddenly flexible nature of the IDb* interfaces falls into
> a whole other light for me...
> 
> I am interested in hearing what all the 'non-lawyers' out there there
> think...

You might find these links useful (and by the way, the LWN site is
simply wonderful IMHO, I actually subscribed to it).
They are probably the most informative things I've read on this
subject.

http://lwn.net/Articles/62202/
http://lwn.net/Articles/62446/
http://lwn.net/Articles/62689/

The first is an interview to a lawyer (by Pamela Jones).
The second is a comment on binary modules inside the linux kernel
(I think it's by Jonathan Corbet, LWN editor), and the third is a
direct link to a comment on the second.

Particularly the story told in the third link should be relevant
to the ByteFX issue.

Ciao,
  Massi