Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th May 2009 22:32 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project If there is one technology in the Linux world that ruffles feathers whenever it's mentioned, it's Mono, the open source .Net clone. Since .Net comes out of Microsoft, and has some patents encircling it, it is said to be a legal nightmare. Supposedly, you can obtain a "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" license from Microsoft regarding the patents surrounding Mono. iTWire decided to look at just how easy (or hard) it is to get such a license. Turns out it's kind of hard.
Permalink for comment 366207
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Failure to understand licences.
by oiaohm on Sat 30th May 2009 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE: minefield"
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

1. Samba = GPLv3
2. Fat < Optional long filename
3. WMA = Optional Feature with codec with patent coverage buyable patent protected codec from Fluendo so not a issue.
4. Wine = LGPLv3
5. OpenOffice = GPLv3
6. Desktop environment = Lots GPLv3 or LGPLv3

Anything LGPLv3 or GPLv3 patent holder cannot take on individuals license is negate with whole or nothing.

Mono is GPLv2 not 3 for the engine. In the runtime itself MIT license no patent protection for you. So yes it can be done against individuals.

MS is desperate to dispute they are not distributing gplv3 because once distributing they have already given a patent license.

The GPLv3 blocking of patent attack is why from time to time changing of Linux kernel license to it comes up. With Mono a user targeted licensor already exists that is really restrictive on who they will sell patents to.

Reply Parent Score: 1