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 366226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by oiaohm on Sun 31st May 2009 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Missing the point on license"
Member since:

IF you want to start freaking out over it, consider where patented COM is used in Linux:

* Mozilla's XPCOM used in Thunderbird and Firefox.
* Songbird (XPCOM)
* VirtualBox (XPCOM again)
* OpenOffice's COM implementation (called "UNO")

The COM patent is here:

UNO is prior art by the way. It existed in Staroffice and StarWriter before that. Predates MS using com and having com. Heck its almost pre dos. Did you not think it was strange it did not have com in its name. Universal Network Objects is a very old item. It one of the oldest design bits still in openoffice. Its over 20 years old.

This is part of the problem when you start thinking open source is at risk of a particular patent lot of cases you will find prior art that renders it useless.

Open source code infringing the Microsoft patent is here:

Then there are the OpenGL patents that Microsoft bought from Silicon Graphics in 2002. They have owned all the OpenGL patents for the last seven years.

100 percent invalid. The Khronos Group holds a forever patent grant from Silicon Graphics for implementers of opengl. So those patents are useless. If someone wanted to create something non opengl as a graphics interface then MS could use them.

Edited 2009-05-31 02:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1