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 366627
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: minefield
by oiaohm on Tue 2nd Jun 2009 07:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: minefield"
Member since:

Samba is a hard one. The official maintainer for the core of the network protocol MS uses is Samba not MS.

Legalities could find that MS does not have any rights to have any patents on the protocals samba supports reason every patent created while committing a crime so void.

Reversing and implementing to restore compatibility could be pure legal. Part in charge of a standard body
should not have to resort to legal action in the EU or anywhere else to get information back from a thief. Its the major reason MS lost in the EU. Same case in USA would have seen MS patents on the protocol awarded to the standard body.

The simple point this is about mono not samba. Samba legal status is fairly well known. Its not a open and shut case. MS patents are more likely void on Samba just they don't know it yet.

Mono on the other hand there is nothing to void the patents. .Net is new tech. No case of stealing can be made.

I am getting sick of some of these idiots. UNO sun copyright. Sun did not make UNO. the 2000 date is when SUN changed UNO from closed source to open. UNO is prior art to com. Anyone with a pre 1990 copy of starwriter will find it already contains UNO. COM patent is a joke.

Edited 2009-06-02 07:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1