Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Jun 2009 09:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 367644
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
Yes and no. There are many areas that may be subject to submarine patents. However, Mono is far more dangerous than those examples because you *can* directly trace Mono's heritage. It a free implementation of a proprietary technology, but just because Mono is free software does not mean it's not patent encumbered.
I am much more concerned about the close, direct lineage of Mono to Microsoft than other technologies with less-known heritages that may or may not have Microsoft encumbrances. There's no disputing where Mono comes from while other technologies may be defensible in a variety of ways, such as prior art, superceding patents and the like.