Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, The-Source.com investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Permalink for comment 453446
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law...

someone elses words not mine... reverse engineering is not simply protected and allowed in the usa.. its under legal debate.. so obviously you wouldnt want to reverse engineer anything ever if you were worried about legal issues. Since we are "worrying" about legal issues my point is perfectly valid.


WTF? What in heavens name are you on about?

The rules in the DMCA disallow reverse engineering of a "technological protection measure" which has been put in place to prevent copying of copyrighted content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.


The reverse engineering of networking protocols performed by the Samba team by examining messages "on the wire" does nothing of the kind. There is no "access to copyrighted works" that is circumvented. There is no disassembly of Microsoft code involved, and there is no copying of Microsoft code either in binary or source code form that results. No copyrights are broken by the activity.

The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.

Furthermore, the Samba team now has specifications legally obtained from Microsft.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9836784-39.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-and-samba-finally-com...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/140786/microsoft_shares_windows_secr...

I think you must be VERY seriously confused here.

Edited 2010-12-14 10:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4