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, 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 453457
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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.

A well versed internetaholic would realise i was aluding the fact the DMCA is often used when theres not any real encyption just a hidden set of apis.

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.

Normally supporting a nondeclared 3rd party api (namespace) without reverse engineering is fully legal. Hence j# is allowed but isnt allowed to be called java.

If this dosent change then the whole point of this news item is mute. All its saying is mono (without reverse engineering or stealing ms code) has implemented a 3rd party api without permission.

Many programs do this not just microsoft.. (wine any emulation or vm software etc)...

Google is currently being sued by oracle for implementing java libraries namespace without permission. I would suggest this will fail based on information above.

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.

If oracle wins.. then samba can be sued by ms unless explicit permission is granted for use if ms say their networking protocols are part of its software protection. (see apple example above.. note this hasnt been proven in court properly yet)

...legally obtained from Microsft.

I didnt know that, thanks for the info. I beleive ms will NEVER sue mono as microsoft rarely sues anyone. Obviously implicit permission to use is implied when ms provided samba with the documentation so .. its extremely unlike ms would ever sue them (however perhaps potentially still within their right to if namespace patents are enforced.)

The issue you were mainly aluding to is that samba is a clean room implementation and so should be free of patent issues.. your right and i agree (so long as google wins that part of the case which it should as ms and others have previously).

Googles implementation of java is exactly the same as monos of .net only mono has semi direct permission from the owner.

This news item is just part of the pathetic media campaign to blind normal people from seeing the obvious hypocracy of the situation.

Google has issues with sun..
mono has never had any with microsoft (and has more rights to claim they have permission.)

If your worried about patent issues.. drop java/android and use .Net/mono

omg wtf ?? really?? think about it.. u know im right.

Reply Parent Score: 1