Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 21st May 2004 01:17 UTC
Mono Project The tomato war between Red Hat, Novell and the developer Gnome community about Mono and its legal safety continued today. Novell's Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza replied to yesterday's editorial by Red Hat's Seth Nickell. Later, Red Hat's Havoc Pennington replied to Nat and Gnome's Andrew Sobala also threw a few (metallic) cents too. For future episodes, bookmark PlanetGnome (unverified rumors circulating on IRC claim that eggs might be used next if there is no sign of their lawyers meeting with Microsoft to try to give an end to the saga). In any case, you don't want to miss this.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
re: Storm In a Teacup
by t3rmin4t0r on Fri 21st May 2004 22:57 UTC

In our case, if Microsoft in fact owns patents to the technology and they require the licensing of those, we are willing to license those for the sake of our users and customers.

In which case it becomes non-sublicensable ... which is still ok for Mono to be a revenue stream for Novell .. but is not enough for Gnome or some other community project.

What I said is reflected on our FAQ: we dont believe that *any* of it is patentable.

Quoting Havoc:
if you precisely copy someone else's technology, it's much easier to convince a jury your stuff is infringing than if you have something vaguely similar but with distinct heritage

http://nwc.linuxpipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=20300445 Clearly has Bruce Perens saying
"I'm concerned that Mono may eventually be proprietary Novell software rather than open source, simply because there will be too many patents involved that require royalty licensing," Perens added. "Open source developers care about this project because they assume it will stay open source, and Novell has not addressed this problem."


USPTO Patent application: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&...'20030028685'.PGNR.&OS=DN/20030028685&RS=DN/20030028685

Does indeed cover ASP.NET totally inside


27. A method as recited in claim 26, wherein the first namespace defines classes that facilitate: construction and use of Web services; temporary caching of resources; initial configuration; creation of controls and Web pages; security in Web server applications; and access to session state values.


The really scary part is that this document does also go on to cover the ECMA based Base namespaces as well (like Threading). Maybe someone should mail that to Miguel ?.