Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Nov 2007 22:25 UTC, submitted by Michael
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris "With much anticipation by the OpenSolaris community, last night Sun had released their first developer preview for the binary desktop distribution that we have known over the past couple of months as Project Indiana. Ian Murdock and company are optimistic for this project that will address some of the existing Solaris adoption barriers when it comes to the installation, package management, and familiarization along with revitalizing the user experience. How does this first milestone of Project Indiana, which in fact will be named OpenSolaris, rank when it comes to meeting their objectives? In this review, we have a lot of information and screenshots on this long-awaited OpenSolaris binary distribution."
Thread beginning with comment 282504
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: OpenSolaris and Mono
by alucinor on Fri 2nd Nov 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE: OpenSolaris and Mono"
Member since:

The patent agreements don't cover "clone software". While the C# implementation aspect of Mono is probably safe because of ECMA, Mono's WinForms, ADO.NET, Silverlight, etc. technologies that build on top of that are not, as they fall under clone software and are not part of the ECMA standard, which only covers the C# syntax and the CLR. If you build a Mono app using GTK# and third-party .NET stuff like say, NUnit, you should be ok, but companies using Mono to migrate a WinForms-based .NET app to Linux are under as much risk with Red Hat as with Novell -- probably moreso with the latter since SUSE users are more under MS's radar, considering the majority of SUSE licenses are now resold by MS itself.

Edited 2007-11-02 19:38

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: OpenSolaris and Mono
by kaiwai on Sat 3rd Nov 2007 04:50 in reply to "RE[2]: OpenSolaris and Mono"
kaiwai Member since:

Clone what? what are yoy going on about; the issue is PATENTS and PATENT sharing agreement which give BOTH sides immunity. You sign an agreement with Microsoft - its open access to ALL of Microsofts patent porfolio. From .NET to their media formats.

Now sure, their code isn't open, but what hell has clone got to do with the price of fish in Sweden during the winter? the issue isn't cloning. Cloning isn't illegal, the issue is that when cloning you're implementing patented algorithms, given that there are agreements in place, its a non-issue.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: OpenSolaris and Mono
by zztaz on Sat 3rd Nov 2007 15:11 in reply to "RE[3]: OpenSolaris and Mono"
zztaz Member since:

Read the patent agreement. It permits the use of Microsoft patents for only certain types of software. It excludes 'clone' software. That's where that language comes from.

Patent grants and licenses are as tricky as copyright licenses. Some are clear and simple: IBM grants a royalty-free license to their RCU patents to all freely licensed software. Royalties may be required for closed software. Sun grants royalty-free license to any Sun patents needed to implement ODF, but only for ODF-related uses.

Microsoft and Novell signed a cross-license deal with terms that aren't clear and obvious to the outside world, and perhaps not even to Novell. My take on it is that Microsoft infringed on Novell patents, knew they would lose in court, and settled. But in typical Microsoft fashion, they structured the deal to hide the infringement, hide the payment, and to give Microsoft fringe benefits rewarding their infringement. Novell customers won't be sued for infringing Microsoft patents as long as those patents aren't used in any software that competes with Microsoft products. Microsoft and Novell get to claim that Mono is open, and it is, until you do anything useful with it. Microsoft didn't pay Novell royalties, they 'bought' copies of Novell support that they can resell.

Microsoft is good at these deals. Remember when Microsoft was going to license video technology from Apple? That deal collapsed, Microsoft came out with their own version, and rumors spread that the code looked very similar to Apple code that Microsoft engineers had been working with. Apple sued, and Microsoft settled out of court. But Microsoft didn't admit or pay for copyright or patent infringement; they agreed to cross-license unnamed technology and buy Apple stock. They later sold the stock at a profit. Actions that should have been punished ended up being rewarded.

Mono isn't safe to use until Microsoft (not Novell) steps forward and grants *everyone* a royalty-free license to any patent used in Mono and all Mono-related libraries. That won't happen.

Reply Parent Score: 3