OSNews

There is NO patent protection in using their platform.

If I understand it correctly (and I very well may not), the patent protection was one of the big things in the Novell-Microsoft agreement. It was essentially an agreement of patent and lawsuit protection between both parties. Perhaps I could be wrong but that was my understanding of it after reading it.

Edited 2008-05-15 15:18 UTC

So that means you are tied to Novell/Microsoft not just Microsoft.

Edit: And I'm not sure exactly how much the Novell conenant not to sue actually covers.

Edited 2008-05-15 15:48 UTC

MS has opened the specs of the .Net CLR, C#, and Silverlight. In fact, MS has been helping the Mono guys do Moonlight, with docs, support, etc.

I get as mad as anyone at Microsoft for their business tactics, and some of their software being crap, and not being totally customer focused. But some software MS does is very good, and MS isn't always evil. So a little level headed balance is in order.

Always proceed with caution when dealing with MS tech compatibility. But don't reject it outright.

BTW - I just downloaded the Moonlight plugin into my Firefox, running on Mandriva 2008 Spring, restarted Firefox, then went to the MS Silverlight demo website, and it worked flawlessly.

I'm glad I have the choice to use this. There are, and will be, websites that use Silverlight, and I love that I now have the ability to view those sights on Linux.

Also, as a developer who works in both a Windows world and *nix world, I'm glad I have an sdk for .Net and Silverlight to run on Linux.

Also, back to the tired old concern about MS patents - the .Net CLR and C# are open ECMA standards with "no sue" declarations, and MS has completely opened up the Silverlight specs to the Moonlight guys, and even helped them with docs and technical support. Also, it is very much in Microsoft's interests to have this *nix implementation, and with no effort on their part.

So, in short, don't worry, be happy - but still keep a weary eye

We'll see how much support (and the Mac for that metter) they get if Silverlight becomes as popular and well-used as Microsoft hopes ;-).

No. What Microsoft does is partly open the specs. Some vital part it keeps for itself.

.Net is a classic example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET#Standardization_and_lic...
"In August 2000, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel worked to standardize CLI and the C# programming language. By December 2001, both were ratified ECMA standards (ECMA 335 and ECMA 334). ISO followed in April 2003.

While Microsoft and their partners hold patents for the CLI and C#, ECMA and ISO require that all patents essential to implementation be made available under 'reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms'. In addition to meeting these terms, the companies have agreed to make the patents available royalty-free.

However, this does not apply for the part of the .NET Framework which is not covered by the ECMA/ISO standard, which includes Windows Forms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET. Patents that Microsoft holds in these areas may deter non-Microsoft implementations of the full framework."

See? You can have most of .Net ... but you can't write a GUI because Windows Forms is held back. If you try to port Windows forms to another platform, so that a program originally written in .Net using Windows forms can be easily ported to that other platform ... Microsoft would certainly sue.

Absolutely classic Microsoft behaviour, that.

For Silverlight ... the piece of that that Microsoft have held back for themselves exclusively is the content creation part.

You can only create Silverlight content on a Windows platform.

Ergo, it is totally unsuited to become a standard ... just like most of Microsoft's stuff is similarly unsuited.

"It makes it bad because Microsoft is openly campaigning
against the Linux platform."

It is bad for vulnerable people to patent FUD.
Is bad for people with an anti-ms agenta.

But is fine for:

People who knows patent FUD is just that, FUD.
People who wants functionality and have a life.

So, there is your answer.

Are you saying that Microsoft is spreading patent FUD, or that people are spreading FUD about Microsoft spreading patent FUD?


Microsoft are the company who are the most detrimental to open source software, have described it as 'communist' and have done everything that they can reasonably do to deride it in every way possible.

It's really quite funny, and sad, that all that people have in response to that is that people have some sort of anti-Microsoft agenda and are Microsoft haters. The same thing was said in response to every objection over OOXML. Oh, it's all an IBM backed conspiracy and everyone hates us!

The ball's in Microsoft's court and they can give us a call.

Red herring. Microsoft has made public guarantees that it will indemnify customers from patent issues (as long as you're not suing them, yourself) when using its technologies.

As long as they get it under an agreement from Novell ;-). They've made no such guarantees for anyone else or open source developers.

It's a game you've got to ask yourself if it's worth playing, or whether you even need to.

Well heres an example of your guarantee. In an article (Microsoft fights piracy through openness) on Inquirer.net, the author talked about Microsoft's new push to be open.

"When working with Microsoft's patented communication protocols, the company will provide a promise or covenant to open-source developers so that they could do their work without further needing to get their patent rights from the company."

In response to this statement, Microsoft senior vice president and general counsel Brad Smith was quoted as saying:

"But then if open-source software is distributed commercially, for example by a company or used commercially by a company, then we would expect people to think about our patent rights. And if they need a patent license, they could come and get one from us."


So what? We only get left alone if we don't make any money or try to distribute it? Thats some promise. I guess Microsoft has a patent on making money now too. Only someone who is completely clueless would trust Microsoft not to sue them if there is money involved. And how the hell does a promise stand up in court? Its not a legally binding contract under law.