Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th May 2009 22:32 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project If there is one technology in the Linux world that ruffles feathers whenever it's mentioned, it's Mono, the open source .Net clone. Since .Net comes out of Microsoft, and has some patents encircling it, it is said to be a legal nightmare. Supposedly, you can obtain a "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" license from Microsoft regarding the patents surrounding Mono. iTWire decided to look at just how easy (or hard) it is to get such a license. Turns out it's kind of hard.
Thread beginning with comment 366148
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Missing the point on license
by pooo on Sat 30th May 2009 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Missing the point on license"
pooo
Member since:
2006-04-22

This is what I get tired of every time has an article on Mono. This "Miguel is a paid Microsoft shill" garbage gets me so infuriated. Microsoft made this technology open, and over time released software and source that is open as well, and still people give them crap for it. The .net Framework is nice technology and that was the reason the Mono project started in the first place. Remember Java wasn't even open back when it started. So you don't like Microsoft, we get it. But calling the technology and the hard work that has gone into mono "crap" is just stupid.



No one said Mono or C# were crap. No one. No one said Miguel was stupid for liking the technology. If Mono were just Miguel's pet project because he thought it was fun or cool I'd definitely applaud and encourage him.

What people are concerned about is that Miguel is saying that it is *safe* and trying to push it into the Linux desktop when it is not clear at all that it is safe. *That* is what makes Miguel a Microsoft shill.

And, no one is comparing Java to C#. However if they were Java even in the past would still have been way safer than MS because sun in fact did clearly state that competing implementations were never going require a license of any kind. Very different from C#.

And you seem to conflate these issues very easily and quickly. Be careful. There is a difference between good software in a technical sense and a legal sense. Mono and C# are great technology. I'll say it, no problem. They are also under a dark legal cloud and owned by a company that has a long history of utterly destroying its competition in very mean ways (remember how they were *convicted* of illegally abusing their powers as a monopoly???)

Reply Parent Score: 7

xoluxo Member since:
2009-05-31

People keep bringing up the heritage of Mono as a source of patent problems because it is easy to identify with Microsoft.

What people seem to be quick to forget is that unlike .NET and RAND+Royalty Free, Microsoft has not given any rights to the predecessor of .NET, COM and COM is used extensively in Linux.

IF you want to start freaking out over it, consider where patented COM is used in Linux:

* Mozilla's XPCOM used in Thunderbird and Firefox.
* Songbird (XPCOM)
* VirtualBox (XPCOM again)
* OpenOffice's COM implementation (called "UNO")

The COM patent is here:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YM4iAAAAEBAJ

Open source code infringing the Microsoft patent is here:

http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=queryinterface

Then there are the OpenGL patents that Microsoft bought from Silicon Graphics in 2002. They have owned all the OpenGL patents for the last seven years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Lol
by oiaohm on Sun 31st May 2009 02:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Missing the point on license"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

IF you want to start freaking out over it, consider where patented COM is used in Linux:

* Mozilla's XPCOM used in Thunderbird and Firefox.
* Songbird (XPCOM)
* VirtualBox (XPCOM again)
* OpenOffice's COM implementation (called "UNO")

The COM patent is here:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YM4iAAAAEBAJ


UNO is prior art by the way. It existed in Staroffice and StarWriter before that. Predates MS using com and having com. Heck its almost pre dos. Did you not think it was strange it did not have com in its name. Universal Network Objects is a very old item. It one of the oldest design bits still in openoffice. Its over 20 years old.

This is part of the problem when you start thinking open source is at risk of a particular patent lot of cases you will find prior art that renders it useless.

Open source code infringing the Microsoft patent is here:

http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=queryinterface

Then there are the OpenGL patents that Microsoft bought from Silicon Graphics in 2002. They have owned all the OpenGL patents for the last seven years.


100 percent invalid. The Khronos Group holds a forever patent grant from Silicon Graphics for implementers of opengl. So those patents are useless. If someone wanted to create something non opengl as a graphics interface then MS could use them.

Edited 2009-05-31 02:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1