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 366249
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The Article is Off-Base
by yorthen on Sun 31st May 2009 08:44 UTC in reply to "The Article is Off-Base"
yorthen
Member since:
2005-07-06

I read this a few days ago and wondered what it was actually talking about. The RAND license comes implicitly with any ECMA standard that you implement, so you don't go and 'get' this license yourself.


Before coming and talking about bad journalism you should perhaps do some research yourself:

The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve recommendations of Standards which are covered by patents when such patents will not be licensed by their owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.


The above (with emphasis added) is from Ecma's "Code of Conduct in Patent Matters" http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm. It's not much text but if you read it it becomes quite clear that it is the individual members that are expected to provide the RAND-license, not Ecma. Which is quite understandable since Ecma can't give out licenses unless they themselves have been given a transferable license.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: The Article is Off-Base
by segedunum on Sun 31st May 2009 11:35 in reply to "RE: The Article is Off-Base"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Before coming and talking about bad journalism you should perhaps do some research yourself:

Yer, I've read it and the example documents used. I don't know what you're quoting, what you think it says nor why you think that what you've written alters anything.

The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve recommendations of Standards which are covered by patents when such patents will not be licensed by their owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.

Yer, and?

It's not much text but if you read it it becomes quite clear that it is the individual members that are expected to provide the RAND-license, not Ecma.

You didn't read between the lines or what I'd written at all. The ECMA requires a RAND license to be issued by those submitting to the ECMA, and the ECMA has a written agreement that all submitters have to sign agreeing to that fact. It is in the code of conduct. It is not just left to the owners at all, although they are the ones who have to undertake the necessary work themselves. Ergo, when you implement an ECMA standard you do so with an implicit RAND license. It is not a license that you go and 'get' yourself from the 'owners'.

Which is quite understandable since Ecma can't give out licenses unless they themselves have been given a transferable license.

You've contradicted yourself. The ECMA does not hand out licenses per se, although it has to be implicitly transferable. It is the submitters' responsibility to ensure that an implicit RAND license is in place regarding the content of the standard and the ECMA requires a written and signed agreement that one actually is in place so that is what you go on. You don't get to see it yourself and there might not even be a written one.

Quite how legally binding this is is anone's guess, but that's another story.

Edited 2009-05-31 11:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2