Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Jun 2009 18:25 UTC
Debian and its clones Well, this is interesting. We already have a Mono item ruffling some feathers on OSNews today, but here we have the apparent news that Tomboy has become a default part of GNOME on Squeeze, the next release of Debian. Wait, what now? Update: I've updated the article with Fedora's position in all this. Read on! Update II: Josselin Mouette replies.
Thread beginning with comment 368554
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Parrot
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Jun 2009 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Parrot"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Well you're just rehashing old ground and spreading FUD. Mono is no more patent encumbered than Parrot. 8 years of being around without even a vague hint that Microsoft considers Mono to encroach on its patents (and Microsoft needs Mono) is a record that speaks for itself - and Mono may encroach on patents from another firm, as may any product or library you rely on.


Novell and Microsoft made a deal worth many millions on the basis that "we won't sue your customers as long as you won't sue ours".

Novell Netware was "the original" LAN networking product. Novell must have many very valuable-to-Microsoft patents in that arena alone.

So what was it on Microsoft's side of this deal, that Novell are visibly working on now, that Novell felt that Microsoft could possibly have sued Novell's customers over (before the deal)?

As for the other libraries and possible patent infringements ... name some. Linux design is based heavily on POSIX standards and being a work-alike for Unix. The ideas within Linux internals are quite a bit older than the duration of patents ... and most of the technology was owned by the likes of IBM and Novell anyway.

PS: Besides, my claims on parts of the .NET technologies (namely Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET) was that these parts of .NET are:
(a) implemented within current versions of Mono,
(b) are not ECMA standards, and
(c) are not covered by Microsoft's Open Specification Promise (unlike, say, C#).

What part of those claims are incorrect in any way?

Edited 2009-06-15 00:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1