Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, The-Source.com investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Thread beginning with comment 453446
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law...

someone elses words not mine... reverse engineering is not simply protected and allowed in the usa.. its under legal debate.. so obviously you wouldnt want to reverse engineer anything ever if you were worried about legal issues. Since we are "worrying" about legal issues my point is perfectly valid.


WTF? What in heavens name are you on about?

The rules in the DMCA disallow reverse engineering of a "technological protection measure" which has been put in place to prevent copying of copyrighted content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.


The reverse engineering of networking protocols performed by the Samba team by examining messages "on the wire" does nothing of the kind. There is no "access to copyrighted works" that is circumvented. There is no disassembly of Microsoft code involved, and there is no copying of Microsoft code either in binary or source code form that results. No copyrights are broken by the activity.

The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.

Furthermore, the Samba team now has specifications legally obtained from Microsft.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9836784-39.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-and-samba-finally-com...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/140786/microsoft_shares_windows_secr...

I think you must be VERY seriously confused here.

Edited 2010-12-14 10:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

ducker Member since:
2006-12-26

The rules in the DMCA disallow reverse engineering of a "technological protection measure" which has been put in place to prevent copying of copyrighted content.


A well versed internetaholic would realise i was aluding the fact the DMCA is often used when theres not any real encyption just a hidden set of apis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/nov/28/apple-ipod

There is no disassembly of Microsoft code involved, and there is no copying of Microsoft code either in binary or source code form that results. No copyrights are broken by the activity.



Normally supporting a nondeclared 3rd party api (namespace) without reverse engineering is fully legal. Hence j# is allowed but isnt allowed to be called java.

If this dosent change then the whole point of this news item is mute. All its saying is mono (without reverse engineering or stealing ms code) has implemented a 3rd party api without permission.

Many programs do this not just microsoft.. (wine any emulation or vm software etc)...

Google is currently being sued by oracle for implementing java libraries namespace without permission. I would suggest this will fail based on information above.


The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.


If oracle wins.. then samba can be sued by ms unless explicit permission is granted for use if ms say their networking protocols are part of its software protection. (see apple example above.. note this hasnt been proven in court properly yet)

...legally obtained from Microsft.

I didnt know that, thanks for the info. I beleive ms will NEVER sue mono as microsoft rarely sues anyone. Obviously implicit permission to use is implied when ms provided samba with the documentation so .. its extremely unlike ms would ever sue them (however perhaps potentially still within their right to if namespace patents are enforced.)

The issue you were mainly aluding to is that samba is a clean room implementation and so should be free of patent issues.. your right and i agree (so long as google wins that part of the case which it should as ms and others have previously).

Googles implementation of java is exactly the same as monos of .net only mono has semi direct permission from the owner.

This news item is just part of the pathetic media campaign to blind normal people from seeing the obvious hypocracy of the situation.

Google has issues with sun..
mono has never had any with microsoft (and has more rights to claim they have permission.)

If your worried about patent issues.. drop java/android and use .Net/mono

omg wtf ?? really?? think about it.. u know im right.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ducker Member since:
2006-12-26

A little bit of history thats not "News" but is on the moonlight wikipedia page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_(runtime)


Microsoft support
Shortly after the first demo at MIX 07 in Paris, Microsoft began cooperating with Novell to help the building of Moonlight.[17] Support includes exclusive access given to Novell for the following Silverlight artifacts:[18]

Microsoft's Test suites for Silverlight,
Silverlight specification details, beyond those available on the web,
Proprietary codecs made available free-of-charge for Windows Media Video and Audio, for VC-1 and MP3, and in the future H.264 and AAC, only licensed for use with Moonlight when running in a web browser.


Very generous for someone preparing to sue mono.. maybe they are lulling them into a false sense of security.. (for you paranoid conspiracy theorists out there)

Other potential decoders include GStreamer and FFmpeg (used during the development stage) but Novell will not provide prepackaged versions of Moonlight with those libraries, because those decoders have not been granted licensing for the use of patented codec technologies.


lolz

Microsoft has released two public covenants not to sue for the infringement of its patents when using Moonlight. The first one covered Moonlight 1 and 2, is quite restrictive and it covered only the use of Moonlight as a plugin in a browser, only implementations that are not GPLv3 licensed, and only if the Moonlight implementation has been obtained from Novell. It also notes that Microsoft may rescind these usage rights[19].


But maybe that covenants a lie.. a big trick !!!
Just a reminder oracle is currently suing google.

The second covenant is an updated and broader covenant that no longer limits the covenant to users that obtain Moonlight from Novell, it covers any uses of Moonlight regardless of where it was obtained. The updated covenant covers the implementations as shipped by Novell for versions 3 and 4, it no longer distinguishes Novell from other distributions of Moonlight and expands the covenant to desktop applications created with Moonlight. The covenant is not extended to forks that choose to license under the GNU GPL (Moonlight is Lesser GPLv2)[20]


Why isnt anyone talking about real issues like the fine print here instad of the rediculous lie that ms will sue mono.

Reply Parent Score: 1

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30


"
The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.


If oracle wins.. then samba can be sued by ms unless explicit permission is granted for use if ms say their networking protocols are part of its software protection. (see apple example above.. note this hasnt been proven in court properly yet)

...legally obtained from Microsft.

I didnt know that, thanks for the info. I beleive ms will NEVER sue mono as microsoft rarely sues anyone. Obviously implicit permission to use is implied when ms provided samba with the documentation so .. its extremely unlike ms would ever sue them (however perhaps potentially still within their right to if namespace patents are enforced.)

The issue you were mainly aluding to is that samba is a clean room implementation and so should be free of patent issues.. your right and i agree (so long as google wins that part of the case which it should as ms and others have previously).
"
Don't bring samba into this.
Samba in the EU legally won the right to the documentation MS did not give it willingly reason Samba is IBM appointed company to take care of the compatibility between implementations of SMB. So is by law entitled to see all implemented features in the protocol set by anyone implementing the protocol.

Does not matter who you are if you want to extend SMB you are basically required to present it at the Samba setup meetings to compare implementations and share what you have done. Openly and Freely.

MS provide documentation it was defective Samba personal could prove it. MS paid samba to write a test suite for there alterations to the SMB protocals part of that payment is a forever license to any patents MS holds or MS licenses to implement the protocals for all of Samba users including any future MS alterations to the protocals.

So Samba is 100 percent legally covered without question. Yes Samba is no where near the same boat as Mono.

MS is sueing more often common action for a dieing company.

Orcale winning changes nothing here. Samba has the deal Mono should have had.

Java on the other hand has a requirement that you run the test suite to get the patent grant and right to use the trademark and documentation. There is an exception using the GPL version provided by SUN/Orcale.

Google is in trouble with Orcale because they did not read the fine print and obey it. $3000 USD for the testsuite per year and making android pass would have avoided the complete problem.

Mono is in the same issue there is fine print in the MS promise that they are not reading. How many years did appache get away not following the fine print of java before Orcale has ponced. Remember same was said about SUN they would never push the legal side.

Samba is the one in charge of the protocols in the Samba case and MS was the brat doing the wrong thing. So MS lost in court and got hit with a growing fine.

When it comes to Java. Orcale is the standard body Google and apache are the brats.

When it comes to .net Mono is the brat and MS is the standard body. Notice the problem here. When you are the brat you have to play by the rules of the standard body or the one in charge of the protocals can beat the living crud out of you until you obey.

The one in charge of the protocal can wait as long as they want before responding. There is no legal requirement to respond in a short time.

Reply Parent Score: 1