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 453480
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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