[Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Mon Jul 13 05:00:39 UTC 2009

Oh lord.

The point is quite simple -
Mono is based on the EMCA 334/335 and ISO/IEC23270:2006 standards, those standards allow components within them to be patent, provided they are licensable under 'RAND' terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory). The shadow hanging over Mono was that Microsoft could charge a "reasonable" sum for whatever components within that may be patented/[able].

By putting EMCA 334/335 into the community pledge means Microsoft has waived the right to collect those terms (in whole.), the exceptions are components of C# which are not in the ECMA standards, these are - ASP.NET (* - although there is a Microsoft implementation in under the MSPL I believe, which voids the threat there[?]), ADO.NET (used for database access to MSSQL, etc), WinForms[?] and some components of the Microsoft.* namespace.

Because of this - Mono have started separating their packages, so you can get a 'clean' version, and a 'potentially has issues' version (ie the version with ASP, ADO, etc). The good news is, OpenSim will run on the 'clean' version - the only exception to this will be the MSSQL adapter which relies on ADO.net - however given that anyone using that adapter will also be very likely using .NET, I don't believe that is a problem.

Ubuntu already ships a separated distribution of Mono which allows you to only optionally install the bits that aren't covered by the patent pledge.

Adam

From: opensim-users-bounces at lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-users-bounces at lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of lamont cranston
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2009 11:04 AM
To: opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

Saying that it "clears up a bit of the FUD around Mono" seems counter intuitive. It would seem to have validated the claim that Mono relies on Microsoft patented technology. Microsoft seems to have just declared that it does.
  Fact is not FUD.
You don't need amnesty if you are innocent.

I'm more interested in why Microsoft felt that this is a good idea? Mono is so far below the public relations radar that it is invisible to 99% of the public.
What is in it for Microsoft to release this announcement at this time?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57 at fastmail.fm<mailto:eekee57 at fastmail.fm>> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <aerowolf at gmail.com<mailto:aerowolf at gmail.com>> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<eekee57 at fastmail.fm<mailto:eekee57 at fastmail.fm>> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <open at autistici.org<mailto:open at autistici.org>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
>
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.
Really good to know, thanks. :)

>
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
>
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
>
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.
Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*

--
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
Opensim-users at lists.berlios.de<mailto:Opensim-users at lists.berlios.de>
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-users/attachments/20090713/21a02df2/attachment.html>