Is there a legal issue with mono? (is mono beagle?)

[billdotson]

I heard that one of the higher rated bugs is that mono could possibly be a legal issue. Mono has been crashing all the time on my system and it gets really annoying

[koenn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29

There may be some patent issues (see wikipedia article) but they wouldn't cause your system to crash

[billdotson]

so what patent issues are they? I am would rather not have to read an entire article, just know the basics.

[Kernel Sanders]

Originally Posted by billdotson so what patent issues are they? I am would rather not have to read an entire article, just know the basics.

I believe that mono is a little too close to the .NET framework, leading to potential lawsuits from MS

Thats what i've read anyway....

[koenn]

Originally Posted by billdotson so what patent issues are they? I am would rather not have to read an entire article, just know the basics.

then just read the part about patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%2...ft.27s_patents

Mono's implementation of those components of the .NET stack not submitted to the ECMA for standardization has been the source of patent violation concerns for much of the life of the project. In particular, discussion has taken place about whether Microsoft could destroy the Mono project through patent suits. The problematic parts are not the core technologies submitted to the ECMA or the Unix/Gnome-specific parts. The patent concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms, i.e. parts composing Mono's Windows compatibility stack. These technologies are today not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications. Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

There is no known patent issue in Mono. None. Even Red Hat, which previously had tried to push Java to the exclusion of Mono, using patents as a dubious excuse to do it, has since given in and admitted it has no patent issues.

Being similar to .NET (which is exactly its point, since it is a CLI and BCL implementation) does not make a patent infringement. Microsoft can't patent .NET. It can't patent Windows Forms. It can't patent ASP.NET. Products cannot be patented. Microsoft could only patent certain processes or ideas that are part of .NET. For Microsoft to patent a part of .NET, it must a) not be a part of the standard, and b) must be new. Since very little of the .NET runtime is new (in fact, its still far less advanced than Smalltalk VMs were 20 years ago), and I assure you, having looked over a huge amount of the BCL code that there is nothing new in terms of the algorithms behind their classes (indeed, most are very out of date; have a laugh at their hashing algorithms if you need a perk-up), and what little in the BCL is new is part of the standard (meaning Microsoft gave up the right to sue over it when they submitted it for standardization), there is not a single thing to worry about. If anyone can find anything new about the non-standard libraries like Windows Forms or ASP.NET, I'd like to hear what they are.

[Kernel Sanders]

Originally Posted by Bloodfen Razormaw There is no known patent issue in Mono. None. Even Red Hat, which previously had tried to push Java to the exclusion of Mono, using patents as a dubious excuse to do it, has since given in and admitted it has no patent issues. Being similar to .NET (which is exactly its point, since it is a CLI and BCL implementation) does not make a patent infringement. Microsoft can't patent .NET. It can't patent Windows Forms. It can't patent ASP.NET. Products cannot be patented. Microsoft could only patent certain processes or ideas that are part of .NET. For Microsoft to patent a part of .NET, it must a) not be a part of the standard, and b) must be new. Since very little of the .NET runtime is new (in fact, its still far less advanced than Smalltalk VMs were 20 years ago), and I assure you, having looked over a huge amount of the BCL code that there is nothing new in terms of the algorithms behind their classes (indeed, most are very out of date; have a laugh at their hashing algorithms if you need a perk-up), and what little in the BCL is new is part of the standard (meaning Microsoft gave up the right to sue over it when they submitted it for standardization), there is not a single thing to worry about. If anyone can find anything new about the non-standard libraries like Windows Forms or ASP.NET, I'd like to hear what they are.

Cool, thanks for the clarification

[koenn]

Originally Posted by Bloodfen Razormaw Products cannot be patented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...ts_crooped.jpg

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

If you are trying to make a counterexample, you failed. A product is a specific implementation of an idea. You can only patent the general invention. An automobile is a patentable idea. The Model T is not. An ejector seat is patentable. The Ubuntu brand Linux-Based Ejection Safety System (tm) is not. The virtual machine is patentable (but not by Microsoft, since they didn't invent it). The .NET Framework CLI virtual machine is not.

[koenn]

Yes, I was trying to make a counterexample - an ejector seat imo is a product, and can obviously be patented (or the technology that distinguishes from other ejector seats can be patented). But it may all just depend on my and your definition of 'product'.

I don't know much about patent law, or any law whatsoever - and so far I've only been citing other peoples opinions, i.c. the wikipedia article that says "discussion has taken place about whether Microsoft could destroy the Mono project through patent suits. ... The patent concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms".

I queried a patent database and found this :
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...D+AN/microsoft
So I'd say Microsoft has indeed patents on (components / parts / procedures / techniques ...in) the .NET environment and it wouldn't supprise me if they, sooner or later, accuse Mono of infringement on those pattents - whether that would be justified or not is a different matter.

What one can or can not patent depends very much on where you live. This is illustrated by the discussion on to what extend "software" is patentable.