patents filed now, or changes made by Microsoft specifically to
create patent problems)?
-A: No. First, its basic functional capabilities have pre-existed too
- long to be held up by patents. The basic components of Mono are
- technologically equivalent to Sun's Java technology, which has been
- around for years.
-
- Mono will also implement multi-language and
- multi-architecture support, but there are previous technologies
- such as UCSD p-code and ANDF that also support multiple languages
- using a common intermediate language. The libraries are similar
- to other language's libraries, so again, they're too similar to
- be patentable in large measure.
-
- However, if Microsoft does patent some technology, then our plan is
- to either (1) work around it, (2) chop out patented pieces, (3)
- find prior art that would render the patent useless.
+A: First some background information.
+
+ The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered
+ technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like
+ ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.
+
+ Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a
+ project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like
+ ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.
+
+ The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has
+ developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most
+ important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome
+ platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI),
+ Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only
+ supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has
+ support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration
+ libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to
+ applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded
+ runtime in Apache).
+
+ The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by
+ Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at
+ Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA,
+ (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): <a
+ href="https://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html">here</a>.
+
+ Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those
+ components for free and for any purpose.
+
+ The controversial elements are the ASP.NET, ADO.NET and
+ Windows.Forms subsets. Those are convenient for people who need
+ full compatibility with the Windows platform, but are not required
+ for the open source Mono platform, nor integration with today's
+ Mono's rich support of Linux.
+
+ The Mono strategy for dealing with these tehcnologies is as
+ follows: (1) work around the patent by using a different
+ implementation techinque that retains the API, but changes the
+ mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces
+ of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior
+ art that would render the patent useless.
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.
- There is also a statement from Jim Miller at Microsoft, one of the
- inventors listed in the patent: <a href="https://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html">here</a>.
+ The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are
+ not allowed.
- For Linux desktop use, we only need the ECMA components, and things that
- we have developed (like Gtk#).
+ For Linux server and desktop development, we only need the ECMA
+ components, and things that we have developed (like Gtk#) or Apache
+ integration.
<a name="etc"></a>
** Miscellaneous Questions
patents filed now, or changes made by Microsoft specifically to
create patent problems)?
-A: No. First, its basic functional capabilities have pre-existed too
- long to be held up by patents. The basic components of Mono are
- technologically equivalent to Sun's Java technology, which has been
- around for years.
-
- Mono will also implement multi-language and
- multi-architecture support, but there are previous technologies
- such as UCSD p-code and ANDF that also support multiple languages
- using a common intermediate language. The libraries are similar
- to other language's libraries, so again, they're too similar to
- be patentable in large measure.
-
- However, if Microsoft does patent some technology, then our plan is
- to either (1) work around it, (2) chop out patented pieces, (3)
- find prior art that would render the patent useless.
+A: First some background information.
+
+ The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered
+ technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like
+ ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.
+
+ Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a
+ project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like
+ ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.
+
+ The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has
+ developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most
+ important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome
+ platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI),
+ Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only
+ supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has
+ support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration
+ libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to
+ applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded
+ runtime in Apache).
+
+ The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by
+ Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at
+ Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA,
+ (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): <a
+ href="https://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html">here</a>.
+
+ Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those
+ components for free and for any purpose.
+
+ The controversial elements are the ASP.NET, ADO.NET and
+ Windows.Forms subsets. Those are convenient for people who need
+ full compatibility with the Windows platform, but are not required
+ for the open source Mono platform, nor integration with today's
+ Mono's rich support of Linux.
+
+ The Mono strategy for dealing with these tehcnologies is as
+ follows: (1) work around the patent by using a different
+ implementation techinque that retains the API, but changes the
+ mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces
+ of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior
+ art that would render the patent useless.
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.
- There is also a statement from Jim Miller at Microsoft, one of the
- inventors listed in the patent: <a href="https://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html">here</a>.
+ The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are
+ not allowed.
- For Linux desktop use, we only need the ECMA components, and things that
- we have developed (like Gtk#).
+ For Linux server and desktop development, we only need the ECMA
+ components, and things that we have developed (like Gtk#) or Apache
+ integration.
<a name="etc"></a>
** Miscellaneous Questions
projects / mono.git / commitdiff