Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft and Nokia Adopt OSS JQuery Framework

Posted by timothy on from the ms-could-become-the-largest-open-source-vendor dept.

soliptic writes "The jQuery blog today announced that 'Both Microsoft and Nokia are taking the major step of adopting jQuery as part of their official application development platform.' So the open-source javascript framework will be shipped with Visual Studio and ASP.NET MVC. Microsoft's Scott Hanselman notes: 'It's Open Source, and we'll use it and ship it via its MIT license, unchanged. If there's changes we want, we'll submit a patch just like anyone else.'" There's also a story at eWeek about the decision.

10 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Just makes sense... by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Javascript frameworks deal with the major hurdles of modern web design: Abstracting browser differences, and avoiding reinventing the wheel with the kind of AJAXy effects that are increasingly more common these days.

    I wonder how this will affect Prototype. It's always had different design goals than jQuery, but will this diminish it's popularity?

    Also, will the jQuery API eventually be integrated into the browser instead of being a huge JS blob for every page?

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:Just makes sense... by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Informative

      jQuery is entirely contained within its own namespace. Multiple versions of jQuery can coexist on the same page, so upgrades wouldn't be a problem, sites could just include the latest version if the version shipped with browsers wasn't suitable.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  2. Re:Will they by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah why not? As long as they release all their code under the MIT licence (which they've said they will do), there is no reason not to embrace and extend. The parent project can choose to incorporate Microsoft's code, or not.

    From the article, Microsoft have said they will contribute patches upstream rather than forking their own version. But as long as you're sure everybody is releasing their code under the same free licence, 'embrace and extend' is not a problem in the free software world. In many cases it can be beneficial.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  3. But... by Junta · · Score: 5, Informative

    MIT license is not a source-required license. Companies may sell, close it up, whatever they wish so long as they continue to give credit to the original product.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:But... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Informative

      MIT license is not a source-required license. Companies may sell, close it up, whatever they wish so long as they continue to give credit to the original product.

      And is that relevant? This issue has been addressed:

      Scott Guthrie says:
      "We will distribute the jQuery JavaScript library as-is, and will not be forking or changing the source from the main jQuery branch."

      The Scott Hanselman says:
      "It's Open Source, and we'll use it and ship it via its MIT license, unchanged. If there's changes we want, we'll submit a patch just like anyone else."

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    2. Re:But... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What he's saying is that although Microsoft will be distributing the JQuery framework as-is, they may decide to use it in a closed-source product, with custom changes that don't get sent upstream. I'm not saying that Microsoft will do that, because I'm not in a position to speak for them, but it would definitely not be outside of their usual MO. Furthermore, parents point is that there is nothing in the MIT license that prevents them from doing this. Whether you agree with the philosophy of the MIT license or not is out of scope and off-topic.

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:But... by wilder_card · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Whether you agree with the philosophy of the MIT license or not is out of scope and off-topic."
      In other words: It's time to start a flame war! Right here! Right now!

    4. Re:But... by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Outside of obfuscation, how exactly do you close source a JavaScript library that your browser can access via HTTP? I suppose Microsoft could incorporate it directly into the browser, but that doesn't seem likely.

      "Close" can mean two things here. Yes, the source will remain visible, since its Javascript. So that's one sense of "open". However, it doesn't need to remain open source in the sense of the license. Microsoft could, in theory, add some features and relicense it under proprietary terms; the MIT license allows that. That is, seeing the source doesn't mean it's open source in the licensing sense.

      Happily, Microsoft announced that they won't change the license.

  4. Re:Will they by tcr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well.... a big part of its popularity is that it's a lightweight library, so maybe better if they don't contribute to it... :-)

    --


    Information wants to be beer.
  5. Re:Will they fix it? by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 4, Informative

    Said Googling does indeed show that your memory is playing a trick on you; it's Prototype that you're thinking of.

    --
    Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."