Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Open Sources ASP.NET MVC
Jimmy Zimms writes "Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC is an extension built on the core of ASP.NET that brings some of the popular practices and ease of development that were popularized by Ruby on Rails and Django to the .NET developers.
Scott Guthrie, the inventor of ASP.NET, just announced that
Microsoft is open sourcing the ASP.NET MVC stack under the MS-PL license. 'I'm excited today to announce that we are also releasing the ASP.NET MVC source code under the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL). MS-PL is an OSI-approved open source license. The MS-PL contains no platform restrictions and provides broad rights to modify and redistribute the source code.' Here's the text of the MS-PL.
This is an improvement, but it's hardly a compatible license with most other licenses. Or shall we say, deliberately incompatible with their competition. Nothing like a little spin all over again.
If they had never managed to sneak this one under on OSI, it would still mean nothing. Considering that it's still MS-PL, it still means nothing.
I don't get it, the license says you can make derivative works, and redistribute those works. Seems pretty free to me.
I'm not trying to argue the point with you. I just don't get it. Its legal speak, which I'm always doubtful that I understand the implications. But, this seems like free software.
Where am I getting it wrong?
Granted .Net combines the Speed of Java with the Platform Independence of just compiling a binary file.
However it is actually good for software development as it has already good libraries for a lot of useful functions that we do a lot of.
I have actually surprised some development teams how quickly I was able to write an interface for their systems in days vs. weeks that it took others in different languages.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That Microsoft Shared Source License is open source, but not free software.
This isn't the Shared Source License. It's the Microsoft Public License which is accepted as a free software license by both the OSI and the FSF. You seem to be ranting about something completely unrelated to this article.
Yawn...to keep it in context, they are releasing something very few people want and can only use on top of and in conjunction with a commercial product. I would be more interested if they open sourced solitaire, at least that could run on another OS. This still requires the dotnet framework. And yes I know it could work with Mono, but why?
no comment
One day too late as Aprils Fool Was Yesterday!!!!1111onewon
Thank god someone said it. Ya know, HALF of the posts on here so far are "I wont trust MS" or some other closed-mind bullshit from Linux fanbois who MUST have it compatible with the GPL otherwise they piss their pants.
If you take a step back and look at it, it is an amazing licence coming from Microsoft to use on something like this. The only issue the GPL has with it is its slight copyleft policies...go read the copyleft wiki to see if that's really a bad thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
PS. Linux needs a real installer / uninstaller for applications too, and that really means you need to suck it up and implement some sort of a registry for all of your settings. Woops, did I say that?
You just blew any credibility you may have had. The registry was the single worst feature ever implemented in a mainstream OS and has nothing to do with an installer. On top of that it's way easier to install most software under Linux. No CDs, no license keys. Just select the software you want and it's downloaded and installed automajically. Worst case you have to add a URL for a repository.
Who is John Galt?
The GPL is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist anymore. Big unix is dead. Open source is here and it has the momentum, but the GPL is dead weight.
What if GPL code suddenly turned to BSD code and Microsoft (or anyone else) could steal it? History has shown that private forks of open source software generally don't work.
The open source development model is superior to the closed source development model. When People (or companies) do need to fork open source software, they quickly find their branch out of date and inferior to the mainline. It's easier and more economical to work on the main branch than to keep a closed fork.
Where does that leave the GPL? Primary as a tool for coercing companies into buying the closed-source version of an open source project (ext, mysql, and qt, for example). (Nokia moved QT to LGPL because the GPL wasn't beneficial to them).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Either I'm missing your point, or you are only telling a partial truth.
It is one-way compatible. Almost all open-source licenses are one-way compatible with GPL. BSD code goes in, nothing comes out. MS-PL code goes in, nothing comes out. GPL is the blackhole of open source licenses. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out. Why? The license prohibits it.
A little paranoia is healthy. ;)
I think Microsoft is certainly going to use "Open Source" as a marketing and PR tool -- as does every other corporation which gets involved in Open Source.
Could they be perceived as the leader? I think they could actually become the leader, and not just in perception -- considering how much code they write, that's just a question of whether that's what they want to do or not. If they committed themselves to it, you couldn't stop them.
Would it be a bad thing if Microsoft (or another company) began to be perceived as a leader in open source development --if that perception was due to the huge volume of Open Source software they produced? I mean I hate to break it to you, but the FSF isn't exactly a leader in software development right now. What have you done for me lately?
Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one. -- Benjamin Franklin
I thought the point of open source was to make and share useful things. Things like development libraries, controls, frameworks, protocol stacks, and plenty of other useful widgets. Or is the goal really to just get free shit and I'm missing the point?
I couldn't agree less. The *nix crowd is still accomplishing things and moving forward, while burdensome IDE's and bizarre product changes that dont implement anything the same way twice are stunting the *Dows crowd. 120 megabyte downloads, slow and huge frameworks, thinking you know what you are doing cause you can hunt down methods using intellisense, while your average Joe Linux writes a short bash script to accomplish the same goal.
When I first read the summary title, I thought this was a thread about software which I was interested in, as this may help Mono, which I would very much like to use in on FBSD in place of my Windows ASP.NET servers. Then I read the summary and thought maybe it was more about licensing. Finally I noticed douchebagtimothy's jab at the end and realized this is just a Troll.
Why is it that 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' translates to 'news for GPL fanatics who don't even understand WHY they like GPL?'
Allow me to troll and rant myself for a bit ...
To all the twits who scream 'MS IS UP TO SOMETHING THEY SHOULD USE GPL AND BE TRUELY FREE!!!' ... go fuck yourself. The license they are using if FAR more free than anything your little hippie daddy Stallmen has ever even considered. Its a lot more focused on accomplishing what you think you're accomplishing with GPL than GPL is.
To all the twits who scream 'NOT GPL COMPATIBLE!' ... again, go fuck yourself, your not only wrong, but obviously completely oblivious to the fact that GPL incompatibilities are almost always caused by retarded bullshit clauses in GPL designed to make it as bad for society as AIDS. GPL is virus. A virus that needs to fucking die. Its turned into a far more restrictive license than anything I've ever got from Apple OR Microsoft.
To all the twits who think GPL is an open license.
my final one ... go fuck yourselves. GPL is about as open as the proprietary licenses I deal with from Microsoft, RSA, Apple. Those proprietary licenses I can actually negotiate and get what I want out of them for a fee. With GPL that requires me to negotiate with everyone contributor, a practically impossible task for any project large enough for me to bother wanting to use it in another project rather than writing it myself.
GPL just makes people write software over and over again, not reuse it. Someone makes a GPL library, everyone wants to use it and realizes that the licensing is just fucking ridiculous, so they write there own and release it under an actual open source license.
I'm so sick if you retarded 13 year old GPL fanboys who have no ability to think for yourself and all you do is listen to your bleeding heart professors and that fat hippie fuck Stallmen, neither of which are capable of holding a real just that can actually be considered useful to society.
If you've ever even looked at Stallman's home page you should be afraid of him. Most kids go through an 'activist' stage where they fill the need to make things 'better'. Then somewhere along the lines reality sets in and they get out of school and realize theres more to life than the one sided view they had previously. Stallman and his GPL fanatics are like this, except too damn retarded to grow up. Or apparently make themselves appear presentable in public.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager