Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Open Sources ASP.NET MVC

Posted by timothy on from the bee-ess-dee-like dept.

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.

3 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Read it by Sp4c3+C4d3t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you read it you'll find out that it's basically the BSD license. Why jump to conclusions just because it's Microsoft?

    --
    Happy New Year, it's 1984!
  2. Re:Hardly open source by spitzak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's impossible to be compatible with the BSD license and not be compatible with the GPL, because BSD is compatible with the GPL.

    Unless you have some strange backwards definition of compatible, under which you would say "the GPL is compatible with the BSD license" because you can take BSD code and relicense it as GPL. However I think most people consider that statement false, while "the BSD is compatible with the GPL" is the true statement.

    The fact is that BSD is compatible with the MS-PL and BSD is compatible with GPL. The BSD is compatible with a *lot* of licenses, including closed-source with a NDA.

  3. Hah by coryking · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You are funny. Did you read that page? Pretty much every damn license in existance is incompatible with the GPL. But the "fun" one is this:

    OpenSSL license .... ...We recommend using GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL in software you write. However, there is no reason not to use OpenSSL and applications that work with OpenSSL.

    Yeah, right. Reminds me of this gem buried in the old man pages for the GNU implementation of su :

    This program does not support a "wheel group" that restricts who can su to super-user accounts, because that can help fascist system administrators hold unwarranted power over other users.

    Yeah, screw security! Who needs passwords! Down with sysadmins!!

    I might as well quote the rest of it because it is so juice and nobody will bother to follow the link above:

    Why GNU su does not support the wheel group (by Richard Stallman)
    Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For
    example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by
    changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keep- ing it secret from
    everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the
    users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)

    However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su
    mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the
    ordinary users, he can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make
    this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

    I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to
    supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this
    idea strange at first.

    PS: Just realized that the FreeBSD man-page thingy offers way more man pages than just for FreeBSD. Check it out!