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.

Comments

Hardly open source

[poetmatt]

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.

Re:Hardly open source

[Cube Steak]

Hardly open source

How so? It's accepted as a free software license not only by the OSI but by the FSF as well.

This is an improvement, but it's hardly a compatible license with most other licenses.

The GPL is incompatible with a ton of other free software licenses. Does that make it "hardly open source" as well?

Re:Hardly open source

[eison]

The GPL is also deliberately incompatible with their competition, particularly including other open licenses. So what's your point? If you think "Open" means "You can do whatever you want", then you're restricting yourself to pretty much just bsd, which is an entirely separate holy war.

Re:Hardly open source

[Cube Steak]

This is an improvement, but it's hardly a compatible license with most other licenses.

Sorry, but this isn't true. That it isn't compatible with the GPL doesn't mean it's incompatible with most other licenses. It's perfectly compatible with the BSD/Apache2/X11/Zlib/etc permissive licenses. You're spreading nonsense.

Re:Hardly open source

[spitzak]

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.

Re:Hardly open source

[poetmatt]

Who said GPL? I specifically didn't say GPL.

There are a whole lot of other licenses the MS-PL doesn't play nice with. Meanwhile as I said, if this wasn't barely shoved into OSI, it would get even less of a glance than now.

Re:Hardly open source

[datastew]

> How so? It's accepted as a free software license not only by the OSI but by the FSF as well.

Actually this may be a bit misleading. The MS-PL is firmly on their list of "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses". This means that they urge you not use this license and it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Re:Hardly open source

[CodeBuster]

I really don't see why the parent was modded insightful. I realize that this is Slashdot, but shouldn't we at least RTFL (Read the Fraking License) before we say that it was somehow slipped in under the collective noses of the OSI? The text of the license is actually quite simple (it is less than one page). It basically says that you are granted permission under Copyright to distribute the contributions of others (i.e. the Software) OR yours (or not) for any purpose whatsoever and that if you have patents covering your contribution you agree to license them too (at least insofar as they relate to the contribution) free or charge. The license is all or nothing (i.e. you agree completely or you cannot use the software and enjoy none of the benefits of the license) and includes a basic "as-is" disclaimer on suitability, merchantability, warranties, etc as permitted by law (i.e. use at your own risk). The difference between this license and other OSI licenses, such as GPL, appears to be in the "duty to make source code available" department; so theoretically one could take the source code, add to or modify it, and re-distribute the results without having any duty to make the original source directly available (although one would have to include the terms of the license, thereby signaling to anyone whose head does more than hold up their hat that the original source is available elsewhere). If you believe that a grant of freedom to use a contribution that is not also tied to a duty to redistribute the source of the original AND the modifications is a violation of free software (a position that even Richard Stallman compromised on with the LGPL) then OK, but IMHO I find the license to be straightforward, simple, and fair.

Re:Hardly open source

[mweather]

Last I checked GPL3 was compatible with the licenses that make up the vast majority of open source projects. Whether it's compatible with most open source licenses is irrelevant since almost nobody uses anythin but apache, gpl and bsd.

Re:Hardly open source

[Wildclaw]

Last I checked GPL3 was compatible with the licenses that make up the vast majority of open source projects.

GPL is the Windows of open source licenses. Whereas Windows is marketing based, GPL is ideology based. They both rely on product lock in. And the world would be better of if their market positions were smaller.

Trust the GPL for a second and it will come in a rip you apart. Just like it did with BSD, taking everything of value while giving nothing back. All in the name of open source fundamentalism.

Am I a bit harsh? Propbably. But you can't deny (well, you can if you are a gpl fundamentalist) that the similarities are there.

Apache, gpl and bsd.

Neither the original apache nor bsd license were gpl compatible originally.

Re:Hardly open source

[spitzak]

You can put BSD code into a GPL program, exactly as you state.

You cannot put MS-PL code into a BSD program. If you could, then you could put it into a GPL program, since you can put BSD code into a GPL program!

The two licenses are IDENTICAL. BSD is compatible with both of them. They are both incompatible with the BSD and with each other.

Pretending that somehow the original BSD code vaporizes and disappears when somebody uses it in a GPL program, but this magical effect does not happen with the MS-PL program is a nice piece of FUD, too.

Re:Hardly open source

[Kalriath]

Your "and" is quite misleading there. Looking at that page, they recommend you not use any license that is incompatible with the GNU equivalents - and that even includes licenses which are more free than GNU versions.

Still, GP is right. The FSF does indeed say that Ms-PL is a "free software" license. The fact that they also say "don't use it because it's not compatible with GPL (like everything fucking else!)" is not really relevant.

Re:Hardly open source

[eison]

I can't put GPL code into a BSD project, GPL is intentionally incompatible. Interestingly, in almost exactly the same way that MS-PL is incompatible - both require that you not switch licensing terms when you reuse the code. Gnu seems to take the position that they are the only license in the world that should have any form of "copyleft" restriction, which is odd since they spend a lot of time pointing out the importance and benefit of copyleft restrictions. Copyleft licenses essentially require people who benefit from your licensed work to repay you by agreeing to continue your philosophy, which strikes me as a good idea. If it doesn't strike you as a good idea, you shouldn't be using GPL anyway, BSD is the "copyleft is bad" license.

Re:Hardly open source

[geminidomino]

The GPL definition of "compatible with X" means code can be taken from projects licensed under X and put into GPL code.

I wager that most, if not all, of the same relations of MS-PL onto X would be the same.

Re:Hardly open source

[DragonWriter]

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

Neither the 4-clause, 3-clause, nor 2-clause version of the BSD license is, read strictly, compatible with the GPL v2 -- since each requires terms that the GPL v2 does not, and the GPL v2 does not permit additional terms -- but, I think, the 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses are compatible with the GPL v3, which specifically allows additional terms in a way which can fit the terms of those licenses, but not the advertising clause in the 4-clause version.

(I believe that the FSF, which has a vested interest in software being relicensed under the GPL, characterized the BSD licenses, other than the 4-clause version, as compatible with the GPL even before the release of the GPL v3, but that doesn't make it true.)

Re:Hardly open source

[spitzak]

Hallelujah! One of the FUD-masters here finally worded a sentence with the word "compatible" in the correct direction! Will wonders never cease?

Of course, the requirement that the copyright notice remain in the source code (the 2-clause BSD license) is not an additional restriction, as it is part of the GPL as well. So your argument is bogus. But I have to give you points for not reversing things into weird MS-PL world!

Re:Hardly open source

[DragonWriter]

Of course, the requirement that the copyright notice remain in the source code (the 2-clause BSD license) is not an additional restriction, as it is part of the GPL as well. So your argument is bogus.

False.

First, the copyright notice clause is only one clause of the two clause BSD license, so even if one could comply with that clause (sadly, impossible) when distributing a work derivative of both BSD and GPL v2 sources, one would still have the problem of the disclaimer clause.

On the copyright clause, the GPL v2 does not require the inclusion of the *original* copyright notice in derivative works, it requires an "appropriate" copyright notice. The BSD license requires that the exact copyright notice of the original work be included. Since a derivative work is, by definition, a new work of authorship by the creator of the derivative work, including only the derivative work's author's copyright notice satisfies the GPL v2 requirement, but clearly does not satisfy the BSD requirement. Now, including the original copyright notice is not forbidden under the GPL v2, but imposing the downstream requirement that the original copyright notice be retained would be an additional term, which the GPL v2 does not allow. But the BSD license requires not just that the original copyright be retained, but the list of conditions (including the condition that the original copyright be retained) itself be retained. So the copyright clause (combined with the requirement for the retention of conditions) makes the BSD license incompatible with the GPL v2.

On the disclaimer clause, the two-clause BSD license requires a specifically-worded disclaimer, which is broadly similar in intent but different in wording from the disclaimer that must be preserved in GPL v2 covered works. Again, including the disclaimer required by the BSD license along with that required by the GPL v2 would not violate the GPL v2, but imposing the downstream requirement to preserve that disclaimer would be an additional term, which the GPL v2 does not allow. But the BSD license requires not just that the disclaimer be retained, but the list of conditions (including the condition that the disclaimer be retained) itself be retained. So the disclaimer clause (combined with the requirement for the retention of conditions) makes the BSD license incompatible with the GPL v2.

Since the GPL v2 does not allow a licensee to redistribute a work under the GPL v2 with additional terms added, you cannot create a work that is a derivative work of two or more different works where one or more is licensed under the GPL v2 and one or more is licensed under even the two-clause version of the BSD license without violating the express terms of one of the two licenses.

Re:Hardly open source

[spitzak]

With that sort of nitpicking, the BSD license is incompatible with *everything*, including the MS-PL.

The GPL does not require a specific disclaimer. The preamble recommends one however.

Re:Hardly open source

[DragonWriter]

With that sort of nitpicking, the BSD license is incompatible with *everything*, including the MS-PL.

Not really true. Lots of open source licenses (including, of course, the BSD license itself) don't exclude additional terms, they only require that specific terms be included. As long as those terms don't conflict (and requirements to include clauses with similar, but different, terms often don't conflict, though they may interact in interesting ways) licenses are compatible. Because the way the GPL v2 is written, almost no license that requires specific downstream terms is compatible with it, but that's a particular feature of the GPL v2, not something general to open source licenses.

The GPL does not require a specific disclaimer. The preamble recommends one however.

Sections 11 & 12 of the GPL v2 (the version I have been referring to; the GPL v3 allows additional terms and thus doesn't have the problems with regard to BSD-licensed code that v2 has) are specific disclaimers (GPL v3 has similar provisions in Sections 16 and 17), and are not optional. And the preamble doesn't recommend anything in this regard, have you even read it?

Re:Typical

[Chris Acheson]

The MS-PL is a Free Software license, according to the FSF. It's just not compatible with the GPL.

There are multiple "shared source" licenses, some Free, others not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

Re:The point of the story...

[Jurily]

FTFL:

(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

Is this compatible with any other open source licences?

Read it

[Sp4c3 C4d3t]

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

Re:Read it

[Anonymous Coward]

ohhhhhh maybe because it's microsoft -__-

Re:Read it

[hax0r_this]

The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.

I know I'm just a paranoid geek, but does that seem like a potential exploit? The license can be changed retroactively.

Re:Read it

[SuiteSisterMary]

Dude, this is Slashdot. People will cry 'Just like the BSD license? Yet ANOTHER thing M$ has stolen! Man, can't they even come up with their own LICENSE?'

Re:Read it

[GooberToo]

Why jump to conclusions just because it's Microsoft?

You're new here, huh?

Re:Read it

[DiegoBravo]

Yeah... the M$ specific license could just be the arrogance of M$ for not using any other established/competitor's license, and for their lawyers to pass a bigger check because a whole "new license text".

Now, I don't know almost anything about the product being open sourced, but it would only matter if that product could be really usable standalone outside Windows platforms (what is the utility of opening the source code of a single module of a big stack like .NET?): Sadly, most M$ products seem to be unnaturally coupled so their individual "openness" is largely irrelevant.

Re:Read it

[cbhacking]

Not really. They can create a new license (call it MS-PL v2 for convenience). However, they can't change the MS-PL itself without needing to re-certify it; it would automatically be a new version.

Additionally, they can't do any kind of "retroactive" change to the licensing. They can state that all of their MS-PL code is now MS-PL v2 code, and not available to anybody with brown eyes if they want. However, the old code is already distributed; they can't revoke that.

More specifically and importantly, they can't change the license on a derivative work done by something else. If that person acquired the code under MS-PL as it now stands, and releases a derivative work under MS-PL (as the license requires), there's not a thing Microsoft can legally do about it.

Nice Try Guys!

[JCSoRocks]

April Fools was yesterday. You're a day late.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[jellomizer]

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.

MS-PL

[scribblej]

I really don't /want/ to like the MS-PL or anything Microsoft, but I read it, and re-read it, and I can't see anything wrong with it. In fact, at the risk of being modded to oblivion, I gotta' say it's a far cry easier to understand than the GPL license, seems straightforward, and truly "open." It seems roughly as open as the BSD license. It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license. What am I missing? Is this a late April Fools' joke?

Re:MS-PL

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license.

I'm not sure, but wouldn't that be the part here:

If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

Anyway, I know it's paranoid of me, but I wouldn't trust Microsoft or their MS-PL any farther than I could throw them. Doesn't everyone remember the three Es?

I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't stoop to any level to destroy their competitors, and if this plague becomes common in the FOSS community I can only see it leading to trouble.

Re:MS-PL

[kozmico]

I agree. The wording and the length of the MS-POL license amaze me. My first thought was that it was the preface, but it was actually the whole license. The license looks like many other well accepted open source licenses.

Re:MS-PL

[Anachragnome]

I'm a self-proclaimed EULA/License Nazi, and I have to agree.

It did occur to me that Microsoft might actually have a toe in the pool of common sense...testing the waters, so to speak. Play fair and see what happens?

This is a good thing, no?

Re:MS-PL

[EvilRyry]

Mono already has a good chunk of the ASP.NET 3.5 APIs. Enough to get most ASP.NET MVC applications up and running with this newly open source library.

Re:MS-PL

[cbhacking]

It's the BSD license with one major change: it acknowledges software patents, and provides bi-directional protection from them. Specifically:
  * You receive a royalty-free patent license to use anything covered by the MS-PL.
  * If anybody sues you over a patent in software covered by the MS-PL, they lose the patent license mentioned above.
  * You must retain all patent notices (as well as copyright, attribution, and trademark notices) when you redistribute the software.
  * Patents apply to usage, as well as distribution. If you don't distribute, the distribution portion doesn't apply (the GPL is purely about distribution) but if you break the license terms, you lose the royalty-free patent license.

Acknowledging that software patents are unpopular around here, this seems a reasonably fair solution: you can patent stuff in your software, but
  * You can't demand royalties from people who comply with the license (users or other contributors).
  * If a third party sues you over a patent, they lose permission to use your patents in the software.

Re:MS-PL

[miguel]

ASP.NET MVC runs on Mono 2.4 out of the box.

Not only does it run, but you can now install a MonoDevelop plugin that will provide all the tooling to get the Linux developer experience to match the Visual Studio experience for MVC development.

It is quite sweet.

Re:MS-PL

[Patch86]

Ha, say what you like about Microsoft- they're survivors.

They've never had the best software, they've never had had the most corporate friends, the law isn't even on their side, but by god they know how to stay on top.

They've caught on that Free Software is kicking their rear all over the development and server-side scene. When in Rome?

Re:MS-PL

[CodeBuster]

It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license

In fact that is the only area where one might make a reasonable objection, the lack of duty to redistribute source code, but the GP doesn't even take that road and criticizes the entire license simply because it was written by Microsoft. Not every OSI license is like the GPL and requires redistribution of modification source code, that doesn't mean that the license is "out to get you" it just means that you are free to license your modifications how you please without additional duties or encumbrances. Now, some open source zealots don't agree with that (which is a legitimate position, albeit one that I do not share) but the "blame Microsoft, source of all evil" argument is getting really stale, even by Slashdot standards.

Re:MS-PL

[mweather]

Being a monopoly tends to make it easy to stay on top.

Re:MS-PL

[nog_lorp]

(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

Re:MS-PL

[geminidomino]

* If a third party sues you over a patent, they lose permission to use your patents in the software.

I just had a thought...

Doesn't that mean that if you don't have any patents, it might as well be open-season on you?

Re:Typical

[Cube Steak]

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.

Free stuff on top of paid

[howardd21]

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?

Re:Free stuff on top of paid

[wbren]

I'm not generally a fan of Microsoft, but I am actually quite impressed with the ASP.NET MVC framework. I certainly wouldn't say "very few people want it".

Re:Free stuff on top of paid

[cdrudge]

So what if it's a commercial product. The world is ran on commercial products. Not everything has to be developed by individuals, non-commercial organizations, or non-profit foundations. A good portion of Linux was developed, sponsored by, or somehow made possible (either directly or indirectly) by companies with commercial products. Just because it's commercial doesn't mean it can't be open sourced or made freely available. The .NET framework is freely (as in without additional cost) to Windows users which still has a fairly decent installation base in the modern world. There are also free products to develop in VB, C#, ASP.Net, etc.

But to answer your question as to why... Because they can. Because others may be able to take what they've done and make it better. Because they thought that others might find it useful. Because maybe they "saw the light" and realized that keeping it closed wasn't necessarily beneficial to their goals. Because they hope that opening may increase adoption or allow more compatibility with other systems. Because they didn't necessarily need a reason.

Miguel de Icaza seems to be happy about it. You don't necessarily have to be happy about it, but at least it gives people choices and options which is never a bad thing.

Re:Free stuff on top of paid

[CodeBuster]

I agree. If the Mono project folds that code into mod-mono for Apache then ASP.NET might finally begin to give Ruby on Rails and PHP a real run for their money. Perhaps that is what Microsoft intended all along. I have used the pre-releases of MVC in a few experimental for-fun projects and it is actually quite good albeit not completely original (borrowing heavily from mono-rail, Ruby on Rails, and other previous implementations of RESTful MVC web frameworks). The GP might want to give it a whirl before writing it off completely.

Re:Free stuff on top of paid

[andersonimes]

Er.... ASP.NET and the .NET Framework are free. I can post a download link, if you like.

Re:Free stuff on top of paid

[cbhacking]

And yes I know it could work with Mono, but why?

Umm, why not? Seriously, you just drove a Hummer* through your own argument. It is not something that can only be used in conjunction with a commercial product. It can run on another OS. It doesn't require the .NET framework.

Is your anti-MS bias REALLY that strong that you could KNOW you're wrong and post anyhow?**

* In keeping with /. analogy guidelines, if anybody has a bigger car to suggest let me know.
** Really, I'm not new here, I promise.

Re:Typical

[trifish]

You may need to check the definition of Open Source. It doesn't ONLY mean that you can view the source code. It means you can modify it and redistribute it. Before trolling next time, educate yourself here:
http://opensource.org/docs/osd

Re:Major milestones

[Anonymous Coward]

Plagiarizer... from http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2009/04/01/asp-net-mvc-1-0.aspx ...

# re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0
Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:34 AM by Alastair Smith

Scott, this is fantastic news! The EULA in the installer seems incompatible with this milestone, however:

"2. Scope of License. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

  * work around any technical limitations in the software;

  * reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

  * publish the software for others to copy;

  * rent, lease or lend the software; or

  * __transfer the software or this agreement to any third party.__"

We rely on ASP.NET MVC for a couple of products that we sell to customers (for them to install locally, not in a SaaS-type environment). That EULA clause would appear to prevent us from re-distributing ASP.NET MVC in any form (even the pre-packaged installer). Please could you clarify?

2nd time today I've nailed you, but this is getting old. Have you tried cordless bungee jumping? Blog about that, wouldja?

Aprils Fool Was Yesterday!!!

[mcnazar]

One day too late as Aprils Fool Was Yesterday!!!!1111onewon

Re:The point of the story...

[Microlith]

Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?

And In Todays Top Story

[BigBlueOx]

Microsoft, realizing that they are losing their developers to other software platforms, attempts to close the crack in the dam by shoveling sand into it. We go live to Lance Thruster on the scene.

Yes, Jim, 5 years after the dam began to crack, someone at Microsoft realized that the whole construction could be swept downstream at any moment. That's when this repair crew...

panning shot of Microsoft Open Source Evangelists at work shovelling sand

...began their labors. Unfortunately, it seems that this effort may be too little too late...

shot of developers spilling out of the Microsoft dam and into the PHP, Perl, Python, Java and Ruby streams

...I do have an unconfirmed report that Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer himself is on the way to the dam break with several truck-loads of chairs he will use in an attempt to help.

For Action Eyewitness OnTheSpot First News, I'm Lance Thruster reporting from the Microsoft dam.

Re:And In Todays Top Story

[liquiddark]

Come on now, Ballmer's not going to use chairs to plug holes. He's going to use developers, developers, developers.

Re:The point of the story...

[Jurily]

Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?

AFAIK the GPL3 says you have to open up your patents along with the source. It does not mention challenging the patents of others.

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

I'm not sure though, feel free to correct me.

Read it PLEASE!!!

[Vu1turEMaN]

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

Re:Read it PLEASE!!!

[kv9]

.NET is used by alot of windows developers, and bitching about why they use it and trying to blame MS for developers using .NET instead of java is senseless.

popular doesn't make it good. just look at Windows (or McDonalds if you wanna go there). just another "me too".

Vista was nearly a complete rewrite of the OS, and the 3 apps rule is for W7's starter edition, which anybody with any sense will not buy. Get your facts straight.

the point was that you don't have the resources to run more than 3 apps, because Vista is a resource hog. everyone accepted Vista as a failure, even Microsoft, thats why they're now pimping 7 as a big performant leap ahead (right). just another "me too".

Zune huh....you probably said "hahahahahahahah" cause you failed at pointing out something bad about it.

its colour? the fact that shitloads of them semi-bricked from firmware fuckups? I thought that shit was obvious. not for thick motherfuckers such as yourself. you probably own one. just another "me too".

MS said that they expected the open source community to make their own version of Silverlight, and they did a few months later...called Moonlight. And its certainly not a replacement for Flash.

and Mono is awesome too. it's not Flash, it is a plugin for "delivering rich media applications to browsers" (that is to say, streaming movies, flashy animations, silly games, etc.) -- it's a bad Flash knockoff, a few years late as usual. just another "me too".

bla bla bla IE sucks....yes we all know. Troll, go lurk moar.

gb2wow

in summary, fuck you, fuck Microsoft and also fuck the mods.

that is all

Re:Read it PLEASE!!!

[Vu1turEMaN]

I wasn't saying that .NET was good. I was saying that its popular even though other choices are available, so its futile for bitching about it.

Vista is definitely a resource hog cause it didn't have its memory usage with 1GB of ram optimized like how windows 7 does. thats the one very large performance difference that will allow it to be thrown on netbooks and other nonsense and have people happy again.

Zune didn't have just one color, ya know? Only one type of Zune bricked also. I have a 1st gen shuffle I got for free, a sansa clip i won in a contest and a few creative products. I hardly use any of them.

Silverlight's purpose is to have a proprietary video format that can be streamed and not downloaded/saved. Thats it. You can save and convert flash, and every damn person on slashdot knows that silverlight's purpose isn't to be a flash clone except for you.

Its funny the assumptions you make. I'm a java developer for a non-profit running a simple ubuntu server for 30 people running windows boxes. I don't own a zune, and I use firefox.

Windows 7 is alot better than Vista. Alot. Its on my tabletpc right now and its so damn sweet.

You can go fuck microsoft all you want, but I'm currently taken. The mods might like some though ;)

Re:Read it PLEASE!!!

[kv9]

I accept your apology.

Re:Typical

[ushering05401]

The patent claim section. If you ever bring a patent claim against a contributor to the MS-PL licensed project you lose all rights under the license...

So if you develop around one of these code bases you are giving MS a one-way patent non-aggression pact, they are giving you nothing of the sort in return.

Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

[jacksinn]

I'm just slightly concerned that all the work that has been put into the GPL by FSF (of which I'm a member thus a bit biased) and others will be overshadowed - at least in the mainstream - by Microsoft's step into open source. I support organizations' forays into FOSS, but I'm concerned that Microsoft is trying to eventually be perceived as the leader of FOSS development. And maybe I'm paranoid.

Re:Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

[Jaykul]

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?

Re:Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

[CodeBuster]

And maybe I'm paranoid.

It is actually part of an evil conspiracy by aliens (Steve Ballmer is actually one of them) to melt your brain and take over the world.

Re:Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

[shutdown -p now]

Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

First of all, it won't, because the amount of code that is released under Ms-PL is, in practice, minuscule compared to that under GPL. Furthermore, Ms-PL is mostly only used by Microsoft so far, and perhaps for some OSS projects based on MS technologies, hosted on CodePlex, etc. It doesn't show any signs of spreading beyond those boundaries.

Second, even if it ever does that, why would you care? If Ms-PL will indeed overshadow GPL, then it's still a true open source license; and if Microsoft releases enough code under it to "be perceived as the leader of FOSS development", then by that time it will probably be just that.

Re:Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

[moosesocks]

RTFL.

It's very generous. Similar to the BSD license, which has been around for ages.

Re:Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

[cbhacking]

Outside the tech world, nobody cares in the least (it's not even like they open-sourced a end-user program - this is a development framework). Inside the tech world, everybody already knows about the GPL and Linux.

Inherently, the fact that something is F/OSS really only matters to developers. End users may like its features, or security, or the fact that it's free of charge. However, none of those are exclusive to the F/OSS world. Even things like the ability to extend the product are available in proprietary software too; Visual Studio and Internet Explorer both have tons of available add-ons, as an example.

Re:Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

[BitZtream]

Considering MS-PL is far more 'Open' than GPL, you should worry if you prefer GPL.

Fortunately for you, you can use other peoples software under GPL as things like the BSD license and the MS-PL license are far less restrictive and more to the actual point of open SOURCE. You just can't use GPL code in those other licenses because of FREEDOMS REMOVED BY GPL via the clause that states you can't add any further restrictions. The funny part is most of you fanboys are too dense to realize GPL incompatibility is caused by GPL, not the other license.

You are paranoid, you have to be to use GPL, you have to be afraid of something, otherwise you wouldn't care how people used your 'open source'.

And note, GPL isn't just a source license, its a distribution license as it adds restrictions to every point of the software lifecycle.

I expect GPLv4 to include provisions requiring you to use GIT and that no source may ever be deleted from your hard drive as well.

Re:What about patents

[cbhacking]

In short: yes. Read the license.

If you (as a user or contributor) don't violate the license, you have a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software"

Re:MVC pattern for .NET web apps? Welcome to 2004!

[nicolas.kassis]

2004? Ever heard of smalltalk?

Re:Uh, yeah....

[miguel]

I agree that Visual Studio is a very nice tool.

Luckily the code that you produce with Visual Studio will run on Mono (no recompilations necessary) including code that uses ASP.NET MVC. And with the new support for ASP.NET precompiled sites in Mono (available in Mono 2.4) you do not even need to copy the source code to your target server.

Click "Publish" in visual studio, enter the location for your shared directory, and you have a fully working ASP.NET MVC app running on Linux, without leaving Windows.

We are working on various integration points for Visual Studio that will give developers even more: debugging from Visual Studio remote applications deployed on Linux systems and producing packages ready-for-distribution on Linux.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[greenbird]

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.

installer/uninstaller - apt

[egork]

apt/adept does the job for me. I even manage to do a full system upgrade with it. Why a binary registry would be needed?

Re:The point of the story...

[cbhacking]

I believe the patent terms are the main thing that sets MS-PL apart from other F/OSS licenses. On the other hand, if you *don't* sue the contributors, then you can use their patents (in MS-PL code) royalty-free.

Re:Typical

[rtfa-troll]

The FSF believes it's only "free" if you use their license.

read the FSF's actual published opinion about licenses other than the GPL and then mod the parent "trolling for sanity" (as in screwing for virginity).

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[DragonWriter]

Amazing... you managed to get it EXACTLY backward. .NET compiles to native immediately before execution, so it actually runs as fast as any other binary that makes lots of calls to a binary runtime.

The JVM does the same thing, and has for some time (as in, before .NET existed), so "the speed of Java", from GP, is a perfect description of this, rather than being "EXACTLY backward".

Re:Typical

[larry bagina]

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).

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[Com2Kid]

With SilverSprite you can get 2D XNA games running inside of Silverlight as well. :)

Re:Uh, yeah....

[gbjbaanb]

no, the registry was an improvement over windows .ini files, however where there was once less than a dozen such files, the registry became a place to store fecking everything, to the point where it became a multi-megabyte monster.

That's the moral of this story, it doesn't matter what you use, or how lovely the tool you choose is - someone can turn it into the beast from the black arse of sysadmin hell if they're not careful.

I hear samba is going to use a registry like system for their Samba 4 development. I doubt that'll be anything near as bad as how the registry turned out.

How is that any different than something like GPL?

[coryking]

I think that clause is fairly reasonable if I use that license for my code. If somebody is gonna bring a patent claim against my stuff, screw them, they loose the license to use my work.

How is this different than similar patent clauses in other licenses?

Re:Uh, yeah....

[cbhacking]

Publishing straight to a Linux server from Visual Studio? That's a pretty sweet trick right there. Mono is an excellent project, but I've yet to find an IDE I prefer over Visual Studio (aside from out-of-the-box refactoring capabilities, which are pretty weak).

Re:Uh, yeah....

[ClosedSource]

License keys have nothing to do with the OS - applications could use them on Linux if they wished to. Windows applications can be installed from the web too. Of course, if you want the user to make some installation choices, it can't be done automatically no matter what OS you use.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[gbjbaanb]

and you'll have your VB revolution on the Linux desktop.

I think back to all the corporate VB applications I've ever had the pleasure to use.... and can't think of any. Now shitty crappy useless poxy annoying pieces of ignorant-mumpty-who-thought-he-was-a-programmer-because-he-could-click-a-few-toolbars ones, there were loads of.

I agree consistency in development toolkits and so on is a good thing, and making it easier to develop GUIs is a good thing (eg use QTCreator), but the 'ease of use' of VB is not necessarily something to emulate, make it difficult enough that you need a little bit of skill and/or knowledge to make it work.

car analogy: You wouldn't want me fixing your car engine, not even with a Haynes manual and all the 'how-to' youtube vids I could surf. I wouldn't want my manager (or salesman) writing line-of-business applications. Not again, please.

Re:Typical

[Jaykul]

You're a quarter-right.

(3.B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

You can bring patent claims, as long you're not claiming THIS software violates your patents. If you claim the software infringes YOUR patents, and aren't willing to allow that -- then you don't get a free pass on THEIR patents either. Ie: Share and Share alike. Also, your license for the software doesn't terminate -- just your license to the patents. Which brings us to:

(2.B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents...

So it's not a one-way non-agression pact. It's a two-way pact. As long as you don't sue them for patent infringement, you can (re)use all of their code without fear of them suing you for patent infringement... Of course, since THEY are the ones giving YOU the source code, this is really slanted heavily in your favor -- you can have a look before you use it, decide if they violate your patents, and THEN choose to use it OR sue them. They have no such recourse.

I can't tell if you are being disingenous

[coryking]

Either I'm missing your point, or you are only telling a partial truth.

because BSD is compatible with the GPL.

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.

Re:I can't tell if you are being disingenous

[spitzak]

I think I'm not explaining this right.

The BSD is one-way compatible with the GPL, exactly like you say. You can take BSD code and make it GPL.

The BSD is one-way compatible with the MS-PL as well. You can take BSD code and make it MS-PL.

Note that the position of the MS-PL and the GPL are the same in these two statements.

I have *never* heard somebody say "the GPL is compatible with the BSD license" and I doubt you would either. It is backwards from the way most people interpret the one-way nature. But for some reason the poster thought to reverse the standard meaning when talking about the MS-PL. Sounds like carefully calculated FUD.

An accurate statement would be "the BSD is compatible with the MS-PL". Of course the BSD is compatible with the GPL as well, and with virtually every other license out there including proprietary ones, so big deal!

Re:I can't tell if you are being disingenous

[cbhacking]

Close, although in this case MS-PL does NOT "go in"; it is incompatible with GPL due to the explicit requirement that redistributed source must be licensed under the MS-PL.

I've used it over BSD

[coryking]

For the simple reason it is worded pretty much like the BSD license, only it doesn't demand you name the copyright holders. When I open source stuff and people contribute, there are multiple people who own copyright on all the bits of code. The BSD license (at least the template on Codeplex) really only lets you enter one copyright holder. MS-PL is worded so that you don't have to list every single contributor.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[gbjbaanb]

so "the speed of Java", from GP, is a perfect description of this

and I thought he was being ironic.

I suppose it *should* be really fast, but combine with all the exceptions in the framework object-oriented layers, the lax approach to memory management (which leads to hundreds of GCs per second), the 'lets be safe' approach to multithreading locks, etc... just be grateful that computers are so unbelieveably fast and memory so cheap nowadays, you'd never have run Java or .net on a computer just a few years ago unless it was an 'enterprise' app running on a cluster.

Now just think what you could do with something more efficient, even if it meant developers had to have more skill than they currently do.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[riegel]

...

Click "Publish" in visual studio, enter the location for your shared directory, and you have a fully working ASP.NET MVC app running on Linux, without leaving Windows.

What would be nice if I could do all of that without leaving OS X. :)

Re:Typical

[cbhacking]

This is untrue.

First, they ARE providing something to you: a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free patent license. They can't sue you over patents in their code base; they already gave you a license to them.

Second, if you bring a patent claim against a contributor over code covered by the MS-PL (not just any code they wrote, as you implied) then you don't lose all rights, you only lose the royalty-free patent license from that specific contributor.

Example: Microsoft releases some code (call it code-base A) under MS-PL. It contains patented algorithm X.
You take A and extend it. Your extension (code-base B) contains an improvement on X, which you have patented. Call this improved version Y.
If Microsoft sues you over Y (which is basically a better X) then they lose the right to use Y, meaning that if Y is upheld they would have to license it from you. Furthermore, even if they win the case and the patent on Y is invalidated, X can still be used free of charge; they can't revoke your license to use it.

This seems a fair way to handle software patents in open-source software; a sort of copyleft scheme applied to patent right rather than copyright.

Mind you, IANAL, but the terminology seems pretty clear.

It is a free market man

[coryking]

GPL isn't the final word on open source licenses. Quite frankly, I'm pleased to see more options and further, I'm glad people are taking the time to think before they just blindly stamp a GPL on their project. GPL is good for some projects, but it isn't good for all.

And maybe I'm paranoid.

You are. If Microsoft starts going open source, it means you've won.

It is the same with the environmental movement. The environmentalists won. Their cause grew from a fringe group of "tree huggers" to something that is pretty much a solid part of our culture and values. Now every company is trying to go green. Now maybe *how* a company goes green might not be exactly what the environmentalists would have liked, but the important bit is they *are* making an effort.

Just giving you something to ponder...

Re:It is a free market man

[shentino]

Given MS's track record they are hardly going to win me over.

Considering the hijinx they pulled with OOXML, I don't trust a stinkin license from them any further than I can throw it.

They have much to do before they can be trustworthy.

And until then, presuming guilt is entirely reasonable.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent claim section. If you ever bring a patent claim against a contributor to the MS-PL licensed project you lose all rights under the license...

So if you develop around one of these code bases you are giving MS a one-way patent non-aggression pact, they are giving you nothing of the sort in return.

It's not a one-way non-aggression pact, they're making the same promise to you by releasing the code in MS-PL in the first place.

Basically, the license doesn't say that you can never sue Microsoft for violating your patents. It says that if you have any patent claims on code that you licensed as MS-PL, you can't turn around and sue people who create derivative works using your code for violating your patents. It's the same hole the FSF was trying to close with the GPL 3.

The promise applies to Microsoft too. If you take their MS-PL licensed code, and then build a derivative work using their license, they can't sue you for violating the patent.

The license is something of a BSD / GPL hybrid. You can distribute binaries without source code like the BSD (because Microsoft really dislikes that the GPL doesn't allow that), and you have to give permission for use of your patents like the GPL 3 (because Microsoft doesnt' want you to bait them and then sue them).

So?

[coryking]

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 don't understand

[deanston]

Is this like open sourcing Rails but not Ruby, Django but not Python? Kind of like Struts before Sun open sourced Java?

Re:I don't understand

[BitZtream]

No, because MS already opened sourced a working reference of the .NET CLR and C# compiler (maybe vb as well?), around 2000-2001, but under a license roughly as restrictive as GPL. I say roughly as I'm too lazy to look up the specific date, but I certainly remember compiling the port on FBSD around that time.

Hah

[coryking]

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!

Re:Hah

[wastedlife]

Seriously, wtf? I understand that there needs to be a password reset mechanism on the physical box, or the password kept in escrow in case a rogue sysadmin gets fired and exacts their revenge. But giving EVERY user privileges to su just seems retarded and a huge breech of security. I can see no good reason whatsoever for allowing any user to su. Users locking other users from access when they shouldn't is a disciplinary problem, not a technical one. This is akin to a bank manager locking all of the assistant managers out of the vault requiring all access to go through him. If those assistants need access to the vault to complete their job, they should go over the manager's head to get him disciplined or fired. They shouldn't crack open the vault with explosives (patching the kernel to gain access). Hmm, I think that analogy needs more car, anyone have a better one?

Re:MVC pattern for .NET web apps? Welcome to 2004!

[bADlOGIN]

2004? Ever heard of smalltalk?

Yes I have. And dear dog, do I wish I were lucky enough to have used it professionally. Although it looks like Seaside has been around longer than that the web site says:

Is Seaside free? What license does Seaside use?

As of the Seaside 2.5 (8 January 2004), Seaside has been under the MIT license. This means that you can use it to build commercial apps, royalty free, with no restrictions. Note that, besides Squeak, this also applies to commercial Smalltalks such as Cincom Smalltalk and Dolphin Smalltalk.

So out of sheer luck in speaking in broad generalisims, I'll stick with my 2004 number:)

Whoever modded this troll

[coryking]

Explain the bit where I'm wrong. If GPL was "two-way" compatible, this scenario would be possible:

1) BSD driver gets written.
2) GPL guys take driver, incorporate it into their code and make improvements.
3) BSD guys merge changes back into their code.
4) BSD guys codebase remains BSD licensed.

If I'm a troll, then my assertion would be deliberately wrong. I fail to see where I'm wrong. Unless I'm wrong, the "two-way" scenario I just outlined is impossible.

Re:Whoever modded this troll

[Wildclaw]

3) BSD guys merge changes back into their code.

Step 3 is illegal. It violates the GPL license. You are not allowed to distribute GPL licensed code (the improvements the GPL guys did) under a non GPL license.

That is the whole point of the grandparent saying that the GPL is a black hole. Because it really is. It is the leecher license of open source licenses, wanting other licenses to be one-way "compatible" with it so that it can leech code from them, but not wanting to give anything in return.

Re:Whoever modded this troll

[visualight]

There's seems to be a sense of animosity from some in the BSD camp towards the GPL, but, I don't get why it's not okay for the GPL camp to make improvements and then dictate how they're used but it _is_ okay for some big corporation to do the exact same thing.

Re:Whoever modded this troll

[0x000000]

Ah, but therein lies the whole crux of this argument. The big corporation is taking the source code and is not claiming that they are releasing it for free and making statements making it sound like they are the only REAL free implementation and that their way (GPL) is the best way to go.

Big corporations generally don't release their source code, thus they are not dictating how their improvements are used.

It comes down to this:

GPL camp says that the big corporations are bad they are going to take the source code and steal it and not give anything back
BSD camp says that the big corporations can use their code in any way shape or form.

Now the GPL camp takes the BSD code, licenses it under terms that won't allow the BSD camp to use the improvements. So now the GPL camp is doing exactly what they were saying the big corporations were going to do. Hypocritical? Yes.

That being said, corporations that do take BSD licensed software generally give something back in return for the source code. Apple for example is sponsoring much of the code required for the TrustedBSD framework that is being implemented in FreeBSD.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[kv9]

[...] to run faster than a binary optimized for generic 386 (or other platform, see below). There's a very short delay as the Just-In-Time compiler converts the intermediate code to machine code, but after the first time this happens the result is cached on your system so it starts instantly.

that sounds awesome. Java awesome. meanwhile, according to my anecdotal evidence, every .NET app I ever ran was dog slow, a resource hog and generally felt shitty.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[cbhacking]

While the JRE did include JIT capability roughly a decade ago, it is only in the last few years that its performance has approached that of native code. A few more optimizations were added with each release, but java 1.5.0 was still slower on many benchmarks than .NET 1.1.

Furthermore, the GP's point was that .NET is slow, as Java used to be (and is still generally perceived to be). (More specifically, the implication was that .NET combines the worst of native code and Java.) While the number of runtime checks performed means that any substantial program written in .NET will probably be slightly slower than the equivalent native program in which such checks are omitted, .NET was never slow in the way that most programmers still associate with Java.

That said, I was being unfair to modern versions of Java. A more correct response might have been to point out that modern versions of both environments are quite fast, with a good JIT offering some advantages that native binaries typically lack.

Re:Typical

[ADRA]

Apple, case closed. Having GPL 'protects' projects from corporate abuse is valid depending on your philosophical views. Really, BSD guys may not have cared about its use in macs, but maybe some did feel sad about it. At least the GPL protects against companies complete 'stealing/borrowing/whatever' of the base code without providing any functional enhancements that said company added to the base product.

Re:Typical

[cicuz]

You anal...

Re:Typical

[ushering05401]

We are talking about two different things here.

My point is that by implementing around the MS-PL you are granting MS the right to define what IP you are able to protect through legal channels.

Other OSI licenses deal with this issue in a variety of ways, but none that I know of hands the right to define patent enforceability to whether or not one vendor - MS in this case - chooses to include the a code invention in their own source tree.

That is exactly what this is doing.

Re:Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me?

I bought my home NAS (a Thecus) specifically because it was using linux for firmware. Thanks to that fact, I have hacked my own custom firmware with all the tools and services I need. Thanks to that there is an entire community hacking the Thecus models. Compare that to any BSD based NAS, where you get a binary firmware, which means no tinkering.

I've always tried explaining it like this:

Author -> (developers)* -> End User
Proprietary -> BSD -> GPL

With a proprietary license all rights are reserved to the author. If the author chooses a BSD license, most rights are passed to the developers including the right to make it, for all intents and purposed, proprietary. If the author however chooses the GPL, he can be assured that the rights will get passed all the way to the end-user, no matter how many developers there are between the original author and the end-user.

And that is why I GPL all my code, look for products using GPL'd code, and why the GPL most certainly is a solution to a problem that exists today.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[DragonWriter]

you'd never have run Java or .net on a computer just a few years ago unless it was an 'enterprise' app running on a cluster.

I've been running Java on desktop computers for close to a decade. Sure, its slower than hand-crafted assembly, so was C when it took over the world -- the gap has closed largely with better compilers, just as the Java -> C gap has closed in most practical domains for similar reasons, and just like the JavaScript -> (pick your lower level language) gap has with increasingly performant JavaScript engines. Having a mix of expressiveness and even minimal performance that allows developer productivity (even at the cost of comparatively slow applications) often saves costs and enables apps that are more robust, which drives popularity, focusses resources on improving the implementation, and, eventually, drives performance to improve.

Now just think what you could do with something more efficient, even if it meant developers had to have more skill than they currently do.

Computers have always gotten faster much more reliably than people, in general, have gotten more skilled. Approaches which leverage improving technology and take humans as they are will continue to be more successful than ones which expect humans to become radically different. Otherwise, the IT world would be populated entirely by hyper-efficient programmers implementing systems directly in machine code.

Re:Typical

[outZider]

I always love when this reply comes up in a free software licensing discussion, because it happens every time. So, tell me again, how Apple used so much BSD code in Macs, without ever contributing back or participating in the openness? Feel free to include NeXT.

Feel free to also include Konqueror switching to WebKit.

Indeed

[coryking]

And I'm glad I just misread you and toned down my response figuring as much :-)

Of course the BSD is compatible with the GPL as well

To further my analogy of blackhole-dom. BSD is pretty much the anti-blackhole (whitehole?)

I have *never* heard somebody say "the GPL is compatible with the BSD license" and I doubt you would either.

Sure I have, hell I'm probably guilty of phrasing it that way myself.

The FSF plays word-games all the time hoping nobody notices. Only the most astute, careful reader would notice the subtle difference between "the GPL is fully compatible with the BSD license" and "the BSD license is fully compatible with the GPL".

Now, whether they intentionally phrase it this way in hopes most people who gloss over the sentence leave thinking "GPL is two-way, baby", well, I dont want to travel there.

Re:Indeed

[spitzak]

I find it interesting that you accuse the FSF of doing word games by saying "the GPL is compatible with the BSD license" while apparently defending the original poster who literally says "the MS-PL is compatible with the BSD license".

In my opinon the two statements are equally wrong, yet apparently people will only attact the one on the side they disagree with.

Re:Indeed

[coryking]

I'm now actually confused. I reread the MS-PL and now I'm not clear if it is closer to GPL or BSD.

It is this line:

(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

I'm confused with. Does that mean that if you use my library or incorporate my code, your whole codebase becomes MS-PL'd?

Now I'm confused... ah well.

Re:Indeed

[Raenex]

Does that mean that if you use my library or incorporate my code, your whole codebase becomes MS-PL'd?

I think they are only talking about the MS-PL portion. Unlike the GPL, they don't make a point about the license covering the "whole" of the work.

Re:Indeed

[coryking]

That was my original interpretation as well. It just threw me off the second time I read it.

Re:Indeed

[Raenex]

It threw me when I read it too. Damn all these licenses.

Re:Indeed

[spitzak]

Nothing "becomes" GPL or MS-PL just because it is incorporated into the license. The original code still exists under it's original license. Saying that either one magically changes the code is FUD. In fact the MS-PL and GPL are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in their restrictions.

What both do is purposely disallow linking with code that is incompatible with their restrictions and then distributing the result. GPL code can be linked with BSD and GPL code. MS-PL code can be linked with BSD and MS-PL code.

The MS-PL is missing the "distribution" wording so it may be slightly more restrictive in that it seems to restrict use as well, but as I understand it copyright law pretty much means you can only restrict distribution anyway.

It also tries to allow distribution of "compiled" code without any restrictions, but I suspect this is bogus as it is difficult to say at what point the code is "compiled". I can run the macro expansions on it and claim it is "compiled". I doubt Microsoft is stupid enough to allow that result to be GPL'd, so it is probably best to treat the compiled result as having the same redistribution requirements as the source code.

Re:Indeed

[Raenex]

In fact the MS-PL and GPL are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in their restrictions.

From my reading of the MS-PL and the GPL, they are completely different, in that certain rights granted for the original MS-PL code do not have to be granted to the non-original parts. The GPL is very explicit that all of the code for a derivative work has to be distributed under the GPL as well. The MS-PL contains no such language, and in this respect I read it like the BSD. The MS-PL patent requirements apply to the work as a whole, of course, but being able to create derivative works do not.

What both do is purposely disallow linking with code that is incompatible with their restrictions and then distributing the result.

Neither license talks about linking. There are many ways to create derivative works. Linking is just an obvious one.

Re:Indeed

[spitzak]

The GPL requires all other parts to be compatible with the GPL. This does not magically change them to be GPL, the original code is still under whatever license it was under originally. The FUD-makers like to pretend the GPL has some magical ability to alter the license on existing code.

The MS-PL also requires that code distributed with it be compatible with it's license. If that was not true then you could make the your resulting program be GPL with a licensing exception for the MS-PL part. Microsoft has purposly worded the license so this is impossible.

Re:Indeed

[Raenex]

The GPL requires all other parts to be compatible with the GPL.

You are understating the GPL. It requires all other parts to be distributed under the GPL as well.

The MS-PL also requires that code distributed with it be compatible with it's license.

Yes, in that way it is similar, but it does not require that all parts be re-licensed exactly as MS-PL. In particular it does not require allowing derivative works to be made, even though this right was granted under the MS-PL.

This is getting rather repetitive. I'm out.

Re:Indeed

[spitzak]

The MS-PL does not allow you to require that derivative works include the source code. I consider that a restriction.

It is quite impossible to be incompatible with the GPL without also doing pretty much what it does, which is remake all the linked code with it's own license. Otherwise a GPL plus linking exception would work to allow the MS-PL code to be absorbed into a GPL system.

Now I'm as mad as anybody about the FSF refusing to endors a license that does what everybody wants, which is "GPL plus linking exception" so that the code itself can be used in proprietary programs, but only changes to the code itself need to be publicised (the LGPL is not this, it has some strange exceptions and is about 10 times longer than a linking exception). If the FSF would endorse a name for the linking exception then everybody, including me, could put the code out under a license that we want and everybody would recognize it by it's useful and short name.

However the FSF's bad actions is no excuse for Microsoft to act like children themselves and put gratuitous GPL incompatability into their license. That is showing that they fear the GPL, not that they want to provide open source.

Re:Indeed

[Raenex]

Ok, I know I said I was out, but I'm hoping that the conversation is now actually moving in a direction instead of going in circles.

The MS-PL does not allow you to require that derivative works include the source code. I consider that a restriction.

I see no such restriction on the rest of the work that is not under the MS-PL. You are upset because the MS-PL code retains its license?

It is quite impossible to be incompatible with the GPL without also doing pretty much what it does, which is remake all the linked code with it's own license.

No, you have it wrong. See here:

Section II: Compatibilities and incompatibilities with other OSI licenses: Source code distribution breaks down into two areas: Relicensing of MS-PL code and redistribution of MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under a different license.

                  Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a different license?:

No. The license states that "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license..." This restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public License that states "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder." The MS-PL license explicitly prohibits relicensing of the original licensed code under a different license, regardless of whether the original code is redistributed in whole, in part or as part of a different piece of software.

                  Can MS-PL code be redistributed in combination with other code that is licensed under a different license?

As long as the original MS-PL licensed code is redistributed under the MS-PL license, then the MS-PL places no restrictions on combining MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under another license. Licenses that prohibit the distribution of code under any terms other than the terms of that license will not be compatible with the MS-PL.

Otherwise a GPL plus linking exception would work to allow the MS-PL code to be absorbed into a GPL system.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "GPL system". The linking exception is there so that you can use the gcc compiler, not to create a "GPL system", whatever that means.

Re:Indeed

[spitzak]

You are confusing that messy GCC stuff with what I am calling a "linking exception". I have also heard this called the "Gnu ClassPath exception" and several other things.

My "linking exception" is somewhat between the GPL and the Mozilla license. It also is what many people either think or want the LGPL to say. And the FSF is being real assholes by not making an official name for this, other than silly games like Microsoft, the lack of this is the reason there is so much license proliferation.

The "linking exception" allows me to protect the code I wrote, but allowing it to be *used* in closed-source programs (without weird restrictions on relinking or shared libraries the LGPL forces, which really just discourages anybody from using my software). This is done by making the code GPL with a "linking exception" that says "as a special exception you are allowed to link the result with ABCD and redistribute the result." In my case "ABCD" is basically anything, though some people limit it to a specific piece of code that cannot be GPL but otherwise allows copying of the source.

The result is that you only have to redistribute changes you make to *my* source, not to anybody else's. I think a lot of people, myself included, believe this would work just as well, or better, than the "viral" GPL.

Unlike the MS-PL, I allow people to *remove* the linking exception and go with plain GPL, so that my code can be used by people working on GPL code. Microsoft is certainly being assholes by saying you cannot do this. Note that nobody has ever "stolen" my code by making it GPL (or any BSD code for that matter), this is a FUD smokescreen by Microsoft to hide the real purpose, which is to pretend to make open source while making it useless for anybody who already has some open source code that is GPL.

And I was under the impression that the MS-PL explicitly disallowes me to GPL my code and put a "linking exception" for the MS-PL portion. If in fact this is allowed it does negate my original argument that MS-PL and GPL are the same. However it does reveal the hypocrisy of Microsoft: if I can do this, I can easily "steal" any MS-PL code and make it GPL-only by adding my useful changes and saying they are GPL with the linking exception. So this completely defeats the "protection" of their license and reveals it's real purpose which is to prevent interoperability with Linux and most other open source software.
 

Re:Indeed

[Raenex]

You are confusing that messy GCC stuff with what I am calling a "linking exception". I have also heard this called the "Gnu ClassPath exception" and several other things.

The gcc stuff I am talking about is the linking exception. See the FSF licensing FAQ:

"Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?"
Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile proprietary software using gcc."

and the Wikipedia article (which also talks about the Classpath exception):

"Compiler runtime libraries also often use this license, e.g. the libgcc library in the GNU Compiler Collection uses a very similar linking exception"

I think the "messy gcc" stuff that you are referring to is the very new gcc exception, which I agree is a mess and undesirable: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

And the FSF is being real assholes by not making an official name for this, other than silly games like Microsoft, the lack of this is the reason there is so much license proliferation. The "linking exception" allows me to protect the code I wrote, but allowing it to be *used* in closed-source programs (without weird restrictions on relinking or shared libraries the LGPL forces, which really just discourages anybody from using my software).

Well Stallman and the FSF put the "weird restrictions" into the LGPL for a reason. It is Stallman's fundamental belief that not only should you have access to the source code, but that you must be able to actually change that source code and use your changes in the program. Is this really important? It is for Stallman. One of his early motivations for the GPL was running into a printer driver he couldn't fix. More recently, GPL version 3 was a response to the "Tivoization" of GPL software. So really you're calling Stallman and the FSF assholes for holding to their principles.

Unlike the MS-PL, I allow people to *remove* the linking exception and go with plain GPL, so that my code can be used by people working on GPL code. Microsoft is certainly being assholes by saying you cannot do this.

Why should Microsoft go out of their way to be compatible with the GPL? They wrote a simple license that includes patent protection. You cannot relicense the MS-PL code under the GPL or any other license. There's nothing nefarious or unusual about this, though they could have done what Apache 2.0 did:

"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."

Note that nobody has ever "stolen" my code by making it GPL (or any BSD code for that matter), this is a FUD smokescreen by Microsoft to hide the real purpose, which is to pretend to make open source while making it useless for anybody who already has some open source code that is GPL.

That's an argument against any code restrictions beyond public domain for open source. After all, nobody "steals" your code when they don't give back, so why use a license that enforces that?

if I can do this, I can easily "steal" any MS-PL code and make it GPL-only by adding my useful changes and saying they are GPL with the linking exception.

I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind. If you make changes to the MS-PL source, you can only do so under the MS-PL license. If, however, you want to combine the MS-PL code with code that is clearly separate using y

Re:Uh, yeah....

[MmmmAqua]

I do, with VMWare Fusion. :)

'Grade A' Propaganda

[coryking]

It is just additionally licensed as GPL and they happen to don't contradict each other

A fine bit of propaganda you've got there. You would make a fine politician! You see, you glossed over the bit about "additionally licensed as GPL". What additionaly actually means is that your code has now been "enhanced" in a way that makes it impossible to move back into your BSD codebase without GPL'ing the BSD code.

You can use weasel words all you want, but the bottom line is GPL is one-way. It is only compatible so much as you can take code with other licenses and incorporate it into your GPL project. Rarely, if ever, can you do the reciprocal.

Re:'Grade A' Propaganda

[spitzak]

If you take BSD code and combine it with MS-PL, the result is not BSD licensed. This should be pretty obvious, because everybody, including you, know that MS-PL code cannot be combined with GPL code. Since BSD code can, MS-PL is not BSD and not "compatible" with it.

Trying to pretend they are different is propaganda, whether the FSF or an astroturfer does it. Get the facts.

Re:'Grade A' Propaganda

[coryking]

I never made the claim you can back port MS-PL code to BSD... though the licenses are similar enough that you just might be able to. Thinking about it, it is actually rather hard to backport anything into BSD, at least if you take the license very literally (whatever I mean by that...).

Re:'Grade A' Propaganda

[spitzak]

The original poster said "the MS-PL is compatible with the BSD license". I have no idea what you are saying.

Obviously you cannot change MS-PL code into BSD code. If you could, you could then change it into GPL code. Let's assume MicroSoft's lawyers are not that stupid. I'm going to assume you are not that stupid either, but you do seem to have a mental block that makes it impossible for you to admit that the MS-PL and the GPL are identical in their restrictions.

PS: you might also investigate "exceptions" which is what everybody other than Microsoft does when they want to release source code but not force GPL compliance. But Microsoft purposely ignored these because their #1 priority was to make sure it was GPL-incompatible. Take a look at the FLTK license to see what I do with my code. But you know asshole attitudes like the original posters are what drives people to slap the GPL on their code.

Re:'Grade A' Propaganda

[spitzak]

I think you misread "cannot" for "can" in my statement. Nice reading comprehension. I have put it in bold so you can see it:

You cannot put MS-PL code into a BSD program. If you could, then you could put it into a GPL program, since you can put BSD code into a GPL program!

I am agreeing with you, the thing described above is NOT allowed.

My argument is with the statement "The MS-PL is compatible with BSD". This implies that the above situation *is* allowed. The correct statement is "The BSD is compatible with the MS-PL", unless you want to revere the normal directional meaning of the word "compatible" for FUD reasons.

Saying "The BSD license is compatible with the MS-PL" is a truthful statement. Of course it is also truthful to say "The BSD license is compatible with the GPL" and "The BSD license is compatible with closed source". That of course points out that the MS-PL is not very special at all, which defeats the original propaganda purpose of wording the sentence very strangely.

Re:I'd rather they open the specifications.

[RightSaidFred99]

What specifications, retard?

Re:Yeah! I can quit using Rails now...

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, people who develop enterprise applications care. But yeah - if you're off developing shitty prototype quality apps then you probably don't care.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[FlyingBishop]

He was being ironic, but your parent was making a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment on the GP's mindless assertion that a virtual machine can get performance equal to or better than compiled code.

As if that whole "compiling to binary immediately before execution" was a constant time operation.

Re:could this be any more of a rails knockoff?

[RightSaidFred99]

Guh? Do you know what MVC is? What the fuck does this have to do with Rails?

Re:Typical

[cbhacking]

Your sig is amusing here.

You may have heard of this little family of software products called Microsoft Windows. Up until version 6, this proprietary software used substantial amounts of BSD-derived code - specifically in the networking stack.

You might also have heard of Apple's OS X. It's a bit rarer than Windows but still reasonably common. It's entire kernel (much of its core, in fact) was derived from BSD as well (they chose to release the source for some portions of some of their platforms, but it's still proprietary code).

While I agree that copyleft licenses aren't needed for everything, and while I certainly prefer LGPL over GPL (although I can understand the motivation behind GPL quite well), permissive licenses like BSD and MS-PL can and do get abused. Copyleft exists for a reason, and it's not obsolete yet. In fact, I doubt it ever really will be.

Re:Typical

[Jaykul]

I'm sure I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. It's not up to Microsoft to define what IP you can protect -- You can sue over misuse of your IP by anyone in MS-PL code: the only thing you loose by doing that is a FREE LICENSE TO THEIR IP.

This license doesn't affect your ability to protect your IP unless you release code under this license which is protected/covered by your patents. You get that? IANAL, but the MS-PL allows you to take the source of an MS-PL project, along with it's patent licenses, prepare derivative works based on your patented code, and distribute them without source under a closed source license without exposing your own patented code to this license.

As an alternate example, the GPL v3 is much stricter: if you bring a patent suit claiming the software infringes on your patents, your entire license is void, including the patent license. And of course, unlike MS-PL ... GPL requires you to distribute modifications under the same license, so if you want to make a derivative work, you have to also give away any licenses to any patents which cover any of the code.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:MVC pattern for .NET web apps? Welcome to 2004!

[bADlOGIN]

The key term here is "web apps". I recognize the MVC pattern has been around for quite some time. It's a question of when they bothered to bless something in web application stack. Also, given the nature of MVP (model-view-presenter) example you cite (User Interface Process Application Block) relying on small state interaction it seems like a complete and total mis-application of the pattern to the domain of web applications. Unfortunatly, I should know: I've worked on a code base that used a home grown MVP framework in Java. It sucked. I hope for the sake of those poor ASP developers they're not touting MVP on the web as a reasonable way to build applications....

Re:Typical

[kripkenstein]

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.

No, private forks often work. Look at what Apple did with BSD, what IBM did with OpenOffice and Apache, etc. etc. Also look at what Apple would have done with KHTML if it didn't have to keep it open (I presume what it did with BSD).

The GPL and LGPL are very important for various reasons. Another is that it allows profitable dual-licensing models, such as used by Sun and Nokia. The BSD doesn't allow that. There is a place for both types of licenses.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[visualight]

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?

Please explain what a 'real' installer is, cause I really really don't see anything compelling about the way Windows does it. And as far as a 'registry' goes, do you mean something like /etc/profile or the output of env, or does it absolutely positively have to be hierarchical database of unreadable non-intuitive strings?

And just to be clear, I'm not obliquely calling you a troll and I'm not being (all that) sarcastic either. I want to know what you think is wrong with clicking on an rpm file or typing yum install amarok ?

why?

[speedtux]

So, why didn't they just use one of the existing licenses? What is the justification for creating another license?

The Catch Is ...

[aoheno]

Got to be something in there which forces you to buy something from Microsoft, sooner or later.

I'll stay with 'true' Open Source, the kind that really can run everywhere.

Re:The Catch Is ...

[BitZtream]

The only catch is that paranoid nut jobs like yourself won't use it because its from scary MS.

Which kind of open source would that be? You must be referring to public domain as nothing else falls into that category since all other licenses have restrictions, GPL having more than most.

Learn to actually think for yourself instead of puppeting Stallmans bullshit.

Open Source

[sharperguy]

..Like a fox!

Re:Uh, yeah....

[sproketboy]

Well Microsoft has been bleeding developers for years so I think a lot of developers have given up on Visual Studio.

Why is PHP so huge? Because large chunks of those developers were VB developers.

Additionally IntelliJ IDEA makes Visual Studio seem like Visual Notepad (but it is usable with Resharper).

Re:Typical

[modmans2ndcoming]

uhhh.....

Apple created Darwin from FreeBSD and Darwin itself is licensed as BSD... what is your point about again?

Re:Uh, yeah....

[tjstork]

Registry has everything to do with installation. The whole point of the registry was to provide a consistent and programmatic place to describe all the system settings. Now, I won't argue that the Registry is a terrible database, but it is a database.

Sure, in Linux, I can put a copy of a program into my ~/username folder and rock on. But, what if that program is going to alter characteristics of my shell or my desktop? Or, more naggingly, what if I want to add a driver to my system? There's a bunch of startup scripts that need to be altered and those are not so easily tangled with programmatically.

Re:Typical

[SL Baur]

History has shown that private forks of open source software generally don't work.

IOS, Darwin. QED

Re:Typical

[qbast]

Konqueror is not switching to WebKit. No matter how many times developers deny it, some moron from Slashdot just has to bring it up again.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[tjstork]

I think there's nothing wrong with running yum or apt. That part of the end, of installing and searching for applications to install, is better.

My issue is more that uninstallng from yum or apt seems to not work. Installing from APT or YUM is absolutely great, but the other way, not so. To me a real installer is database based, transacted, and snapshot preserving. You install a product and if you uninstall it, the system is the way it was. apt isn't there yet. I tried to uninstall yet another ubuntu download that bricked my x, and, when the dust settled, half the stuff was still there, and my desktop was still bricked. Not saying this can't happen in Windows, but, it happens a lot less often than it used to. Finally, as a developer, I would like to be able to -write- an installer with some confidence that it will actually work on most Linux distributions. I don't know that now. If I build an installer in Windows, I know that it will at least deploy ok to Windows XP and Vista. I have to test it, for sure, but testing it at least gives me a better warm and fuzzy.

I think, and I could be wrong, that problem with installing or doing any sort of programmatic systems management in Linux is because everything is in text files, and I think it would make a lot more sense if all the configuration information were loaded into a relational store. It doesn't have to be transacted, I think, as much as it has to have known transaction complete snapshots periodically, so that you can confidently roll back to a date, or better still, an event. That level of technology would crush Windows and I think all the pieces are in place for that to happen. Obviously a lot of people would prefer MySQL to back it but PostGres is out there and free.

I agree that the way the registry is implemented is utterly terrible. But the idea of having a database central to the system where all the system settings that could be altered by an installation, from startup scripts to drivers to x desktop settings, would be utterly kick ass. To me, the registry was like, here's a step towards making a central system database, but instead of really pushing forward with it, and making it into a genuine database built in with the system, Microsoft just kept it at its crippled hierarchical self, probably so that people would still have to buy SQL Server.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[tjstork]

Why is PHP so huge? Because large chunks of those developers were VB developers

Not VB, but classic ASP developers. I would give you that. classic ASP had problems but it was pretty simple to program for. ASP.NET is better but it is more complicated.

Re:Typical

[marcello_dl]

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.

You are talking about forks by companies with limited resources, this does not apply when you are microsoft.
The guy mentioning apple hit the nail on the head. Nobody prevents you to develop for Darwin, but once apple shifts his weight on the closed source xnu or whatever the name, Darwin does not survive - pun intended.
MS needs to fight rails and django, if next iteration of their framework becomes proprietary, the free implementations will likely have a hard time lagging behind. my 2c.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0?

[jellomizer]

Yes .NET is a bit better then compiled binary. But you are stuck to Microsoft platform. Mono is hit or miss you are almost better off running it in Wine.

Re:Typical

[fmoliveira]

BSD made what apple did at a minimum cheaper, and it turned to be the only competition to MS that gained more than 1% marketshare. It lowers the entry barrier, and puts competition in the market. IMHO, far more interesting than GPL's results.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[BitZtream]

Does mono still have that absolutely asstastic garbage collector that is non-compacting?

You can make mono compatible with silly shit like publishing from visual studio which is useless in a production environment(unless your a complete idiot and let your developers publish directly). So while thats cool and useful for school kids working on class projects, there are far more important things that need to be fixed in mono than visual studio integration.

You might want to fix the garbage collector so the web server doesn't have to be restarted all the time due to running out of memory due to the shitty garbage collector. If I wanted to deal with memory fragmentation and relocation I'd write in C, without all the .NET overhead and just do it myself. Until mono has a garbage collector that doesn't suck complete ass, its worthless for any sort of production work.

I quote from: http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_ASP.NET

Why does the memory consumed by the Mono process keep growing?

Mono currently uses a conservative, non-moving, non-compacting garbage collector. This means that the heap is not compacted when memory is released. This means that applications can produce memory allocation patterns that will effectively make the process grow, just like C, C++, Perl, Python applications would.

Stop spending your time doing integration with visual studio and make the engine not suck ass. Mono is practically pointless if it doesn't do memory management for shit. All it is otherwise is a big fat massively bloated library loader with its own set of bugs. I'll just stick with C and ld if thats the case, or as I do now unfortunately, run windows asp.net web servers.

Is this part of the Microsoft embrace and extend/extinguish attack on linux via mono? Make it look pretty and inter operate with shit no one cares about on the surface (but sounds good in marketing copy), but under the hood its just like the MS JVM, broken intentionally with no hope of repair? You know what happened when Microsoft tried this? People just stopped using the MS version. If you're going to do that with mono, why the fuck even bother making it. Just come out and say 'MS is the way to go for .NET'. You're not going to upset any major projects or anything, they don't use Mono anyway, and all the kids in school can download the free MS shit for their little projects.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[BitZtream]

There isn't any other IDE even close to visual studio for completeness. There are plenty IDEs that come close, and plenty of them do certain things far better. Practically everything does better syntax highlighting than visual studio out of the box, for example. The problem is, MS is the only one who has enough focus to produce a good IDE. Everyone else spends too much time with their internal developers arguing over which feature is the best because of their preferences, or trying to put EVERY POSSIBLE function into the IDE. The problem is that IDEs are written by developers for developers, so in theory we should run the show. If you've ever been involved with a project where the developers are in total control, you'll understand why there are no IDEs better than visual studio yet.

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?

Have you used Linux? This last statement makes it really sound like you've not spent enough time with Linux to see the installer complete.

I have two virtual machines running right now, different distros, Ubuntu and Redhat. The both seem to have an equivalent to add/remove programs to me. Seems to function practically identically.

If you think installers NEED a 'registry' then you:
A) Have no idea what the registry REALLY is outside of MS marketing speak. Its nothing but a database. Microsoft uses a binary format for their 'registry'. Unix uses a flat text file format for its 'registry'. The FreeBSD version of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is roughly a combination of /etc, /usr/local/etc and some bits of /var/db (namely the install database). I think what you really want is a unified API for accessing the configuration data, but thats only a guess since your statement makes no sense.
B) don't realize that pretty much every OS has a more powerful install system than windows. The major free unix distros certainly do, the BSDs share one, and the linux distros have their flavors already that do everything the Windows installer system does.

*Sigh* I've been trolled :(

Re:Whu?

[geminidomino]

"The big corporation is taking the source code and is not claiming that they are releasing it for free"

But the BSD proponents continue to say that the code is free, even though the big corporation has used it.

Can you please make up your mind.

The original code IS still free. Just because microsoft snarfed a TCP stack and changed it under a proprietary license doesn't change the license on the original code, so Apple can snarf the same TCP stack and release changes under their license, The Linux camp can release their changes under the GPL, but the original code is and, barring action by the original author, will remain BSD licensed.

If the corporation is taking it and it's OK 'cos the BSD code is still free (sans improvements), then the GPL is OK because the BSD code is still free (sans improvements).

If the GPL is not OK, then neither is the big corporation.

Re:could this be any more of a rails knockoff?

[BitZtream]

God, you kids these days don't bother to learn any history what so ever. Always thinking the stuff you see today is 'new'. Do you realize that MVC was around before Ruby was even a stain in your panties?

And I don't mean they came up with the idea around the same time but someone else did it first, MVC is a principle thats been around since the 70s, a good 20 years before Ruby even existed, and 30 years before Ruby on Rails. Looking at the Rails development team, considering most of them were born AFTER MVC was coined, I think you should probaby get a bit of a history lesson in programing if you intend to continue making such retarded statements.

From wikipedia:
MVC was coined in 1979 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller )
Ruby was first released in 1995 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_(programming_language) )
Rails was first released in 2005 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails )
Author of Ruby, Mr Matsumoto as born in 1965 and was 14 when MVC was coined.
Most of the uthors of Ruby on Rails were born AFTER the term MVC was coined. ( http://rubyonrails.org/core )

If you look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller
You'll see a long list of items, MANY of which were around long before rails existed.
Go ahead and throw in that it took someone else telling the rails development team that they were doing MVC concepts and your post becomes rather retarded.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[geminidomino]

There's a bunch of startup scripts that need to be altered and those are not so easily tangled with programmatically.

Both BSD and System V addressed that yonks ago...

A summary for licensing trolls

[BitZtream]

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.

ASP and IDE

[Mybrid]

I read all the comments and mostly they were centered around the license and Visual Studio, the IDE.
I'd just like to add:
What is an ASP? What is an IDE?
Emacs and Java,Ruby,SQL,Perl,PHP,C++,bash,csh,Python,HTML,Javascript,/etc/text,XML,"language of tomorrow" forever!
Real programmers don't use an IDE. We have brains. Which probably explains why I've never heard of ASP. Or Microsoft.
</two-cents>

Re:Uh, yeah....

[sproketboy]

Maybe but ASP was always a bit behind. The ASP MVC makes this a lot better - except of course ASP pages themselves which still suck.

I'm considering helping with that by porting Jolene (http://jolene.sourceforge.net/)

Re:Yeah! I can quit using Rails now...

[westyvw]

Most enterprise apps I see built with ASP.NET are the shitty ones. Ever notice that?

Re:Whu?

[2short]

I have released BSD code.

If you take that code and make closed source improvements, my happiness that my code was useful to someone will outweigh my sadness that I can't use the improvements.

If you take that code and make GPL licensed improvements, my happiness that my code was useful to someone will outweigh my sadness that I can't use the improvements in the ways I would like to.

If you take that code and make GPL licensed improvements so that I can't use them in the ways I would like to and in which I let you use my code, and then tell me you your code is more free... my happiness that my code was useful to someone will have to compete my sadness that someone is an idiot.

Re:The point of the story...

[phreakhead]

There is no selling point for MS-PL because it's not for sale. It's free.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[encoderer]

And when you want to un-install all you need is a Sows Ear, 3 picas of pixie dust and a magic wand.

Seriously, though, it's easy in theory but anybody using Ubuntu or Debian for a day will see that the abstract does leak.

As much of an improvement aptget is over the "old way" it's still nothing like the Apple App Store experience many linux fans make it out to be.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[scramjet]

While I applaud the technical acheivements of the Mono team, the day that significant numbers of developers can buy MS's development tool stack for next to nothing, develop their applications in Visual Studio and then just click a button to deploy to an array of cheap Linux servers running Apache/MySQL/Mono, is the day that I suspect MS will realise they've gone a little too far towards commoditising their own cash cows out of existence.

What they'd do about it is anyone's guess, but I suspect an organisation as paranoid as MS has already thought about this fairly carefully.

Re:Uh, yeah....

[sw155kn1f3]

You should get a life, really