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

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: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: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.

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?

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: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: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.

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!