Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Software Seeping Into the .NET Developer World
dp619 writes "In an interview, Microsoft Regional Director Patrick Hynds says that avoidance of open source components by a large part of the .NET developer population is abating. '...While some may still steer clear of the GPL, there are dozens of FOSS licenses that are compatible with Windows developers and their customers,' he said. Hynds cites NuGet, an open source package management system was originally built by Microsoft and now an Outercurve Foundation project, as an example of FOSS libraries that .NET developer are adopting for their applications. Microsoft itself has embraced open source — to a point. It has partnered with Hortonworks for a Windows port of Hadoop, allowed Linux to run on Windows Azure, and is itself a Hadoop user."
Why should Google and Apple be the only ones that make gobs of money leveraging Open Source? Microsoft wants to join the party.
The .NET developer community has long favored open source code, even though Microsoft hasn't always done much to encourage it. However, it seems that .NET developers never get even grudging respect from the likes of Stallman and other Linux hardliners out there. Ironically, this hostility towards .NET has played into the hands of those at Microsoft who sought to discourage the use of .NET outside of Microsoft's control. Yes, the patent laws are a problem but Microsoft has already made legally binding promises not to litigate their patents on core technologies and to be honest the whole patent system is so messed up that you're pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't whether you use .NET or not. So, if you're worried about patents you should do what every sensible startup does and simply ignore them because (a) patents contain zero useful information for coders (they're written by attorneys for attorneys) and (b) knowing that a patent exists means willful infringement which is treble damages.
In Hynds' cite this is a good thing.
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
There are plenty of open source .NET libraries, too. Quite a few are, in fact, ports/forks from Java - NHibernate being one prominent example.
>Gee, I wonder who might have instigated that?
If you think any project, open or proprietary, is going to tolerate inclusion of code of a possibly incompatible license when there's a recall and/or lawsuit at stake, you are either a newb or a moron. Possibly both.
I see no evidence that .NET developers have an avoidance of open source. The linked article actually seems to present evidence to the contrary. Paraphrasing here:
Q: Why have .NET developers been slow to adopt open source?? .NET Framework community and based on my experience these shops are very cautious about incorporating open source libraries because the licensing...
PH: The open source movement is not incompatible with the Microsoft development world...commercial software developers represent a big constituency among the
So what they are really saying is that *commercial software developers* are hesitant to use open source because of licensing issues. That is probably true. That problem is not specific to Microsoft .NET developers, but spans languages and operating systems. That is very different from saying that .NET developers have not been averse to using open source. They use open source far more than their VB and C++/Windows API wielding predecessors. Here is a short list of open source projects I have used at commercial software companies off the top of my head:
log4net, sharpdevelop, nhibernate, nunit, nant, cruise control.net, all the Microsoft Patterns & Practices stuff, ninject, ...
opensource is now infesting more and more cells of the corporate body, and chemo won't cut it
Well, what's wrong with that?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I run a dev team for a commercial, closed source, product. If one of my developers introduces stolen code into the product, one or both of us is getting fired. It doesn't matter if the environment is .net or not and it doesn't matter if its stolen from a FOSS project or a competitor's code base. I don't think that is unreasonable or hard to understand and I've never had to fire someone because of it.
Well it is actually quite arguable that the GPL does work like a disease or cancer passing on to those that use it. While this conjures up negative conotations it is in many ways how it is meant to work, it is supposed to be an incurable license that passes on to all offspring of the original. Those that favour GPL find this a great thing, those that don't find it inconvenient or in some cases down right unpalatable.
I don't know if it's the developers or dotnet, but I've still never seen a multithreaded dotnet app. That's inexcusable when some of them probably even had a multicore handheld gaming console such as the Nintendo DS in their early years at school.
The DNA computing framework for example.
GPL does not work like a disease, because a disease propagates regardless of the desires of its host, or the newly infected people. GPL, on the other hand, is something that you decide to use (or not to use) of your own volition.
Well it is actually quite arguable that the GPL does work like a disease or cancer passing on to those that use it.
Cancer is not infectious, so calling the GPL a cancer because of the way it works is a major fail.
I work for a open-source shop. If the we, the developers, include code with an unclear license we get a warning. The seconds time it happens we can get fired. Just because you are a open-source shop does not mean your company can't get sued for licence violations.
its not so much stolen code we're talking about here, its (lets be frank) the GPL. If you embed GPL-licenced code into your project, your closed-source project instantly becomes open-source due to the licence agreement you agreed to when you embedded that GPL code.
Most commercial companies take a dim view on this, obviously. There's no problem with it, but if you don't want this arrangement, the the simple answer is not to use that GPL code. Write your own!
But, if a "rogue" programmer puts that code in there without permission, then its a definite case for disciplinary procedures.
Quite a few are, in fact, ports/forks from Java - .NET being one prominent example
TFTFY :-)
What a heap of FUD-reeking bullshit. What happens is that the version of your code that has been contaminated can't be distributed legally, you get into trouble for copyright infringement if the original developers get pissed off and you have to show good faith in trying to fix the situation to the best of your ability ASAP. Under no circumstances does your product automatically become "open-sourced".
FOSS is easier to deal with than GPL. I would have thought that it was the opposite.
Some cancers are started by viri.
Tell that to everyone that decided to fuck a girl (or guy, if that's your proclivity) with herpes.
You'd have a point if, before you fucked her, she handed you a "HERPES PUBIC LICENSE" that explained the risks and conditions of a quick unprotected bang.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Changing the license of your project / product to the GPL is one of the possible remedies. It is the one that creates all of the FUD. As you say, you can fix your code by removing the GPL code. Often, based on past occurrences of this, the settlement also includes a charitable contribution to some open source foundation.
What I ask people who spout FUD about the GPL is what do they think would happen if I included some of Microsoft's proprietary code into my product and it was later discovered? Do you think the outcome would be nearly so nice?
The problem here isn't the GPL, it is that the owner of the project / product is not understanding where some of "their" source code is coming from. In short, your developers must either:
1. Write original code
2. Include only approved code that you have a proper license to include
That also means you should be careful about copy/pasting code from magazines or blog posts.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
You do not know what open source means. Just because you can decompile or disassemble the code does not make it open source. Breaking in to Microsoft and making a copy of their source code does not make it open source.
Something is only open source when the copyright owner affixes an open source license upon it. Reflection and bytecode disassembling has zero to do with it being open source or not.
That is the simple fact of the matter. No zealotry about it.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Yes. It is one of the possible remedies. In fact though, I've never heard of anyone using that particular way out of the mess they placed themselves in. Probably because people stooping as low as nicking code probably won't ever do anything anyone else might benefit from, unless they get what they think is their "just" compensation. I digress though.
The point is, that the parent stated that your "project instantly becomes open-source", with no other recourse, which is patently false.
MS Research released GRETA under an open source license back in 2003.
DevDiv released WTL under an open source license back in 2004.
Not only do I see multi-threaded .Net apps, I have worked on several -- starting back when you had to start your own threads. The threading features in the newer versions of .Net should make threading relatively easy.
I generally avoid ALL 3rd party code and libraries, free or not, due to relatively poor quality. I find most 3rd party stuff to work well for the specific intent it was designed for, but most 3rd party libraries fall over the moment you need to customize something. I've struggled to "fix" retail 3rd party code just as much as open source code, and find in general that the time "saved" by fixing someone else's code could be better used to create a optimized and direct component specific to your needs.
Also, in general, you simply can't use open source stuff if you are writing retail software, which the vast majority of .Net Developers are doing. Most .Net houses simply have a blanket policy to avoid any code content found online simply because of all the caveats of using open source code. I agree in many cases that there is just a lack of understanding the various licences, but its just easier to not use some 3rd party component.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Because I get paid $120k a year to develop proprietary .Net code. You can be a moron and only write code you "believe" in, or enjoy a comfortable life writing code for the "man" so you can go home and write code for yourself using whatever you like.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Did your mom get a brochure when she was raped?
Did your parents have any children who aren't cowards?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How is that any different from disassembling any other executable?
open source does not mean "source code is easy to get" it means "a license that allows the the source code to be used freely in an open way".
Simply disassembling code does not give you a license to use it.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here