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."

Comments

Get in on the action?

[mystikkman]

Why should Google and Apple be the only ones that make gobs of money leveraging Open Source? Microsoft wants to join the party.

Re:Get in on the action?

[Penguinisto]

Perhaps, but the company that once called it a "cancer" is going to have a hard time reconciling its culture to it - especially since Microsoft relies on proprietary software for its very existence. Sure they do make (and mostly give away) some FOSS software, but it's very little and you really have to look for it.

I suspect that the best Microsoft could do is to try and hijack existing FOSS projects and slather on a proprietary UI, or some sort of glue to tie to loosely to products they already make.

Incidentally, Microsoft tried this gambit before with its 'me too!' 'shared source' licensing (and similar). I wonder how many projects not hosted/sponsored/funded by Microsoft actually use those?

Re:Get in on the action?

[LurkerXXX]

They called Linux a cancer, not open source software. They've used BSD software before. BSD folks are just fine with it, so there's no 'hijacking' involved.

Re:Get in on the action?

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft is not quite a single monolithic entity, and different product units can and do have very different perspectives on FOSS. Developer division, in particular, is pretty much forced to deal with it, just because of the wide acceptance of it in the customer base today. Which is precisely why most FOSS you see coming out of MS does come from DevDiv, and a good chunk of that are various frameworks (e.g. ASP.NET MVC or Entity Framework). It's also catching on somewhat for other products - Python Tools for Visual Studio is one prominent example there, and is probably a better example of what a FOSS MS project should really be, since it goes beyond just publishing the code (under Apache license), and also takes external contributions.

(disclaimer: I am a developer on the Python Tools team, so you may I assume that I am correspondingly biased)

The other part of the company that has strong market pressure to be FOSS-friendly is Azure. If you want to compete with AWS and Google, you have let customers run things other than the usual 100% MS .NET/IIS/Windows stack, in various combinations - at the very least, people need Java and PHP (and more exotic stuff like Python and Node.js) for apps, and many also want Apache (or other server) rather than IIS, and Linux rather than Windows. Then they want the cloud service (storage etc) APIs to be available in those languages in client apps, as well.

On the other hand, I would be surprised to see a FOSS version of Windows or Office anytime soon - simply because most people buying and using it don't really care one way or another, so there's no incentive to strongly consider it.

Re:Get in on the action?

[Penguinisto]

It's sixes, given that OSS was the target for Ballmer's ire:

"Ballmer was trying to articulate his concern, whether real or imagined, that limited recourse to the GNU GPL requires that all software be made open source.
"The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source,"

ref: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/

Re:Get in on the action?

[PhrostyMcByte]

Sure they do make (and mostly give away) some FOSS software, but it's very little and you really have to look for it.

ASP.NET, Entity Framework, and Rx are all non-trivial Open Source projects by Microsoft which I use daily at work. They are all under the Apache License 2.0, not one of those ridiculous "shared source" licenses. They make use of existing third-party Open Source libraries. They manage the projects in the open and accept contributions from non-Microsofties.

Additionally, Microsoft has embraced NuGet, a third-party dpkg/apt for .NET libraries which has thousands of projects in it. It's integrated into the latest Visual Studio, and Microsoft uses it as their primary distribution point for nearly all of their Open Source projects.

Microsoft has a pretty shitty history when it comes to Open Source, but they really have turned over a new leaf on the subject. I think they've come to realize that it's better to foster than to dictate -- you're still using their product (.NET) in the end, after all. Some purists won't be happy with that, I guess.

Re:Get in on the action?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

This article, and the "viral" comments about open source, always remind me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-MepaJCM4

Re:Get in on the action?

[dbIII]

They've used GPL software such as gcc and delivered it complete with source and licence on Microsoft developer CDROMs. That was not long before the person near the top of the tree started screaming "developers, developers, developers!" and started undermining his own developers.

Re:Get in on the action?

[gronofer]

Microsoft have been making money from open source for years - by shaking it down for patent royalties. Making money from open source and supporting it are not exactly the same thing in this case.

Re:Get in on the action?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Which is of course a lie. Just because I have GPL software on my Windows machine, does not mean I have to make any software I write open source.

I don't even have to make it so if I compile a C program with the gcc - a GPL compiler. It explicitly says this in the license.

The same applies to any GPL program - using it does not make the works you create with it GPL as well.

Just a massive bit of FUD. Ballmer should be thankful that there have been open-source developers writing programs that work on Windows, increasing the value of his platform at no cost to his corporation.

Re:Get in on the action?

[DickBreath]

Jim Allchin, when he was the number four guy at Microsoft, more than a decade ago, at about the time of the DOJ vs Microsoft antitrust trial, said that Open Source was un-American and that the legislators needed to be educated to the danger. That is from memory. As much as I hate to provide citations, let me google that . . . oh here . . .

Are Linux and Open Source Un-American?

Here is a bit . . .

According to the hive mind of Microsoft, open source should be made illegal. There's no way around it, this is the bottom line. Want to write your own code and release it into the community? Congratulations, come with us Sir/Madam, we have this nice little grey room for you. Don't worry about the bars on the windows, they are there for our protection in case you somehow manage to write a graphics viewer or a Perl script to terrorize the world.

Ordinarily, a mere underling like Mr. Allchin wouldn't be taken too seriously, but Microsoft speaks with one voice, and we all know who he is channeling.

As a member of the Linux and Open Source communities, I am appalled and outraged by his comments and wish to respond. The article shows Microsoft is scared. Very scared. So, will they build a better product? Nah, to hell with it, they'll just get the government to outlaw the competition.

Re:Get in on the action?

[drinkypoo]

I think they've come to realize that it's better to foster than to dictate

I think they've come to realize that absent a functional monopoly, they're going to have to manipulate rather than dictate.

.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[ADRA]

Long favored? Most people that I've known doing .NET work are wired into the frameworks Microsoft developed, glued on thier own proprietary bits and called it a day. Can you please leave some feedback on these very popular community driven OSS efforts in the .NET umbrella (outside of Mono which is a re-implementation of Microsoft's API's), becase quite frankly, I've never heard of any.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[LurkerXXX]

Yeah, writing software for a living for a target audience using 90% of the computers out there is idiotic. Especially if that's part of the 99% of the target audience that's used to actually paying you for your software.

You might not agree with closed source software, but calling folks idiotic for writing software for a large market you can get paid for writing software for is..... idiotic.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[shutdown -p now]

Whatever their desires may be, programming for a platform where open source has been intentionally denied even the possibility of existence and calling it open source

In what sense open source has been "intentionally denied even the possibility of existence" on .NET or Windows?

If you want to contribute to mankind you need to do it in a form that can be legally parsed by newcomers without paying licensing fees.

You mean, like Mono?

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[CodeBuster]

How about these to name just a few?

• ASP.NET MVC
• Castle Project
• NHibernate
• NAnt
• NUnit
• CruiseControl
• TortoiseSVN
• DotNetNuke

Plus tons more available on:

• CodePlex
• CodeProject
• Sourceforge

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[LurkerXXX]

I write some closed source proprietary programs. I also write some open source programs. If the source code is out there, free for anyone to use, it's open source. It doesn't matter if the OS it runs on is not. The code is free for anyone to use modify, or translate to run in the language and on the OS of their choice. It's open source.

It's not a false claim. It's just doesn't live up to the unreasonable expectations some people want to use to keep strictly to their own personal 'pure' definition of open source.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[Mawen]

I have been a .NET developer for about 9 years, and I am a little dumbfounded by this article as I have integrated opensource whenever I could, whether from codeplex (or github) or codeproject. Of course, if you are developing an application, you are not going to incorporate one of the few libraries that suicidally licenses itself as GPL, forcing you to do the same with your entire application -- you are going to stick to LGPL and BSD type licenses. This is not .NET specific -- any real app developer doing commercial work is faced with this reality (unless they don't want to make money, or want to be exposed to lawsuits.) Another great option for library developers is a dual GPL/commercial license, to let users try a library and work with it internally before deciding to purchase.

Sure there has been a cultural shift that maybe was in more of a full swing from 2006-2010 that has seen open source as less suspicious and fringe and more useful, but my reaction is: 2009 called and they want their story back.

There is still a lot of irrational fear about .NET out there. I used to find it irritating but now I am amused by others' ignorance as .NET continues to do well and be an enjoyable evolving technology within the scopes of the markets carved out for it on the Windows desktop, Mono, and virtually every major gaming platform via Unity3D. (Unity3D itself is not open source but it was made possible by the open source projects Mono and MonoDevelop, and I was just looking at an opensource plugin for Unity3D today.) ...And this while Oracle, which doesn't even seem to hide their evilness, seems to let Java rot with security vulnerabilities and slower inclusion of language features, as I uninstall it and don't miss it or see a competing alternative to Unity3D. And I develop for iOS, where Apple's tyranny makes Microsoft look pretty soft. (And LGPL isn't compatible with Apple's app store thanks to the relinking requirement.) (Note: I develop for both iOS and soon Android using .NET.) Aside from server-side things and perhaps Android, as far as I can tell .NET is being a better Java than Java at the things I pay attention to, and all the open source plays a huge part in that. (I do wish WPF/Silverlight was better and more prevalent, but perhaps I will be inspired to make an improved cross-platform version myself someday -- but many who like WPF have liked it a lot.)

I cut the haters some slack though, as I used to hate Microsoft in 2000, and it took me a few years of full time work with .NET to get over it and realize I could enjoy the technology today and probably years to come, rather than bracing for some unlikely patent-mageddon scenario where Microsoft lawyers slice off one of Microsoft's own legs and eat it for dinner. Even if that day comes, I am prepared to adapt to another technology feeling I come out ahead. I also stopped being a cheapskate and realized money (non-free software) makes cool things happen, and paying $1000 bucks for something is often better than working 200 hours to get something lesser that I don't have time to maintain or start an OSS community around. (And some stuff would be out of the question for me to create, like Xamarin or Unity3D.) Yes, companies like Microsoft have done and will continue to do some stupid things, but if you take corporate stupidity and greed into account and take the time to understand the realm of likely outcomes, you can save yourself from drinking the FUD kool aid and looking silly. But then again, if you are happy (and making a living) in whatever technological bubble you are secluding yourself in, power to ya. I for one am happy in the bubbles of my .NET worlds, surrounded with OSS (my projects usually end up with way too many cool OSS DLLs in them), and making my dreams come true with it.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[CodeBuster]

So what has the .NET open source community done in your opinion for which they are being under rewarded?

How about ASP.NET MVC, Web API and Razor? The ASP.NET MVC framework is a modern and high quality web development framework with excellent support for test driven development, dependency injection and fine grained control over handling of requests and responses at every level of the stack. Combine this with clean separation of concerns, easy integration with client side javascript and RESTful handling of URLs and you have a top tier web development platform to rival anything offered by the competition.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[LurkerXXX]

If closed code is using open code to modify there own software, then that open code used should remain in public view for others programmers to re-work.

The open code is always open. If it's written with the BSD licence and someone wants to fork away a proprietary version, that's fine. The original open code is still there, and viewable by the public for anyone to use and re-work.

GPL advocates seem to always talk like it magically disappears or something. It doesn't.
   

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[stephanruby]

Yes, the patent laws are a problem but Microsoft has already made legally binding promises not to litigate their patents on core technologies...

Legally binding promises? How can you tell their promises are legally binding?

Microsoft has an history of using proxy corporations to do its dirty work, so it can insulate itself from direct legal reprisals. Do you have some proof that they closed down that possible avenue for themselves?

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[LurkerXXX]

The intention of releasing open code by programmers, is for others to re-work it, but they want that re-worked code to stay open.

See, you were doing good with the first part of the sentence. Then you veered off. The second part of your sentenc is what *GPL* programmers want. Not what all open code programmers want. People who like BSD, and many other of the licenses out there, are just fine with folks forking off proprietary code if they want. The open code they have written is still always out there for others to use/fork/enjoy.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[Dr_Barnowl]

That's not our beef with it - our problem with choosing BSD-style licenses for our code is not that the original code disappears, it's twofold

i) We granted the freedom to use our code to the person receiving our software. We'd like the person receiving it to be good enough to do the same.

ii) We put effort into the code - possibly a large community has put in many man hours of work. It doesn't seem fair that a corporation could take that code, roll it into a product, and make a profit selling it, without contributing to the community that created it in the first place, but that is what BSD permits.

Incidentally, GPL permits this too - it's all about distribution of the software. If a corporation builds software on GPL code, they only have to share their changes with whoever they distribute to. That could be themselves, or just their customers.

What GPL doesn't permit is that you forbid the recipients of your software from redistributing it, and it doesn't allow you to withhold the source code from them. BSD style licenses allow you to add these restrictions, GPL does not.

So corporations love BSD licenses because it lets them get something for nothing, with no obligation to give anything back. There are still benefits in contribution to BSD licensed projects - like a reduced overhead, why maintain your patches when the community will do it for you?

I work for the UK government in software development - I happen to think that GPL is an appropriate license for all government-funded software. If the people are funding it, all the people ought to be able to continue to benefit from it. Of course, corporations don't see it this way and refuse to play ball if you mention it - so the most common license we use is APL2. It irks me that they get a free ride from my taxes. That's not capitalism, that's socialism - for corporations.

Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source

[shia84]

It's because of different standards. In the FOSS world, an unmaintained project is considered dead, gets removed from the repositories and people are very hesitant to download and install it. On Windows, I've seen folks running some installer from 2004, which always makes me cringe a little, but they simply shrug it off with "I need that functionality" and everything's fine.

Note that code which hasn't changed for a decade can be perfectly "fresh" if there is a maintainer who checks compatibility with newer systems and "guarantees" security bugfixes in case they are needed.

With source code, the count of current monthly contributions matters, and with BSD licenses, you run the "danger" of those contributions migrating out of the open source space. Of course the original source stays open, but if a proprietary derivative is more active, in some way (it's all perception, really) this makes the original less desirable, similar to stale applications described above. It often coincides with the loss of the maintainer.

What aversion to open source?

[MobyDisk]

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??
PH: The open source movement is not incompatible with the Microsoft development world...commercial software developers represent a big constituency among the .NET Framework community and based on my experience these shops are very cautious about incorporating open source libraries because the licensing...

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, ...

Re:Uhm... what?

[Yaur]

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.

Re:No, they falsely called the GPL license a cance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No, they falsely called the GPL license a cance

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:Uhm... what?

[gbjbaanb]

Quite a few are, in fact, ports/forks from Java - .NET being one prominent example

TFTFY :-)

Re:No, they falsely called the GPL license a cance

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Uhm... what?

[DickBreath]

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.