Top 25 Hottest Open-Source Projects at Microsoft Codeplex

willdavid writes "Via CNet, a link to a blog post with the top 25 most active open-source projects on Microsoft's Codeplex site. As the CNet blogger notes, 'Codeplex is interesting to me for several reasons, but primarily because it demonstrates something that I've argued for many years now: open source on the Windows platform is a huge opportunity for Microsoft. It is something for the company to embrace, not despise.'"

Open source projects?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

One things is for sure - they all rely on proprietary Microsoft produts (.Net, sharepoint, SQL server, etc) to run. They're not particularly useful to the Open Source community, just the Microsoft community. (In Debian, they would sit in the non-free repositorty).

open source on the Windows platform is a huge opportunity for Microsoft. It is something for the company to embrace, not despise.'"

Some open source is good for MS - the sort of not particularly open software that relies on MS's OS & libs. Any software that can be easily ported to another platform is a threat.

Oh - and Open Source? Pah-lease. A license that governs USE [microsoft.com] of the software sounds neither permissive nor open:

Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)

This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.

Re:Open source projects?

[ushering05401 (1086795)]

Have you read the rest of the license? No MS fanboy here, but it is not exactly a draconian piece of legalese.

There are much better ways to attack MS. Try citing the company's track record of failing to observe laws, failing to deliver promised functionality, and failing to promote innovation in their dedicated developer base through patent threats, aggressive devaluation->buy-out tactics, questionable attempts at political influence (open standards in California anyone?)...

Then pose a question like, "Why would an open source developer choose to get into bed with a company like that?"

Just citing the license is a pretty weak argument especially if you have read it.

Regards.

Besides Ms-PL, others such as GPL, LGPL are used

[I'm Don Giovanni (598558)]

I know slashdotters loath Ms-PL, but not all of the projects use Ms-PL anyway.
If you had bothered to check the license of the listed projects you'd see that some of them use GPL or LGPL (the only licenses that slashdotters appear to respect).

For example, the PHPExcel [codeplex.com], which allows PHP code to read/write Excel 2007 files, uses LGPL.
Still other projects use custom licenses, like the GoTraxxx [codeplex.com] project.

Microsoft's own projects use MS licenses like Ms-PL and Ms-CL (both pending OSI-certification) but non-MS projects can use any license the devs choose to use.

Re:Open source projects?

[iluvcapra (782887)]

Exactly what restrictions are they putting on your use of it?

The issue is not that it restricts use, but that it's triggered by use. The GPL does not apply to people who USE GPL software, only to people who redistribute it; a major principle of F/OSS is that no legal encumberance should be placed on users at any time, to use a piece of software in any manner for which it may be suitable.

Re:Open source projects?

[david.given (6740)]

The issue is not that it restricts use, but that it's triggered by use. The GPL does not apply to people who USE GPL software, only to people who redistribute it...

Spot on; which is why it's so annoying when people insist on using the GPL as an EULA. That's like asking employees to sign a script of Spongebob Squarepants instead of a contract, before they start work --- not only is it completely meaningless and useless, it brands you as someone who doesn't know what you're talking about.

A redistribution license (like the GPLv2) is NOT an EULA. They are totally different things.

Re:Open source projects?

[sconeu (64226)]

It's probably because of braindead installers that expect an EULA.

I actually filed a bug about this on FileZilla and it was fixed (I think I filed against 2.29 and it was fixed in 2.30).

If it's happening to $YOUR_FAVORITE_FLOSS_PROJECT, then file a bug stating that the installer violates GPL.

Re:Open source projects?

[RelliK (4466)]

I think the silly MS license has the same sort of logical error in it. It has boilerplate language that says it applies to use, but it places no restrictions on use. If it's not free, then GTK+ is not free.

There is a difference. You get GPL/LGPL "EULA" because of brain-dead installers that assume there must be EULA, and/or people who write the install scripts. However, the license itself explicitly states that you do *not* need to accept it merely to use the software. Microsoft's "license" explicitly states exactly the opposite. And while MS-PL does not actually restrict use, MS-LPL absolutely does. Therefore, MS-PL is a trojan horse: it's purpose is to make people accept the idea that controlling how the supposedly "open source" software is used is ok. I do not believe this is a logic error, as you say. I believe it's intentional.

Some licenses must be used under Windows.

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

More about the issue in my parent post: There is more than one license.

The Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL) [microsoft.com] says, in part: "(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."

Be very, very careful. If some of the Ms-LPL code is mixed with real open source code, there can be a license violation.

Re:Open source projects?

[killjoe (766577)]

That has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with the installer.

Things you apparently are incapable of thinking about.

1) This only happens if you download the installer. If you download the zip or the source you don't have to agree to jack.
2) This only happens for the windows version, people who use linux just use their package manager.

I don't know why it is so difficult for you to think about these things but perhaps you should push yourself and actually try to understand when a license applied to you and when it doesn't.

Re:Open source projects?

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Why put the GPL in that box then? Why not put a simple concise message in there stating that "There are no restrictions on the use of this software, only on the distribution. For restrictions on distribution please see the GPL at http://..../ [....]". Then you're making it clear to the person that they aren't restricted in any way from just using the program. A short little message like that sure would be an eye opener to most people who are used to seeing license agreements that are thousands of words long.

I can't believe people still don't get this

[RelliK (4466)]

Microsoft "permissive license" attempts to control the mere use of the software:

This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.

So it is neither a "license" nor "permissive". It is unilateral contract, no different than click-through EULA.

In contrast, Free software licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL, etc.) cover only the distribution of the software. You do not need to accept any "license" just to use the software. For example, here the relevant paragraph from GPL:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

So Free software licenses are indeed licenses: i.e. they grant you more rights than what you get by default under copyright law. EULAs, including microsoft's "permissive license" attempt to restrict your rights by controlling how you can use the software.

So it is difficult to see microsoft's "permissive license" as anything but a trojan horse. Especially since it has an uglier brother, the "limited permissive license", which sounds confusingly similar to "permissive license", but adds a completely ridiculous restriction: you can only run the software on windows.

Fanatical Disclaimer

[by Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm twitter. You might now me because I've posted over seven thousand times on Slashdot. While the post above this one might convey a feeling of anger and outrage, it's really just me venting my weird obsession with Microsoft. I haven't used Microsoft products since 1996, and so I wouldn't really know how anything in that environment works at all.

I use terms like "M$" and "Windoze" because I believe that they're clever, and Netcraft confirms that cleverness scores people mod points around here, although it doesn't always work.

As always, I shall ignore people who reply to me to point out I am overreacting or just flapping uselessly in the wind. I find reason and logic to be inconvenient in my quest to convince the world that they must switch to free software or suffer the consequences. I consider myself an "evangelist" and I believe people should put up with me because I Am Right.

But, I urge you to just use your head when reading my posts. Most of what I say can safely be discarded as sophomoric fluff designed to bring out the worse in people. Make your own choices about technology and be smart.

Thanks.

Re:Open source projects?

[man_of_mr_e (217855)]

it seems that all Microsoft "open source" licenses require to run Windows

Please tell me where the word "Windows" even appears in this license. I don't see it. Maybe you should actually read them before you make such comments.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Open source projects?

[man_of_mr_e (217855)]

I think it's pretty obvious. Microsoft wrote their own licenses because they don't want to be at the mercy of the FSF, and their willingness to alter license terms to suit their political agendas. This is the same reason Apple, Sun, Mozilla, Apache, and many others have their own licenses as well.

Disburance in the force

[nurb432 (527695)]

Anyone else have a bad feeling abut this?

Control?

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

There are already many other sites such as sourceforge that have provided Windows OSS for many years.

MS is harly breaking new ground here. So, what is their interest? Control?

Won't accept GPL3

[Saint Stephen (19450)]

I wrote some C# Visual Studio addins and tried to upload them to codeplex. The only GPL license choice was gpl2, but I put in the comments "don't download this if you don't accept GPL3." Some code-monkey unpublished it because the license didn't match the chosen license - but GPL3 wasn't an option!

So I won't host it there.

Close mindedness.

[RightSaidFred99 (874576)]

You all should really look around Codeplex. Look at what MS is doing with Enterprise Library. Look at what they're doing with WCF. Pretend you're software developers, for just a minute, and not OS kooks obsessed with ridiculous ideals. They are doing some cool shit on the technology side of things for developers. If I have to go back to developing in Perl/Python/PHP or even Java I'm going to put a pencil through my eyeball - most of it's just sloppy, primitive shit compared to what MS is doing.

Cry all you want about their OS's - they certainly have room for improvement. Their development tools are top notch. To be honest I do with they'd port an industrial strength CLR env to Linux along with all their class libraries, and Visual Studio/Orcas. It would be a ridiculously large undertaking but it would be god damn sweet to develop with MS tools on other OS's.

Re:How appropriate

[krbvroc1 (725200)]

That joke sucks every single time.

Not when I see the curiously intriguing 'Microsoft' and 'Open Source' in the same article. Overriding my temptation to skip the article I force myself to read the post, my bullshit/FUD detectors engaged, only to be rewarded with 'Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.'. It was quite an emotional roller coaster. An anti-climatic ending rivaled only Fable.

Re:Interesting, i've never heard of IronPython bef

[ChatHuant (801522)]

Last i heard, it would only create some sort of bastardized python code that was no longer cross platform.

That's not correct; IronPython runs on Mono or .NET, so it will run on any Mono supported OS as well as Windows.

You may mean that IronPython scripts are not 100% compatible with a CPython implementation. Well, duh! Even different versions of CPython aren't 100% compatible [wikipedia.org]! Jython [jython.org] isn't 100% compatible with CPython. IronPython is fairly [wikipedia.org] compatible with CPython 2.4.4; the list of differences is available here [codeplex.com], so you can avoid them if you ever want to run your code on different Python systems.

The big advantage IronPython has is the integration with .NET. It's trivial to access .NET libraries from IronPython, while CPython doesn't make it easy. I'd expect migration mostly from cPython to IronPython (the biggest issue I had was regex related). If you don't want .NET integration, stay with cPython.

Re:Open for Closed

[I'm Don Giovanni (598558)]

At least one of the listed projects, IronPython, runs with no problems on Mono.
I assume the same can be said for much of the other .NET targetted projects.

BTW, mose projects on SourceForge run on Linux ONLY. I guess the reason is to lock people into Linux, according to your dufus logic.

Re:Open for Closed

[CastrTroy (595695)]

What's the point of using open source software if you have to buy some expensive closed source package to use it. Such as SharePoint, Excel, IIS, Vista, etc. Open source only gives you all the advantages of open source if the entire software stack is open source. Otherwise, you can't modify the software, and you aren't free to fix all the bugs that you encounter.

Re:Open for Closed

[by Anonymous Coward]

Have any of you people that constantly bring up Mono as a solution actually ever tried it? Sure, Mono covers a lot of the libraries, but practically every .NET application of significant size steps into some of the libraries that Mono doesn't cover. Very few .NET applications will run on Mono without significant changes to the code.

Very few of the applications which the article refers to have even the slightest chance of running on Mono since they both use libraries that Mono hasn't implemented, and rely on proprietary applications which are not written with .NET and only run on Windows.

The fact of the matter is that Mono will never be a solution unless Microsoft decides to support it. What's perhaps even worse, is that by its mere existence it allows Microsoft and Microsoft fans to make ridiculous claims about being "cross-platform".

Re:Open for Closed

[HeroreV (869368)]

Why do you think Mono needs to run programs written for .NET/Windows? G++ can't compile many programs produced by Visual Studio, but I doubt you think G++ "will never be a solution unless Microsoft decides to support it". Why do you treat Mono differently?

Mono isn't intended to run programs written for .NET/Windows, just like G++ isn't intended to compile working programs that use the Windows API. Mono is great for Linux-only or cross-platform software projects, just like G++ is great for Linux-only or cross-platform software projects. Mono works great for projects that aim for compatibility with it, and G++ works great for projects that aim for compatibility with it.

You're biased against the Common Language Infrastructure because it was created by Microsoft. I understand, because I hate Microsoft too, (I use only Linux on my desktop) but the CLI is a really great idea, and Mono is a really fantastic project. Give it a fair chance! Don't write it off just because it can't do something it's not intended to do!

Re: Microsoft a fact of life?

[Jeremy_Bee (1064620)]

You might have a (weak) point, but doesn't most of what you are saying boil down to "there are some open source advocates in the belly of the beast that should be encouraged."? That's not really saying much IMO.

Microsoft has such a long history of deception and other bad practices it should make any intelligent person suspicious of their intentions here. It was only a few months ago that they were threatening to sue the open source community. I know it's been said to death, but the bottom line is that if Microsoft as a company really wanted to embrace open source, and work with the open source community, the very first step is open file formats and cross-platform compatibility.

How can anyone trust Microsoft's open source efforts when at the same time they are fighting tooth and nail to eliminate any hope of open file formats and tying all of their open source projects to Windows? I know you are trying to be positive here, but isn't this just a tad naive of you as well? There simply is no reason to believe that this isn't just the same old divide and conquer marketing game from Microsoft. At least not yet.

Windows might have to go open source eventually just to remain relevant, but Microsoft will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion, and it will likely take years. At a bare minimum, my expectation is that major structural and managerial changes will have to occur at Microsoft before any of that comes to pass, if it ever does.

Balmer would have to be fired for starters.