Open.NET — .NET Libraries Go "Open Source" 310
An anonymous reader writes "whurley just posted a blog about Microsoft's announcement To Make .NET Libraries available under a crippled 'Open Source' program using their new Microsoft Reference License. The post includes the official pr doc from Microsoft as well as several points about how this really isn't open source. One example: If a developer finds a bug in the code, rather than fixing it themselves and submitting a patch to the community they'll be encouraged to submit feedback via the product feedback center."
Re:Could be worse (Score:3, Insightful)
More objective summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could be worse (Score:4, Insightful)
IT a Trap! (Step 1 to kill Mono) (Score:3, Insightful)
This way, the more people who see the code will become "Tainted" for clean-room rewrites of parts of
Brilliant!
(This is the "Embrasse" portion of the plan to kill of Mono.)
I'm not following... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wise move by MS (Score:3, Insightful)
So this move is a fairly wise one by MS. There's now a chance that the
So fucking what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could be worse (Score:1, Insightful)
For the record, this being a capitalist society, "greedy bastards" is fine by me, it's the "soulless" part I don't like.
Remember IBM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead they became just another business, later honorably defending (their contributions to) the Linux source code against the wretched SCO. Their interests have become more aligned with that of their customers.
I think Microsoft has less wiggle-room to remain viable than IBM did when they lost total domination over their market (because MS's business is mainly about using restrictive copyright licensing to make sure they're the only ones controlling the software on PCs, which quite different from what IBM's business is) but something similar is happening, however slowly and painfully.
Microsoft knows, to some degree, that in order to remain relevant it must give people access to the guts of its software. The software market has become far too complex for the ancient ways of floppies-in-a-box style business to work. However, as their Open.NET idea shows, they're still trying to keep as much control as possible, for as long as possible...
Re:IT a Trap! (Step 1 to kill Mono) (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Could be worse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is there not some truth in advertising law (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is there not some truth in advertising law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So fucking what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, like I said, this isn't really open source in any true sense of the word. But being able to step into your framework's code to see what's really going wrong isn't anything to sneeze at, either. Being able to read the code to determine exactly what triggers a bug is quite useful, since sometimes it can lead you to a workaround.
Delphi (up to version 5 at least, I haven't used it seriously since) provided this with most of their editions, and it was very useful. Especially for some of the buggier releases.
Re:Unemployable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is like saying "If you've ever read a book you can never write another book on a related subject as your insights would be contaminated by the earlier reads or through outright copies."
"Nyeh, it.s not an original movie/song... they could have copied from this previous work that was similar. They shouldn't have made their own."
The issue of copying of code or misappropriating of IP is as old as both have been around... and is generally only relevant in very specific cases such as non-compete agreements and when a person has an extraordinary in-depth understanding of said IP, code or business practices.
Re:Unemployable? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could be worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot spin at its finest (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MPL = Sue Bait? (Score:3, Insightful)
Around Slashdot? Of course. But if you take off the tinfoil hat you might realize that no major competitor is going to be that stupid and the small fry don't have enough money to pay MS legal fees for a month. No matter how evil you imagine MS is, they aren't going to sue if there's no profit in it.
Re:Umm, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Remember IBM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead they became just another business, later honorably defending (their contributions to) the Linux source code against the wretched SCO. Their interests have become more aligned with that of their customers.
IBM's empire collapsed in the early nineties (with a $5G loss IIRC) because no one wanted to buy their over-priced, underpowered and incompatible (MicroChannel) PeeCees any more. Microsoft cleaned up.
IBM's support for Open Source and Linux is for publicity, to get back at Microsoft and to get at Sun, whose UNIX (Solaris) is streets ahead of AIX. IBM realised that to stay competitive in the unix server market, it needed Linux. IBM will sell you Windows, AIX, Solaris, Linux, mainframe boxes, you name it, but you will pay for the privilege. The Evil is still there at IBM, it's just not so explicit. They will always try to lock you in to IBM technology once they've got you hooked.
Microsoft, on the other hand, already has 90% of the market hooked and on the upgrade treadmill. Applications nowadays are largely portable across operating systems, and file formats are open, except for Microsoft's stuff. Every thing they do is to keep people locked in and on the upgrade treadmill.
Microsoft it pulling the wool over peoples' eyes again, paying lip-service to Open Source and Open Standards, whilst actually avoiding them. It's being successful getting to those who don't think so critically, the fans, PHBs and apologists.
Microsoft is doing a wonderful job at getting its "inventions" (i.e. a touch screen on a table top and a clock with peoples' faces on it) on national TV as some kind of great technological breakthrough.
Microsoft is too evil and too stupid to change its ways significantly. They won't die over night, but the writing is on the wall. They are desperate. They are astroturfing slashdot like mad too. The EU has found them guilty of unfair monopolistic practices and will not be bribed. Many countries around the world are moving to Linux and other Open/Free operating systems for government and education. Microsoft is having to give away its software just to remain in the market.
I've been extolling the virtues of Linux since 1995, but at last people around me are getting the message. They're seeing for themselves the benefits (time, money, simplicity, freedom, empowerment) and it's largely due to Ubuntu (which was built on Debian originally).
There will never be a "year of Linux on the desktop." There may be a time very soon now, though, when mainstream media acknowledges it as part of the establishment. This time next year, the question won't be "why should I use Linux?" It'll be, "Why are you still using Windows? No one uses that old crap any more."
Re:IT a Trap! (Step 1 to kill Mono) (Score:3, Insightful)
Try to understand whats going on please (Score:5, Insightful)
Its putting cheese in a mouse trap so they can do a SCO only for Mono, I advise nobody working on Mono go near this code. FOSS means the ability to see, modify and rediribute code,
Basically Microsoft is the "Intelligent Design" crowd of the software community, open source systems are growing in popularity and Microsoft knows they cannot destroy it from the outside (look at SCO) so they attempt to destroy it from within by pretending to be open like the "Intelligent Design" pretend to be scientific.
So Microsoft are attempting to skew the view of what open source is so they can attack it like the ID crowd attempts to confuse of what abiogenesis and evolution actually are so they can attack their little strawmen
How can you miss this? It's as clear as day! If you are working on the Mono project, stay away from the bait!
Re:No pleasing some people no shit (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's always been about the license. However, one key component of the license just happens to be, seeing the source. There are several other major components.
Just meeting one criteria does not make it "open". Just "visible".
And I'm sure anonymous troll knew this, he just wanted to latch onto the topmost post he could find that even remotely fit his rant topic.
Re:Wise move by MS (Score:5, Insightful)
It was wise for Microsoft to release this code, yes. And it would be wise for open source developers not to touch it or
Re:Unemployable? (Score:4, Insightful)
But their stooge, SCO, did sue IBM over the exact same prInciple. Once you've seen the holy (SysV/.Net) code, you are forever doomed to merely recreate it's glory, and therefore your work is really their work, and you have to pay them to use the code you wrote.
Yes SCO lost, but can you afford several million in legal fees to exonerate yourself? Especially since Microsoft has already been making noise about all the patent violations already in Linux? They want a fight that they can win against Linux. Since SCO has flamed out, they will be more careful the second time; to wit, they will make sure there really is some code that at least looks like theirs before they file suit.
So, in proper
1) Get hapless kid to look at
2) Kid then goes and implements something similar in Mono or elsewhere in Linux.
3) Sic the lawyers on the kid, terrorizing said kid into admitting he copied the secret code.
4) Wave around headlines "Linux coder admits copying secret MS code!"
5) Turn loose Lyons, Enderle, O'Gara, Didio, and any other shill they can buy to terrorize PHBs.
6) Profit!!
Optional #7, buy wreckage of Novell for two ship's peanuts, set up program to "Help honest businesses bamboozled by those Linux Pirates to convert to a safe, legal operating environment."
A simple straightforward business plan with a very low set up cost. And no downside. If it fails, (no one takes the bait) in a year no one will remember it anyway.
Re:"Shared" Source (Score:3, Insightful)
This public, you can look, but you can't touch or redistribute source, is like spreading a virtual contagion of copyrighted code. The new copyright wars 75 years beyond the life of the author. This marks the dawning of a new open source project, no actual program, just the sheer bloody minded copyrighting of every imaginable line of code for open use or how ever many continuous lines of code or characters are required to achieve a legal copyrightable entity.
So is M$, yet again, trying to poison the source?