Microsoft Releases Source of .NET Base Classes 110
Disgruntled Fungus writes "A few months ago, we discussed Microsoft's intention to open source the .NET libraries. According to a developer's official blog, the source code is now available. The source to libraries such as System, IO, Windows.Forms, etc. can now be viewed and used for debugging purposes from within Visual Studio. Instructions for doing so have also been provided. The source code has been released with a read-only license and 'does not apply to users developing software for a non-Windows platform that has "the same or substantially the same features or functionality" as the .NET Framework.'"
you know what *that* sounds like.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Think "oh, that implementation really looks like ours! you must have read it! here's a lawsuit for you")
NOT open source (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and as one of the first posters pointed out [slashdot.org], unlike Java [java.net] for instance, this is NOT being published under an open source licence, Microsoft even says so. So why do you keep using the term?
Re:you know what *that* sounds like.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have one person read the source, document it and put the documentation online somewhere.
You have second person read documentation and re-write functionality of code.
ReactOS does this exact same thing to re-implement the Win32 API, except that they have to 'break' the executable files. (My memory is shot, I can't remember the term for this, or the process as a whole...)
So long as the documentation does not contain source, merely what each function does, and so long as there is no obvious link between the two persons, there should be no problem.
This is Not a Big Deal - Limited Use. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is probably only useful from an *educational* point-of-view and when you think about it, there is so much publically available code out there already how much more will you learn from the
I thought one of the major benefits of OOP was code abstraction - in theory there should not be a need to see the implementation.
In fact too much knowledge could be a 'bad thing'(tm) you may start relying on *how* something is implemented - if the implementation changes your code *may* break.
As for the mono project I believe only the implementation of libraries is the issue. The vm and c# are a public standard and 'patent free?'- maybe mono should diverse in a seperate direction rather trying to catchup with Microsoft (considering how
The major benefit of mono for me is that I can use Microsoft's
don't be overly dramatic (Score:3, Insightful)
However, don't be overly dramatic. This sort of thing isn't new and open source projects know how to cope with it. Microsoft would have a hard time making any claim actually stick, unless there was blatant infringement. Furthermore, the Mono project can now also simply have some independent third party regularly check their code against Microsoft's to make sure nothing sneaks in.
Re:NOT open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Very obviously a "back off!" clause for Mono and dotgnu.
Previously, people referred to the source by using Reflector ; this of course, doesn't quite produce the same output as the original. My guess is that MS are more comfortable letting people see the original source than disassembling it - if people have seen the "real source", they are more vulnerable to accusations of copyright infringement.
Plus it means their IDE gains some of the advantages which Java IDEs have enjoyed for some time, at hardly any nasal skin cost to MS because people were looking at "the source" anyway.
Because the source is only cached within the VS session and has to be reloaded each session, and because it comes from an MS server, they maintain control, and keep tabs on who is looking. I bet their webmaster has a comprehensive list of all IP addresses suspected to be OSS sympathizers....
Re:you know what *that* sounds like.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt it as the line I suspect you're referring to, "the same or substantially the same features or functionality" as the
Bob
Re:read the fine print (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Looks rather clunky (Score:3, Insightful)
Give them some credit here. You only have to tell VS to load files outside the current call stack.
That said, I agree that this sucks. Needing to purchase VS 2008 and debug my code to see theirs is annoying to say the least. I was hoping to download the source and analyze Windows.Forms.Controls, System.Data.DataViewManager, and various implementations of the IBindable interface... Things that plague my understanding of the ".Net Maze" to this day.
Thanks, MS. Thanks for, once again, shitting in my cereal.
Not everything is about you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT open source (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's not open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Come now. One of the benefits of open source that we constantly hear is that if any question of the actual behavior of something comes up, the developer can go straight to the source. Now you are saying that this is a bad thing?
I agree with you that developers should code to the interface as documented, but if that is the case then most open source developers should not look at the source code for the underlying packages they use.
I think MS is doing this to make life simpler for their customers and to cut down on developer support costs. It isn't aimed at the FOSS community and has no particular impact on them either way. And contrary to what many people claim, MS developer support is really pretty good.
Re:you know what *that* sounds like.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because "Open Source" is a stupid term (Score:3, Insightful)
And thanks to you for rigid, dogmatic, inflexibile intransigence and refusal to recognize any deviation from your True Path in a world of absolutes as anything but schism and heresy. Hey look, two can play. I recognize your nick (I've was here originally with a 4-digit UID, with a name I've discarded). I always believed you were above such coarse trolling. You make me sad.
Microsoft never even claimed it was Open Source. Microsoft has two licenses recognized as Free by the FSF. And this sort of restrictive license existed long before RMS bequeathed the very idea of freedom into all our tabula rasa minds.