Microsoft and Nokia Adopt OSS JQuery Framework 126
soliptic writes "The jQuery blog today announced that 'Both Microsoft and Nokia are taking the major step of adopting jQuery as part of their official application development platform.' So the open-source javascript framework will be shipped with Visual Studio and ASP.NET MVC. Microsoft's Scott Hanselman notes: 'It's Open Source, and we'll use it and ship it via its MIT license, unchanged. If there's changes we want, we'll submit a patch just like anyone else.'" There's also a story at eWeek about the decision.
Re:Will they (Score:5, Funny)
Well.... a big part of its popularity is that it's a lightweight library, so maybe better if they don't contribute to it... :-)
Re:Same ol' embrace, extend, extinguish? (Score:1, Funny)
Oh noes they take a open source project and want to use it for their own intend. Damn those devils! Open Source Software does not want to be used, it wants to be free!
Re:Will they fix it? (Score:1, Funny)
And yet the baseless smear against jQuery is currently at 5, Interesting. Heckuva job, moddies.
Re:But... (Score:4, Funny)
In other words: It's time to start a flame war! Right here! Right now!
In other news (Score:2, Funny)
jQuery announced that the next version of their popular library will leverage the power and versatility of Microsoft(tm)(r) Silverlight(r) for delivering the next generation of .NET based media experiences and rich interactive applications for the Web.
"Freetards and other goddamn hippies need not apply." said jQuery's new maintainer, an oddly familiar, angry fat man. Going by the name of Stephan Ballmerano; he sports a beard, dark glasses, cape, and top-hat.
"I have done it before, and I'll do it again. I'm going to fucking kill the GPL!" Ballmerano replied to a question on licensing, before lifting the top-hat to mop his bald head with a hankie.
Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose Microsoft could incorporate it directly into the browser, but that doesn't seem likely.
Microsoft could, in theory, add some features and relicense it under proprietary terms; the MIT license allows that. That is, seeing the source doesn't mean it's open source in the licensing sense.
Say hello to Microsoft DirectHTML!
Re:Yeah, I was... (Score:3, Funny)
The difference being, sparky, is that the source is not closed, you can read it. It maybe closed in terms of copyright, but it's still open in terms of source access. As opposed to closed, compiled binaries where the source is not available.
The discussion was about source code.