Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Mar 2008 20:23 UTC, submitted by SomeMicroserf
OSNews, Generic OSes Microsoft has released source code from the Singularity research project onto Codeplex under an academic, non-commercial license. "The Singularity Research Development Kit is based on the Microsoft Research Singularity project. It includes source code, build tools, test suites, design notes, and other background materials. The Singularity RDK is for academic non-commercial use only and is governed by this license."
Order by: Score:
So close, and yet so far
by google_ninja on Tue 4th Mar 2008 20:35 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

This would have been such an incredably fantastic thing to have under a more permissive liscence then the MS-LA. Any real open source project is going to stay the hell away from this code, especially if they want to implement something similar, because if they ever get accused of having derived their project from Singularity, they could end up losing the project (anything derivitives of an MS-LA liscenced project also have to be MS-LA liscenced, and MS will own full rights)

Reply Score: 10

RE: So close, and yet so far
by Almafeta on Tue 4th Mar 2008 21:44 UTC in reply to "So close, and yet so far"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Any real open source project is going to stay the hell away from this code


But's it's still good for its intended purpose -- teaching the techniques, not the system.

Singularity is part of an attempt to create a different way of developing operating systems. Saying that this code can't be used in 'real' projects is beside the point. The idea is not to get people to jury-rig Singularity into a usable operating system; it's to read the papers and look at the code to teach people how to write better OSs.

Personally, I think this is an awesome, happy surprise.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: So close, and yet so far
by google_ninja on Tue 4th Mar 2008 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: So close, and yet so far"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Well, its better then not releasing it ;-)

ROTOR is a .net framework done by MS for BSD, which is also under the MS-LA. Mono contributions require you saying you havn't looked at it. Same principals apply. It wouldnt be an issue if you worked on something like linux or haiku, but if you wanted to write a .net OS, reading anything in it would be quite dangerous.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: So close, and yet so far
by renox on Wed 5th Mar 2008 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE: So close, and yet so far"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

[[But's it's still good for its intended purpose -- teaching the techniques, not the system.]]

Not really because if you ever reuse the techniques in another non-academic project, Microsoft could probably sue you.

So it's a very strange 'teaching' really..

Reply Score: 5

hmmm
by poundsmack on Tue 4th Mar 2008 20:41 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

regaurdless of the semi restricting lisence it was released under i still think this is great as i have wanted to play with this for some time.

Reply Score: 4

license
by smashIt on Tue 4th Mar 2008 21:11 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

as I understand the license it's similar to the gpl, with the difference that you can't earn money with it.

sounds good to me

Reply Score: 1

RE: license
by hobgoblin on Tue 4th Mar 2008 21:32 UTC in reply to "license"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

yea, you cant earn money on it, but by the looks of it, microsoft may very well earn money on your work on the code...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: license
by segedunum on Tue 4th Mar 2008 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: license"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

yea, you cant earn money on it, but by the looks of it, microsoft may very well earn money on your work on the code...


Yep, that's exactly right, and it just shows how Microsoft doesn't get how open source software processes work and how sad they are about creating soundbites around the whole subject.

In any open source project, those contributing code have to be getting something in return for the code that they're contributing. In the case of the GPL, this might mean that they are guaranteed to get other peoples' code contributions in return on a level playing field, or in the case of a more permissive license, they can at least use it for commercial or proprietary uses.

Who in their right mind is going to contribute to a Microsoft project, for free, where they get nothing in return in terms of being able to use the code commercially, or as part of a proprietary endeavour, and where Microsoft can simply take code contributions, make money off them themselves and not contribute any of their code back to everyone else?

It's a huge waste of time, and one great big yawn. For anyone wanting to create anything of actual use, they'd better not look at any of this code.

Edited 2008-03-04 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: license
by MollyC on Tue 4th Mar 2008 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: license"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"yea, you cant earn money on it, but by the looks of it, microsoft may very well earn money on your work on the code...
Yep, that's exactly right, and it just shows how Microsoft doesn't get how open source software processes work and how sad they are about creating soundbites around the whole subject. "

It doesn't show anything of the sort. In fact, it shows the exact opposite. Microsoft doesn't intend this code to be open source, so they didn't use an open source license. If they had intended this code to be open source, they would've used MSPL or MSRL, as they've done with the DLR, IronPython, IronRuby, etc.

Just because they don't want Singularity code to be "open source" and therefore didn't use an open source license, doesn't mean that they don't understand open source, quite the contrary.

If your main concern is using this code in an open source project, then you aren't the target for this code. Not everything is about you.

Edited 2008-03-04 23:53 UTC

Reply Score: 16

v RE[4]: license
by segedunum on Wed 5th Mar 2008 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: license"
RE[3]: license
by google_ninja on Tue 4th Mar 2008 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: license"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You don't seem to understand how an academic liscence works. The MS-LA is for use in teaching and learning, the MS-PL is for open source. Since this whole thing was always just meant to be an internal research project, it is nice that they did this. It would be great if they published it under the MS-PL, but this is not exactly useless.

Reply Score: 7

v RE[4]: license
by segedunum on Wed 5th Mar 2008 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: license"
RE: license
by google_ninja on Tue 4th Mar 2008 22:07 UTC in reply to "license"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You can't earn money, or use it in a commercial context (running on a business pc). You can modify and redistribute the code, but your derivitive falls under the MS-LA as well. Also, anything under the MS-LA (including derivitive works) fully belong to microsoft, and they can use the code in any way they choose.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: license
by hobgoblin on Tue 4th Mar 2008 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: license"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

so all in all it looks like the GPL's evil twin...

or maybe "all your code are belong to microsoft"...

Edited 2008-03-04 23:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: license
by JPowers on Wed 5th Mar 2008 00:31 UTC in reply to "license"
JPowers Member since:
2007-11-10

Please re-read the license. The user of the software or any application you develop using the provided software can't be used to make money.

You are also restricted from using the software in any place where a commercial software package exists. Thus, you can't use this system as your main OS; even if you don't use your system for making money.

I.E. If I develop a spread sheet program on the system, I can't sale it. Any one I give it to also can't use it in a business to make money.

The GPL at least allows me to use the software for any purpose.

Reply Score: 2

The big issue
by obsethryl on Tue 4th Mar 2008 21:34 UTC
obsethryl
Member since:
2006-11-16

is simple: I hope that none of the 3 (three) to date opensource C# kernel project ever takes a look at this. It seems like a legal time bomb.

Reply Score: 2

Mandatory Ignorance
by chaosvoyager on Thu 6th Mar 2008 08:24 UTC
chaosvoyager
Member since:
2005-07-06

Once again, political, social, and legal issues have completely overshadowed any technical merits inherent in a project. -_-

However, if you DO open yourself up to additional liability by dealing with Singularity in academia as a student, and then apply similar techniques in your career, then it IS a poison pill.

Geez, I thought the whole point of going to school was to pick up useful skills you could actually USE. This mandatory ignorance (of patents and sourcecode) is getting ridiculous.

Reply Score: 1