OSNews

Yeah. In their dreams, maybe... if you release code, it's going to be used by someone else.

I predict, in one year's time, several "competing" versions of .NET will be released, whose sole change will be to occasionally launch advertisements. They will have no technical advantage over vanilla .NET, but they will get broadly advertised, and will be widely adopted by the 50% of the Internet composed of the MySpace generation. These flawed copies will make MS scramble to explain why their cross-platform .NET programs don't work on Imperfect .NET Implementation XYZ, damaging their reputation, and they'll only have themselves to blame for releasing the code in the first place.

Edited 2007-10-03 21:24

They will have no technical advantage over vanilla .NET, but they will get broadly advertised, and will be widely adopted by the 50% of the Internet composed of the MySpace generation.

I'm trying to think of a concrete example of what you're describing that has already happened in the *real world* today...

Considering the amount of open-source code already out there, I would expect this is to be a common problem (where 50% of the internet uses rip-off versions and thinks it is the real thing)...

Edited 2007-10-03 21:32

Which side of their reputation are you talking about?

The side that is known for keeping interoperability information under lock and key so they can continue to monopolies their position as the world's no1 desktop?

The side that is known to invite partners to develop for their platform only to release a competing product and bundle it for free with their OS?

The side that bullies OEMs into offering systems with only their OS preinstalled?

The side that is known for trying to take over the internet with an inferior product, then providing operating systems without the security mechanisms needed to securely connect to said internet there by leaving the door open for scrip kiddies to run riot causing millions of dollars in downtime and damages?

How about the side that bankrolls other companies to threatens the only thing it can't buy, steal from or muscle out of the IT industry, i.e. Linux, and when that fails, starts threatening with bogus IP violation charges it is unwilling (read unable) to provide any evidence for?

If MS is damaging it's reputation, surely that's a good thing?

How does this differ from any OSS project? Forks happen all the time. That's the risk of releasing source code.

So what if you look at the code? In most parts of the world the only problem is copyright, and it's not an issue unless you copy and paste the code. Or, to make absolutely sure, you use "clean room" development, where one developer looks at the original code, tells another what it does and the second developer writes new code from scratch, with the same functionality.

Software patents or reverse engineering are an issue only in some countries.

Yes, but all Microsoft have to do is make the allegations. They don't have to back them up, or prove them conclusively. Microsoft can claim that such and such app is breaking the licence, and it's up to the app writers to prove otherwise, not Microsoft. MS fires off some cease and desists to the ISP, and before you know it, Microsoft have spun an allegation into an anti-open source, anti non MS-vendor bit of PR.

There's only so many ways you can make a simple function return an answer. Making other programmers have to tip toe around Microsoft's specific implementation will slow down development and increase administration. Just look at the audit that had to be done on ReactOS because of Microsoft allegations.

Yes they do. If you bring charges of copyright infringement you have to back them up. Of course you do.

I don't see what ISP's have to do with this. If you meant hosting companies, they usually check around. They don't boot their paying customers for allegations alone.

ah, its "shared-source"

This "source release" isn't anything like "open source" but perhaps it will help the Mono developers. That would be a good thing.

wow, purist trolls have become masters in the art of speculation.

Microsoft's track record means they are going to have to prove they don't have those kinds of nefarious goals.

However, I think some good could actually come out of this. If there are any perceptible people in charge over there, they may start to notice better bug reports, maybe even receive a few high quality patches, and some of the other benefits that come from open source, and begin to really understand the advantages.

Again, they are going to have to demonstrate that they are not evil though. There's just too much history.