Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 19:39 UTC, submitted by gonzo
"One of the things my team has been working to enable has been the ability for .NET developers to download and browse the source code of the .NET Framework libraries, and to easily enable debugging support in them. Today I'm excited to announce that we'll be providing this with the .NET 3.5 and VS 2008 release later this year. We'll begin by offering the source code (with source file comments included) for the .NET Base Class Libraries, ASP.NET, Windows Forms, ADO.NET, XML, and WPF. We'll then be adding more libraries in the months ahead (including WCF, Workflow, and LINQ). The source code will be released under the Microsoft Reference License."
Thread beginning with comment 275977
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Microsoft Reference License
by umccullough on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 21:32
in reply to "RE: Microsoft Reference License"
Member since:2006-01-26
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
RE[2]: Microsoft Reference License
by SReilly on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 22:30
in reply to "RE: Microsoft Reference License"
Member since:2006-12-28
...damaging their reputation, and they'll only have themselves to blame for releasing the code in the first place.
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?
RE[2]: Microsoft Reference License
by tomcat on Thu 4th Oct 2007 20:09
in reply to "RE: Microsoft Reference License"
Member since:2006-01-06
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.
How does this differ from any OSS project? Forks happen all the time. That's the risk of releasing source code.
Member since:
2007-02-22
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