Other Software > Developer's Corner

Microsoft providing .NET Framework source code!

(1/6) > >>

Lashiec:
Surprising news that I had to share it with you guys. Read the announcement and its details :o

Microsoft providing .NET Framework source code!
Well, basically they're releasing the fully commented code of a good number of libraries, and they'll do the same with some others later. Looking at the license I'd say (don't flame me ;)) that looks like a nod for the Mono developers, but most probably my reasoning is wrong. They're also bringing integration of this effort with the debugger in the future Visual Studio 2008 (take a look to see what the integration is all about), but people in the comments don't seem to give a damn about it ;D
via Ars Technica Open Forum

mwb1100:
MS did something similar with .NET 1.0 - the difference being that for 1.0 the source they released was not exactly what they created the released version of the .NET binaries with, it was more a 'reference implementation'.  This time it appears they are releasing the source for the actual .NET binaries.

In reference to the GPL thread that's going on elsewhere, note that the license for the .NET source is a 'look-but-don't-touch' license.

Lashiec:
Uh, my guesses had been debunked fast by none other than Miguel de Icaza :-[

Renegade:
I heard about it on the Hanselminutes podcast. Sounds good.

I'll try not to rant, but I don't think I really agree with Miguel that it's not "open source". The source is there. You get to see it. The locks are off and you get to see it. That seems open to me. Microsoft Reference License? Still seems open. You don't get to change it or anything, but it's still open enough to see. Open is open.

The whole "what is open source" thing just ticks me off. It seems like there needs to be a real, honest, and true blanket definition for 'open source' that is permissive enough to allow anything that is 'opened up'.

Beyond that some set of sub-categories would make sense. e.g. Just to blow hot air out my butt - open source: proprietary reference (as above), open source: proprietary mutable (e.g. commercial software that doesn't permit reselling but permits changing), open source: restricted free mutable (GPL), open source: free mutable (BSD), etc. Just something that makes more sense and isn't some kind of religious radicalism like the FSF.

Never-the-less, it's great to see MS opening up .NET. It will certainly make some things easier in those wierd situations where things go awry and you just can't figure out where/why.

Kudos to MS for this. It's a huge step.

mwb1100:
but I don't think I really agree with Miguel that it's not "open source".
-Renegade (October 04, 2007, 07:21 PM)
--- End quote ---

One concern that Miguel has is that it's not appropriate to incorporate the MS code into Mono (Miguel's project) because the MS code is not open source 'enough'.  Hence his warning for anyone who might contribute to Mono to avoid studying the MS code - that course of action avoids tainting the Mono code base.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page