Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

William Kempf wkempf
  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    Chinmay007 wrote:
    First Microsoft launches an open source website, and now they one to submit licences to the OSI? Whaaa whaaa what?


    Not sure what you mean either.  The "Whaa whaaa what?" could mean anything.

    That said, it only makes sense for Microsoft to get into the Open Source game, at least in some areas.  Development tools and languages are an area where it makes perfect sense.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    Miguel de Icaza has a beautiful post on this subject.

    I'm frustrated as heck here.  The best thing "for the community" would be to drop the petty FUD and political maneuvering.  I dislike it when any side does it, but I dislike it more from the FSF folks because they wrap themselves in moral trappings claiming their goals to be best "for the community", but then turn around and pull crap like this.  They truly aren't interested in anybody's best interest, only in destroying Microsoft.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    
    OK, sorry, I don't get what you're saying then .


    The article is dismissing these shared source liscences on the bases that they do not meet the required criteria for open source liscences. Whether or not they do not meet these criterea, my point was that this was an unfair comparision as shared source is not open source.


    Sorry, no, the comparison is fair, the conclusions aren't.  The comparison is fair because Microsoft submitted them to the OSI as Open Source Licenses.  Whether or not Microsoft called them "Shared Source" instead of "Open Source" is irrelevant, since Microsoft asked them to be considered as Open Source licences backed by the OSI.  So "dismissing these shared source licenses on the bases (sic) that they do not meet the required criteria for open source licenses" would be a valid, and proper, thing to do.  That is, if they didn't meet the required criteria, which is my beef here, because clearly they do.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    
    I'll make this simple for you.  The article is wrong.  Microsoft only submitted two licenses, both of which fullfill the four requirements for an Open Source license, as defined by the OSI.  In fact, they are very similar to the BSD license already considered to be an Open Source license.

    Oh, that argument fell flat.  Well, let's try another!  Let's dismiss these because they are similar to other Open Source licenses then!

    I'm sorry, this is nothing but FUD.  Lame FUD at that, and the ironic thing is it's not conducive to what the aims of the OSI (and the FSF) are supposed to be, even if it makes the OS bigots happy as clams to stick it to Microsoft.


    I'm not denying any of that, I was just pointing out a specific flaw in their argument.


    OK, sorry, I don't get what you're saying then Smiley.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    
    A) I didn't write that.  I quoted that with appropriate attibutions.  Sloppy reply here.


    Sorry I just hit quote. I'll edit my previous post.

    wkempf wrote:
    B) The quote with no remarks doesn't say a whole heck of a lot.  What's your point?


    Shared and open source are different... The article is complaining about MS shared source liscence because it doesn't fulfill open source requirments.


    I'll make this simple for you.  The article is wrong.  Microsoft only submitted two licenses, both of which fullfill the four requirements for an Open Source license, as defined by the OSI.  In fact, they are very similar to the BSD license already considered to be an Open Source license.

    Oh, that argument fell flat.  Well, let's try another!  Let's dismiss these because they are similar to other Open Source licenses then!

    I'm sorry, this is nothing but FUD.  Lame FUD at that, and the ironic thing is it's not conducive to what the aims of the OSI (and the FSF) are supposed to be, even if it makes the OS bigots happy as clams to stick it to Microsoft.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    ... shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses ...


    A) I didn't write that.  I quoted that with appropriate attibutions.  Sloppy reply here.

    B) The quote with no remarks doesn't say a whole heck of a lot.  What's your point?

    C) As I said, the quote is not accurate, if not flat out purposefully incorrect.  The majority of the licenses don't restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system, and in fact, none of the ones submitted to the OSI do.  This is FUD and purposeful spinning.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    Hysteria and FUD at their finest.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643

    First, the major hoopla seems to be over this quote:

    Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit.

    "I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said Tiemann in an interview late Friday.

    Huh?  The limitation is on 2 of 5, not 3 of 5.  I'm not at all certain the "limited" licenses were submitted to OSI, and if they were, so what?  Don't accept them, if it's politically a bad move.  Regardless, the vileness directed at Microsoft, when they have submitted 3 worth licenses and are in the process of actually using those licenses, seems to contradict the goals of these folks (well, other than the goal of destroying Microsoft at all costs, including costs counter to the other goals).

    Let me please clarify something for you. Most of us do *not* want Microsoft to participate.

    Seems to summarize the whole thing up to me.

    With regard to IronRuby, which will be released under one of these licenses:

    Separate implementations. Yup. Just like ODF and PDF. Microsoft can't play nicely with others, folks. It has to have its own, and if you are stoopid, you will help them take over the world. Guess who won't be allowed to play in that world, by the way? The GPL and true FOSS. You think?

    Utter idiocy.  PJ isn't a developer, so she attributes the decisions made here to something she understands and expects (i.e. something evil on the part of Microsoft).  Anyone with any knowledge knows this is so blatantly false, that it should illicit guffaws.  The implementations vary, because Microsoft wants all of their dynamic languages to be based on the DLR for interopability (and other technical) reasons.  Politics are absent here, except on PJ's part.

    Honestly, the FSF folks are militant to the point they remind me of certain images from Pink Floyd's "The Wall" (heads up their...).  If you wanna be anti-MS, fine, what ever floats your boat.  But once you step off the ledge of sanity, well, they make rubber rooms for that.

  • Vista UAC and Amazon.com -- MSFT staff Please read this!

    littleguru wrote:
    
    You can have the c# compiler create the private fields, but only if you don't want do anything with them or have some logic in the getter OR the setter. I have even blogged about that... and the extension methods and the lambdas etc.

    I find it interesting that people start to pick up DLINQ now, although there were a lot of ORMs (even freeware) avaialble that did the same


    I've blogged about it too.  Lamest new feature in C#.

    As for DLINQ... I have to disagree.  There never has been an ORM that does the same as DLINQ, at least on the .NET platform.  I could care less how the objects are created, what I care about is the integrated query language I can use to work with the data.  No ORM today works this way.

  • Summer CTP Madness for Sure!

    DCMonkey wrote:
    Rosario sounds like a VSTS-only update to whatever TS stuff is in VS 2008, not a whole new version of VS.

    But I'd love to be proven wrong. One day I might even get 2 full versions of VS in one year's MSDN subscription! And a pony!




    Once upon a time, you were gauranteed a new VS every quarter!  I actually miss that.

  • Lovin' the Channel8 design

    I don't agree.  Too "cartoony" in appearance.  Navigation hidden amongst the drawings made it difficult for me to find may way around initially.  Just finding the RSS feed took me way too long, since it's not in a place I'd find intuitive and the image was lost amongst the rest of the "cartoon".  Lots of wasted space, shoving the too narrow text to the right (content is the most important thing, remember?).