Coffeehouse Thread

23 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

So .NET is "Resource" Sourced... what's next?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    z2bass

    Well, the .NET framework has been "Shared" sourced. So what is the next thing to be open sourced? How about Channel9???

    To me, that would be REALLY sweet to see the codebase for c9 v4 since it is a clean implementation of ASP.NET code.

    DotNetKicks open sourced a while ago... so how about it, c9???

  • User profile image
    jeffsand

    We talked about it, dream about it.  But right now we're soley focussed on delivering the features. Smiley

    Once it is live on all of our communities then we can think about taking that step.

     

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    Let them get to v4 first... Wink After all the long wait I'm already happy to see v4 (aka EvNet) RTM HTML markup in my browser Big Smile

  • User profile image
    glebd

    Open-sourced? Yes. "Shared-sourced"? I don't think you would want that. God forbid you to write something similar after looking at the "shared" code that is still protected by MS ©.

    As to your question on what's next... I expect soon C# developers will start hearing a certain question during their job interviews:

    Interviewer: "Have you ever used (seen, stepped into during debugging) the .NET shared source code?"
    Developer: "Yes, of course. This helps the development, you know."
    Interviewer: "Sorry, we cannot employ you. Your mind is tainted."

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    glebd wrote:
    
    Interviewer: "Have you ever used (seen, stepped into during debugging) the .NET shared source code?"
    Developer: "Yes, of course. This helps the development, you know."
    Interviewer: "Sorry, we cannot employ you. Your mind is tainted."


    That's already far, far more likely with GPL code than it ever will be with the .NET shared source, unless you're planning to go work for Novell on mono.

  • User profile image
    glebd

    AndyC wrote:
    
    glebd wrote:
    
    Interviewer: "Have you ever used (seen, stepped into during debugging) the .NET shared source code?"
    Developer: "Yes, of course. This helps the development, you know."
    Interviewer: "Sorry, we cannot employ you. Your mind is tainted."


    That's already far, far more likely with GPL code than it ever will be with the .NET shared source, unless you're planning to go work for Novell on mono.


    I think you're wrong here. First, there is not a lot of GPL-licensed .NET code out there that can taint a developer's mind, and if there is, you can avoid it easily. But that is going to change because the entire .NET runtime will become "contagious" in the sense GPL code is now. Except that you can still use GPL code in GPL projects, whereas you cannot use any of the code you see inside .NET runtime for anything. Oh, and you will be hard-pressed to avoid looking at it — Visual Studio will gladly download it for you and automatically step into it, should you inadventently press "Step Into" key during debugging.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    glebd wrote:

    I think you're wrong here. First, there is not a lot of GPL-licensed .NET code out there that can taint a developer's mind, and if there is, you can avoid it easily. But that is going to change because the entire .NET runtime will become "contagious" in the sense GPL code is now. Except that you can still use GPL code in GPL projects, whereas you cannot use any of the code you see inside .NET runtime for anything. Oh, and you will be hard-pressed to avoid looking at it — Visual Studio will gladly download it for you and automatically step into it, should you inadventently press "Step Into" key during debugging.


    Let's imagine that the company you are going to work for creates projects for a large customer - the source (C/C++ code in this case) is going to be the property of the customer in the end... and they are going to sell it as closed source (there are plans for that)... and you have seen a lot of GPL source.

    You are doomed! soooooooooo doomed my friend Wink

    Your statement would make everybody who has ever contributed to a GPL project (and therefore read others GPL code) unable to code for a closed scenario (and there are tons of that) anymore. Poor them/me... no jobs, no money... man I'm so doomed!

    Crying

  • User profile image
    thumbtacks2

    In all seriousness, who really cares if anybody has seen the .NET code or not? How else do developers learn? Now if you go and copy the code line by line and incorporate it into your own product, and then ship that, then you do so at your own risk.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    thumbtacks2 wrote:
    In all seriousness, who really cares if anybody has seen the .NET code or not? 


    If you want to work on mono, it might be an issue. For anyone else it's really not a big deal, especially if you're working as a .NET developer (why would you copy code from the BCL when you can just use the BCL?)

  • User profile image
    thumbtacks2

    AndyC wrote:
    
    thumbtacks2 wrote:
    In all seriousness, who really cares if anybody has seen the .NET code or not? 
    If you want to work on mono, it might be an issue. For anyone else it's really not a big deal, especially if you're working as a .NET developer (why would you copy code from the BCL when you can just use the BCL?)
    It would be a silly if Mono doesn't hire you because of "seeing the source code". That's their own choice, though, and I can see the legal issues they are trying to avoid.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    For Mono, it's definitely not silly.  They have a huge risk of violating patents that Microsoft very well could defend.

    For everyone else, give me a break.  You know, MFC, ATL and several other libraries were under very similar licenses, and there's not been one instance of trouble caused by this.  Let's stop spreading FUD.

  • User profile image
    glebd

    thumbtacks2 wrote:
    It would be a silly if Mono doesn't hire you because of "seeing the source code". That's their own choice, though, and I can see the legal issues they are trying to avoid.


    Remember SCO (there was a company named SCO once, and it was even listed)? They suddenly decided that Linux contained code infringing on their ©.

    If a code snippet appears in Mono that is similar to .NET code and there are Mono contributors who had seen the .NET code, MS potentially may want to shut down Mono or do something else along the lines.

    Now, given SCO current status, they may want to think twice about that, but still the possibility remains. I guess that's why Mono guys are being careful about this.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    wkempf wrote:
    For Mono, it's definitely not silly.  They have a huge risk of violating patents that Microsoft very well could defend.

    For everyone else, give me a break.  You know, MFC, ATL and several other libraries were under very similar licenses, and there's not been one instance of trouble caused by this.  Let's stop spreading FUD.


    Exactly, and in fact, I'd bet that Miguel has seen the code through reflector before.  Remember, MSFT doesn't 'sell' .Net, so there's no market to protect.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    For Mono, it's definitely not silly.  They have a huge risk of violating patents that Microsoft very well could defend.

    For everyone else, give me a break.  You know, MFC, ATL and several other libraries were under very similar licenses, and there's not been one instance of trouble caused by this.  Let's stop spreading FUD.


    Exactly, and in fact, I'd bet that Miguel has seen the code through reflector before.  Remember, MSFT doesn't 'sell' .Net, so there's no market to protect.


    No, the Mono project has a strict rule about this.  They don't permit looking at the source or using Reflector.  If you've done either, you're not allowed to contribute to the Mono code base.

    http://www.mono-project.com/Contributing

  • User profile image
    thumbtacks2

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    For Mono, it's definitely not silly.  They have a huge risk of violating patents that Microsoft very well could defend.

    For everyone else, give me a break.  You know, MFC, ATL and several other libraries were under very similar licenses, and there's not been one instance of trouble caused by this.  Let's stop spreading FUD.
    Exactly, and in fact, I'd bet that Miguel has seen the code through reflector before.  Remember, MSFT doesn't 'sell' .Net, so there's no market to protect.
    Does anybody know how many users actually use anything that the Mono project has created?

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    thumbtacks2 wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    For Mono, it's definitely not silly.  They have a huge risk of violating patents that Microsoft very well could defend.

    For everyone else, give me a break.  You know, MFC, ATL and several other libraries were under very similar licenses, and there's not been one instance of trouble caused by this.  Let's stop spreading FUD.
    Exactly, and in fact, I'd bet that Miguel has seen the code through reflector before.  Remember, MSFT doesn't 'sell' .Net, so there's no market to protect.
    Does anybody know how many users actually use anything that the Mono project has created?


    A lot.  Despite a lot of the grumbling about Mono in the Linux world, there are a lot of applications implemented using it that are included in most distributions and used by a large number of Linux users.  There's also a lot of ASP.NET applications running under Linux.  Then there's projects like Grasshopper that rely on it.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    wkempf wrote:
    A lot.  Despite a lot of the grumbling about Mono in the Linux world, there are a lot of applications implemented using it that are included in most distributions and used by a large number of Linux users.  There's also a lot of ASP.NET applications running under Linux.  Then there's projects like Grasshopper that rely on it.

    And pretty much the only competitor to WDS! beagle is a fine C# application Smiley

  • User profile image
    TimP

    thumbtacks2 wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    For Mono, it's definitely not silly.  They have a huge risk of violating patents that Microsoft very well could defend.

    For everyone else, give me a break.  You know, MFC, ATL and several other libraries were under very similar licenses, and there's not been one instance of trouble caused by this.  Let's stop spreading FUD.
    Exactly, and in fact, I'd bet that Miguel has seen the code through reflector before.  Remember, MSFT doesn't 'sell' .Net, so there's no market to protect.
    Does anybody know how many users actually use anything that the Mono project has created?


    I know some Linux-exclusive places that actually do new development in ASP.NET soley to run on xsp. They proxy requests through existing Apache infrastructure*. Mono isn't just a temporary solution for people migrating existing Windows applications to Linux.


    (* to be honest, I don't know why they don't use mod_mono since it would cut out having to run the xsp server in addition to Apache, but I don't run the place. Smiley)

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.