Comments on: What Microsoft Should Do For .NET Open Source http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/ Trying to walk that thin line between intelligence and ignorance Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:54:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: sciske http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-17067 sciske Thu, 28 May 2009 00:48:19 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=1406#comment-17067 @Davy You're correct...April 13th....odd. Didn't even notice that. @Davy

You’re correct…April 13th….odd. Didn’t even notice that.

]]> By: kilfour http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-17014 kilfour Wed, 27 May 2009 14:21:37 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=1406#comment-17014 I'm not sure whether the <i>legal minefield</i> issue is resolved. From the squeak license discussion a few years back : <cite> ...I can't resist sharing another outlandish lawsuit scenario: The WestWorld scenario. Disney opens an animatronic theme park powered by squeak and the robots go crazy and kill all the guests. Disney sues everyone ever involved in squeak. </cite> To which Alan Kaye responds : <cite> The problem is that all of this is essentially ridiculous, because there is no way to prevent anyone from suing anyone, regardless of the disclaimers. So coming up with doomsday scenarios is not at all helpful, and simply puts more of a scare into people who are easily scared. None of the licenses that are accepted by the OSI give anyone protection from any suit. </cite> Microsoft, I think, is easily scared. But is all of it really FUD ? IBM got lucky once before. <cite> IBM-SCO lawsuit SCO alleged that IBM used source code from Unix (which SCO believed it owned) to help create Linux. SCO’s case was weakened by a ruling that Novell, and not SCO, owns the copyright to Unix (2007). SCO has filed for bankruptcy. </cite> Other companies have faced suits for using GPL licensed code in their commercial products and f.i. not supplying access to their source as required by GPL. I think you can see why Microsoft would consider this a problem. Alan Kaye: <cite> It is possible for humans to mess up any set of good intentions (and quite a bit of this has happened to intellectual property in the sciences over the last 50 years). </cite> I’m not sure whether the legal minefield issue is resolved.
From the squeak license discussion a few years back :

…I can’t resist sharing another outlandish lawsuit scenario: The WestWorld scenario. Disney opens an animatronic theme park powered by squeak and the robots go crazy and kill all the guests. Disney sues everyone ever involved in squeak.

To which Alan Kaye responds :

The problem is that all of this is essentially ridiculous, because there is no way to prevent anyone from suing anyone, regardless of the disclaimers. So coming up with doomsday scenarios is not at all helpful, and simply puts more of a scare into people who are easily scared. None of the licenses that are accepted by the OSI give anyone protection from any suit.

Microsoft, I think, is easily scared. But is all of it really FUD ? IBM got lucky once before.

IBM-SCO lawsuit
SCO alleged that IBM used source code from Unix (which SCO believed it owned) to help create Linux. SCO’s case was weakened by a ruling that Novell, and not SCO, owns the copyright to Unix (2007). SCO has filed for bankruptcy.

Other companies have faced suits for using GPL licensed code in their commercial products and f.i. not supplying access to their source as required by GPL. I think you can see why Microsoft would consider this a problem.
Alan Kaye:

It is possible for humans to mess up any set of good intentions (and quite a bit of this has happened to intellectual property in the sciences over the last 50 years).

]]> By: Davy Brion http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-16952 Davy Brion Tue, 26 May 2009 20:19:43 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=1406#comment-16952 http://aspnet.codeplex.com/SourceControl/ListDownloadableCommits.aspx the last 'downloadable' commit was april 13... surely, there must've been some commits after that date, no? http://aspnet.codeplex.com/SourceControl/ListDownloadableCommits.aspx

the last ‘downloadable’ commit was april 13… surely, there must’ve been some commits after that date, no?

]]> By: sciske http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-16950 sciske Tue, 26 May 2009 20:15:10 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=1406#comment-16950 MVC source code? I think you can find it here: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=24471 and I believe issues can be found here: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/WorkItem/List.aspx MVC source code? I think you can find it here: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=24471

and I believe issues can be found here: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/WorkItem/List.aspx

]]> By: Davy Brion http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-16927 Davy Brion Tue, 26 May 2009 13:48:27 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=1406#comment-16927 @Peter first of all, i'm not saying that everything should be Open Source... This is about the .NET world so i fail to see why you would even want to bring Exchange into the conversation. Frameworks and libraries however are great candidates for open source development. Also, just because someone submits a patch it doesn't mean that it _has_ to be included. Obviously, it should go through all of the same quality checks as everything that is developed internally. There are quality checks, right? You may need to increase your understanding of the open source development model if you believe that every patch simply has to be included. As for support, give me a break... read my post on commercial support. Not every company is able or even willing to bring in Microsoft consultants, and from those i've seen, i haven't been all to impressed when it comes to support. And when you don't bring in the consultants, the support you get is definitely not guaranteed to be better than with any open source project. And no, my company's products aren't open source... nor do we pretend that they are. @Peter

first of all, i’m not saying that everything should be Open Source… This is about the .NET world so i fail to see why you would even want to bring Exchange into the conversation. Frameworks and libraries however are great candidates for open source development.

Also, just because someone submits a patch it doesn’t mean that it _has_ to be included. Obviously, it should go through all of the same quality checks as everything that is developed internally. There are quality checks, right? You may need to increase your understanding of the open source development model if you believe that every patch simply has to be included.

As for support, give me a break… read my post on commercial support. Not every company is able or even willing to bring in Microsoft consultants, and from those i’ve seen, i haven’t been all to impressed when it comes to support. And when you don’t bring in the consultants, the support you get is definitely not guaranteed to be better than with any open source project.

And no, my company’s products aren’t open source… nor do we pretend that they are.

]]> By: Peter http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-16925 Peter Tue, 26 May 2009 13:37:22 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=1406#comment-16925 One thing you seem to be overlooking is "support". What if we allow people to contribute patches to complex products like Exchange or MOSS and something goes wrong? Support will become a lot harder. A patch might be trivial for your particular scenario but might cause problems in others, it's not the patch itself that takes time it's the testing. Some problems do not occur immediatly but become visible when the application is in production for serveral months. You can't afford to have your exchange server down for several days ... Some of the products are very very large and can be used in many many different ways... Are the products developped by your company "truly" open source? Does your company accept patches from third parties? Do you allow your customers to build a particular branch? One thing you seem to be overlooking is “support”.
What if we allow people to contribute patches to complex products like Exchange or MOSS and something goes wrong? Support will become a lot harder.
A patch might be trivial for your particular scenario but might cause problems in others, it’s not the patch itself that takes time it’s the testing. Some problems do not occur immediatly but become visible when the application is in production for serveral months. You can’t afford to have your exchange server down for several days …

Some of the products are very very large and can be used in many many different ways…

Are the products developped by your company “truly” open source? Does your company accept patches from third parties? Do you allow your customers to build a particular branch?

]]> By: Eric Hauser http://davybrion.com/blog/2009/05/what-microsoft-should-do-for-net-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-16847 Eric Hauser Tue, 26 May 2009 01:12:23 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=1406#comment-16847 Davy, One thing I would like to point out is NUnit is released under a license that is not OSI approved and some considered it unfriendly. Resharper does not actually use NUnit for running NUnit tests -- Jetbrains wrote their own runner for NUnit tests -- because of the license. I doubt it would have mattered regarding MSTest, but I think NUnit would be much better served if it was released under an Apache style license. Davy,

One thing I would like to point out is NUnit is released under a license that is not OSI approved and some considered it unfriendly. Resharper does not actually use NUnit for running NUnit tests — Jetbrains wrote their own runner for NUnit tests — because of the license. I doubt it would have mattered regarding MSTest, but I think NUnit would be much better served if it was released under an Apache style license.

]]>