Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Open Sources ASP.NET MVC

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the bee-ess-dee-like dept.

Software 227

Jimmy Zimms writes "Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC is an extension built on the core of ASP.NET that brings some of the popular practices and ease of development that were popularized by Ruby on Rails and Django to the .NET developers. Scott Guthrie, the inventor of ASP.NET, just announced that Microsoft is open sourcing the ASP.NET MVC stack under the MS-PL license. 'I'm excited today to announce that we are also releasing the ASP.NET MVC source code under the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL). MS-PL is an OSI-approved open source license. The MS-PL contains no platform restrictions and provides broad rights to modify and redistribute the source code.' Here's the text of the MS-PL.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

stirf tops (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27434865)

slow

TROJAN !! Beware of those damn Greeks !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27434935)

Oh, wait, GEEKS !!

Typical (0, Troll)

azior (1302509) | more than 5 years ago | (#27434881)

That Microsoft Shared Source License is open source, but not free software. You may look at the recipe, but you can't bake the cake...

Re:Typical (5, Informative)

Chris Acheson (263308) | more than 5 years ago | (#27434987)

The MS-PL is a Free Software license, according to the FSF. It's just not compatible with the GPL.

There are multiple "shared source" licenses, some Free, others not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source [wikipedia.org]

Re:Typical (0, Troll)

TheReverandND (926450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435951)

Most licenses aren't compatable with the GPL. The FSF believes it's only "free" if you use their license. I think MS-PL is a very fair license. AND I have to admit I will enjoy tinkering with ASP.NET MVC.

Re:Typical (3, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436581)

The GPL is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist anymore. Big unix is dead. Open source is here and it has the momentum, but the GPL is dead weight.

What if GPL code suddenly turned to BSD code and Microsoft (or anyone else) could steal it? History has shown that private forks of open source software generally don't work.

The open source development model is superior to the closed source development model. When People (or companies) do need to fork open source software, they quickly find their branch out of date and inferior to the mainline. It's easier and more economical to work on the main branch than to keep a closed fork.

Where does that leave the GPL? Primary as a tool for coercing companies into buying the closed-source version of an open source project (ext, mysql, and qt, for example). (Nokia moved QT to LGPL because the GPL wasn't beneficial to them).

Re:Typical (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435095)

I don't get it, the license says you can make derivative works, and redistribute those works. Seems pretty free to me.

I'm not trying to argue the point with you. I just don't get it. Its legal speak, which I'm always doubtful that I understand the implications. But, this seems like free software.

Where am I getting it wrong?

Re:Typical (3, Informative)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436095)

The patent claim section. If you ever bring a patent claim against a contributor to the MS-PL licensed project you lose all rights under the license...

So if you develop around one of these code bases you are giving MS a one-way patent non-aggression pact, they are giving you nothing of the sort in return.

How is that any different than something like GPL? (4, Informative)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436747)

I think that clause is fairly reasonable if I use that license for my code. If somebody is gonna bring a patent claim against my stuff, screw them, they loose the license to use my work.

How is this different than similar patent clauses in other licenses?

Re:Typical (5, Informative)

Jaykul (597144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436815)

You're a quarter-right.

(3.B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

You can bring patent claims, as long you're not claiming THIS software violates your patents. If you claim the software infringes YOUR patents, and aren't willing to allow that -- then you don't get a free pass on THEIR patents either. Ie: Share and Share alike. Also, your license for the software doesn't terminate -- just your license to the patents. Which brings us to:

(2.B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents...

So it's not a one-way non-agression pact. It's a two-way pact. As long as you don't sue them for patent infringement, you can (re)use all of their code without fear of them suing you for patent infringement... Of course, since THEY are the ones giving YOU the source code, this is really slanted heavily in your favor -- you can have a look before you use it, decide if they violate your patents, and THEN choose to use it OR sue them. They have no such recourse.

Re:Typical (3, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436985)

This is untrue.

First, they ARE providing something to you: a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free patent license. They can't sue you over patents in their code base; they already gave you a license to them.

Second, if you bring a patent claim against a contributor over code covered by the MS-PL (not just any code they wrote, as you implied) then you don't lose all rights, you only lose the royalty-free patent license from that specific contributor.

Example: Microsoft releases some code (call it code-base A) under MS-PL. It contains patented algorithm X.
You take A and extend it. Your extension (code-base B) contains an improvement on X, which you have patented. Call this improved version Y.
If Microsoft sues you over Y (which is basically a better X) then they lose the right to use Y, meaning that if Y is upheld they would have to license it from you. Furthermore, even if they win the case and the patent on Y is invalidated, X can still be used free of charge; they can't revoke your license to use it.

This seems a fair way to handle software patents in open-source software; a sort of copyleft scheme applied to patent right rather than copyright.

Mind you, IANAL, but the terminology seems pretty clear.

Re:Typical (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27437071)

The patent claim section. If you ever bring a patent claim against a contributor to the MS-PL licensed project you lose all rights under the license...

So if you develop around one of these code bases you are giving MS a one-way patent non-aggression pact, they are giving you nothing of the sort in return.

It's not a one-way non-aggression pact, they're making the same promise to you by releasing the code in MS-PL in the first place.

Basically, the license doesn't say that you can never sue Microsoft for violating your patents. It says that if you have any patent claims on code that you licensed as MS-PL, you can't turn around and sue people who create derivative works using your code for violating your patents. It's the same hole the FSF was trying to close with the GPL 3.

The promise applies to Microsoft too. If you take their MS-PL licensed code, and then build a derivative work using their license, they can't sue you for violating the patent.

The license is something of a BSD / GPL hybrid. You can distribute binaries without source code like the BSD (because Microsoft really dislikes that the GPL doesn't allow that), and you have to give permission for use of your patents like the GPL 3 (because Microsoft doesnt' want you to bait them and then sue them).

Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435117)

Typical, first set of posts slag off Microsoft.

Cue spellings of Micro$oft, M$, Windoze, Microshaft etc etc.

Re:Typical (5, Insightful)

Cube Steak (1520237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435147)

That Microsoft Shared Source License is open source, but not free software.

This isn't the Shared Source License. It's the Microsoft Public License which is accepted as a free software license by both the OSI and the FSF. You seem to be ranting about something completely unrelated to this article.

Re:Typical (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435379)

You may need to check the definition of Open Source. It doesn't ONLY mean that you can view the source code. It means you can modify it and redistribute it. Before trolling next time, educate yourself here:
http://opensource.org/docs/osd [opensource.org]

I'd rather they open the specifications. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27434899)

hardly impressed

The point of the story... (0, Redundant)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27434911)

Is this a story about ASP.NET MVC or a selling point for MS-PL? (Honest question!)

Re:The point of the story... (2, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435045)

FTFL:

(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

Is this compatible with any other open source licences?

Re:The point of the story... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435695)

Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?

Re:The point of the story... (2, Informative)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435935)

Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?

AFAIK the GPL3 says you have to open up your patents along with the source. It does not mention challenging the patents of others.

Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated.

What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html [fsf.org]

I'm not sure though, feel free to correct me.

Re:The point of the story... (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436441)

I believe the patent terms are the main thing that sets MS-PL apart from other F/OSS licenses. On the other hand, if you *don't* sue the contributors, then you can use their patents (in MS-PL code) royalty-free.

only if Bill agrees (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27436809)

[Legalese begins ...]
This license...blah blah
[last line...] ... only if Bill agrees.

[ ] I accept all the Terms and Conditions of this Microsoft License
[Next->]

Hardly open source (1, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27434921)

This is an improvement, but it's hardly a compatible license with most other licenses. Or shall we say, deliberately incompatible with their competition. Nothing like a little spin all over again.

If they had never managed to sneak this one under on OSI, it would still mean nothing. Considering that it's still MS-PL, it still means nothing.

No One Gives A Shit About 'teh OSI' (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435091)

The scam artists at OSI are no different and relevant than people who sell deeds to plots of land on the Moon.

OSI == Irrelevant Clowns

Re:Hardly open source (5, Insightful)

Cube Steak (1520237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435235)

Hardly open source

How so? It's accepted as a free software license not only by the OSI but by the FSF as well.

This is an improvement, but it's hardly a compatible license with most other licenses.

The GPL is incompatible with a ton of other free software licenses. Does that make it "hardly open source" as well?

Re:Hardly open source (2, Interesting)

datastew (529152) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436729)

> How so? It's accepted as a free software license not only by the OSI but by the FSF as well.

Actually this may be a bit misleading. The MS-PL is firmly on their list of "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses" [fsf.org] . This means that they urge you not use this license and it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Re:Hardly open source (2, Informative)

eison (56778) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435325)

The GPL is also deliberately incompatible with their competition, particularly including other open licenses. So what's your point? If you think "Open" means "You can do whatever you want", then you're restricting yourself to pretty much just bsd, which is an entirely separate holy war.

Re:Hardly open source (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#27437177)

Last I checked GPL3 was compatible with the licenses that make up the vast majority of open source projects. Whether it's compatible with most open source licenses is irrelevant since almost nobody uses anythin but apache, gpl and bsd.

Re:Hardly open source (3, Insightful)

Cube Steak (1520237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435335)

This is an improvement, but it's hardly a compatible license with most other licenses.

Sorry, but this isn't true. That it isn't compatible with the GPL doesn't mean it's incompatible with most other licenses. It's perfectly compatible with the BSD/Apache2/X11/Zlib/etc permissive licenses. You're spreading nonsense.

Re:Hardly open source (4, Interesting)

spitzak (4019) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435759)

It's impossible to be compatible with the BSD license and not be compatible with the GPL, because BSD is compatible with the GPL.

Unless you have some strange backwards definition of compatible, under which you would say "the GPL is compatible with the BSD license" because you can take BSD code and relicense it as GPL. However I think most people consider that statement false, while "the BSD is compatible with the GPL" is the true statement.

The fact is that BSD is compatible with the MS-PL and BSD is compatible with GPL. The BSD is compatible with a *lot* of licenses, including closed-source with a NDA.

I can't tell if you are being disingenous (5, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436819)

Either I'm missing your point, or you are only telling a partial truth.

because BSD is compatible with the GPL.

It is one-way compatible. Almost all open-source licenses are one-way compatible with GPL. BSD code goes in, nothing comes out. MS-PL code goes in, nothing comes out. GPL is the blackhole of open source licenses. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out. Why? The license prohibits it.

Re:Hardly open source (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435805)

Who said GPL? I specifically didn't say GPL.

There are a whole lot of other licenses the MS-PL doesn't play nice with. Meanwhile as I said, if this wasn't barely shoved into OSI, it would get even less of a glance than now.

Re:Hardly open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27436915)

deliberately incompatible? man, that is like the definition of microsoft!

Re:Hardly open source (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436959)

I really don't see why the parent was modded insightful. I realize that this is Slashdot, but shouldn't we at least RTFL (Read the Fraking License) before we say that it was somehow slipped in under the collective noses of the OSI? The text [opensource.org] of the license is actually quite simple (it is less than one page). It basically says that you are granted permission under Copyright to distribute the contributions of others (i.e. the Software) OR yours (or not) for any purpose whatsoever and that if you have patents covering your contribution you agree to license them too (at least insofar as they relate to the contribution) free or charge. The license is all or nothing (i.e. you agree completely or you cannot use the software and enjoy none of the benefits of the license) and includes a basic "as-is" disclaimer on suitability, merchantability, warranties, etc as permitted by law (i.e. use at your own risk). The difference between this license and other OSI licenses, such as GPL, appears to be in the "duty to make source code available" department; so theoretically one could take the source code, add to or modify it, and re-distribute the results without having any duty to make the original source directly available (although one would have to include the terms of the license, thereby signaling to anyone whose head does more than hold up their hat that the original source is available elsewhere). If you believe that a grant of freedom to use a contribution that is not also tied to a duty to redistribute the source of the original AND the modifications is a violation of free software (a position that even Richard Stallman compromised on with the LGPL) then OK, but IMHO I find the license to be straightforward, simple, and fair.

So the market Value of .Net code is $0? (0, Troll)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27434991)

Could have guessed that on my own.

Even if it's well written and modular, it's still .net.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0? (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435097)

Granted .Net combines the Speed of Java with the Platform Independence of just compiling a binary file.

However it is actually good for software development as it has already good libraries for a lot of useful functions that we do a lot of.

I have actually surprised some development teams how quickly I was able to write an interface for their systems in days vs. weeks that it took others in different languages.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0? (0)

jernejk (984031) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435783)

Yeah! The other day, I created a user interface to track someone's IP address in VB.Net. My team was sooo impressed!

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0? (0)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436411)

Amazing... you managed to get it EXACTLY backward. .NET compiles to native immediately before execution, so it actually runs as fast as any other binary that makes lots of calls to a binary runtime. It can actually apply processor-specific optimizations that may allow a .NET binary to run faster than a binary optimized for generic 386 (or other platform, see below). There's a very short delay as the Just-In-Time compiler converts the intermediate code to machine code, but after the first time this happens the result is cached on your system so it starts instantly.

The Microsoft .NET framework is available in one form or another on a handful of architectures, including Itanium and ARM (Windows Mobile). Counting XNA (which can be used for things other than games) you get XBox 360 as well. For everything else, there's Mono, which works on many different OSes and architectures, and implements .NET libraries and functions from published specifications (sometimes even with Microsoft's assistance).

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436557)

Amazing... you managed to get it EXACTLY backward. .NET compiles to native immediately before execution, so it actually runs as fast as any other binary that makes lots of calls to a binary runtime.

The JVM does the same thing, and has for some time (as in, before .NET existed), so "the speed of Java", from GP, is a perfect description of this, rather than being "EXACTLY backward".

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436877)

so "the speed of Java", from GP, is a perfect description of this

and I thought he was being ironic.

I suppose it *should* be really fast, but combine with all the exceptions in the framework object-oriented layers, the lax approach to memory management (which leads to hundreds of GCs per second), the 'lets be safe' approach to multithreading locks, etc... just be grateful that computers are so unbelieveably fast and memory so cheap nowadays, you'd never have run Java or .net on a computer just a few years ago unless it was an 'enterprise' app running on a cluster.

Now just think what you could do with something more efficient, even if it meant developers had to have more skill than they currently do.

Re:So the market Value of .Net code is $0? (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436591)

With SilverSprite [codeplex.com] you can get 2D XNA games running inside of Silverlight as well. :)

Obligatory quote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435027)

Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes

April fools (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435031)

April fools

MVC pattern for .NET web apps? Welcome to 2004!!! (0, Troll)

bADlOGIN (133391) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435033)

Glad to see Microshaft is on the cutting edge of software development practices as usual...

Re:MVC pattern for .NET web apps? Welcome to 2004! (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436247)

2004? Ever heard of smalltalk?

Show Off (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435037)

This is just a ploy to show off ASP.NET MVC services in a world where MVC is king. I mean c'mon! They are about 4 years too late on this one. No one cares about asp.net anymore and those that do have already built an MVC model in it so there is no need for this dribble let alone in an obscure license.

Major milestones (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435069)

The EULA in the installer seems incompatible with this milestone, however:

"2. Scope of License. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

  * work around any technical limitations in the software;

  * reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

  * publish the software for others to copy;

  * rent, lease or lend the software; or

  * __transfer the software or this agreement to any third party.__"

We rely on ASP.NET MVC for a couple of products that we sell to customers (for them to install locally, not in a SaaS-type environment). That EULA clause would appear to prevent us from re-distributing ASP.NET MVC in any form (even the pre-packaged installer).

=Smidge=

Re:Major milestones (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435421)

Plagiarizer... from http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2009/04/01/asp-net-mvc-1-0.aspx [asp.net] ...

# re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0
Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:34 AM by Alastair Smith

Scott, this is fantastic news! The EULA in the installer seems incompatible with this milestone, however:

"2. Scope of License. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

  * work around any technical limitations in the software;

  * reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

  * publish the software for others to copy;

  * rent, lease or lend the software; or

  * __transfer the software or this agreement to any third party.__"

We rely on ASP.NET MVC for a couple of products that we sell to customers (for them to install locally, not in a SaaS-type environment). That EULA clause would appear to prevent us from re-distributing ASP.NET MVC in any form (even the pre-packaged installer). Please could you clarify?

2nd time today I've nailed you, but this is getting old. Have you tried cordless bungee jumping? Blog about that, wouldja?

Re:Major milestones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435505)

I think smidge is "lyin' to get rich" with ripped-off karma...look at his "posts" they are all ripped off from amazon or googled or just fag troll postings...

Read it (4, Interesting)

Sp4c3 C4d3t (607082) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435071)

If you read it you'll find out that it's basically the BSD license. Why jump to conclusions just because it's Microsoft?

Re:Read it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435767)

ohhhhhh maybe because it's microsoft -__-

Read it PLEASE!!! (4, Insightful)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435987)

Thank god someone said it. Ya know, HALF of the posts on here so far are "I wont trust MS" or some other closed-mind bullshit from Linux fanbois who MUST have it compatible with the GPL otherwise they piss their pants.

If you take a step back and look at it, it is an amazing licence coming from Microsoft to use on something like this. The only issue the GPL has with it is its slight copyleft policies...go read the copyleft wiki to see if that's really a bad thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft [wikipedia.org]

Re:Read it PLEASE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27436059)

Why would you trust MS? No matter how well they may seem to be behaving now, past behavior matters. Perhaps we can coexist with Microsoft, but interbreeding with them can't benefit us, and so it should be avoided for caution's sake.

Re:Read it (1)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436049)

The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.

I know I'm just a paranoid geek, but does that seem like a potential exploit? The license can be changed retroactively.

Re:Read it (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436069)

Dude, this is Slashdot. People will cry 'Just like the BSD license? Yet ANOTHER thing M$ has stolen! Man, can't they even come up with their own LICENSE?'

Re:Read it (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436349)

Why jump to conclusions just because it's Microsoft?

You're new here, huh?

Nice Try Guys! (4, Funny)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435085)

April Fools was yesterday. You're a day late.

Little late for April fools Microsoft (0)

Vandilizer (201798) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435113)

ah... there sill trying to convince us it is an open license.

MS-PL (4, Informative)

scribblej (195445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435131)

I really don't /want/ to like the MS-PL or anything Microsoft, but I read it, and re-read it, and I can't see anything wrong with it. In fact, at the risk of being modded to oblivion, I gotta' say it's a far cry easier to understand than the GPL license, seems straightforward, and truly "open." It seems roughly as open as the BSD license. It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license. What am I missing? Is this a late April Fools' joke?

Re:MS-PL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435609)

If it's incompatible with the GPL then it can't be as open as the BSD license (the most "open" license being defined as one that's compatible with all others).

Re:MS-PL (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435625)

It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license.

I'm not sure, but wouldn't that be the part here:

If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

Anyway, I know it's paranoid of me, but I wouldn't trust Microsoft or their MS-PL any farther than I could throw them. Doesn't everyone remember the three Es?

I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't stoop to any level to destroy their competitors, and if this plague becomes common in the FOSS community I can only see it leading to trouble.

Re:MS-PL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435853)

What a bunch of rot. Either you can point to something specifically that makes this license a 'plague' and implies that MS can pull the rug out from under those who use it, or you can't.

Looks like you can't, but you're not going to let stubborn facts prevent you from trotting out the old warhorses anyways.

On the bright side, I'm glad I don't need to exist within the echo chamber that is your mind.

Re:MS-PL (1)

kozmico (765143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435655)

I agree. The wording and the length of the MS-POL license amaze me. My first thought was that it was the preface, but it was actually the whole license. The license looks like many other well accepted open source licenses.

Re:MS-PL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435707)

What you're missing is they are only open-sourcing ASP .Net _MVC_, you still need the ASP.NET 3.5 runtime to run the code, not just a .Net runtime like Mono as some people seem to think. Actually, if you look at the download link it's a 160kb compressed file, so that's not really a lot of source code. The source of MFC has always been included in VS6 , but nobody made a big deal about that (yeah, forced at work to use it).

Re:MS-PL (1)

EvilRyry (1025309) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435879)

Mono already has a good chunk of the ASP.NET 3.5 APIs. Enough to get most ASP.NET MVC applications up and running with this newly open source library.

Re:MS-PL (2, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436303)

ASP.NET MVC runs on Mono 2.4 out of the box.

Not only does it run, but you can now install a MonoDevelop plugin that will provide all the tooling to get the Linux developer experience to match the Visual Studio experience for MVC development.

It is quite sweet.

So? (3, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27437093)

I thought the point of open source was to make and share useful things. Things like development libraries, controls, frameworks, protocol stacks, and plenty of other useful widgets. Or is the goal really to just get free shit and I'm missing the point?

Re:MS-PL (3, Interesting)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435831)

I'm a self-proclaimed EULA/License Nazi, and I have to agree.

It did occur to me that Microsoft might actually have a toe in the pool of common sense...testing the waters, so to speak. Play fair and see what happens?

This is a good thing, no?

Re:MS-PL (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436593)

Ha, say what you like about Microsoft- they're survivors.

They've never had the best software, they've never had had the most corporate friends, the law isn't even on their side, but by god they know how to stay on top.

They've caught on that Free Software is kicking their rear all over the development and server-side scene. When in Rome?

Re:MS-PL (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436151)

It's the BSD license with one major change: it acknowledges software patents, and provides bi-directional protection from them. Specifically:
  * You receive a royalty-free patent license to use anything covered by the MS-PL.
  * If anybody sues you over a patent in software covered by the MS-PL, they lose the patent license mentioned above.
  * You must retain all patent notices (as well as copyright, attribution, and trademark notices) when you redistribute the software.
  * Patents apply to usage, as well as distribution. If you don't distribute, the distribution portion doesn't apply (the GPL is purely about distribution) but if you break the license terms, you lose the royalty-free patent license.

Acknowledging that software patents are unpopular around here, this seems a reasonably fair solution: you can patent stuff in your software, but
  * You can't demand royalties from people who comply with the license (users or other contributors).
  * If a third party sues you over a patent, they lose permission to use your patents in the software.

I've used it over BSD (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436863)

For the simple reason it is worded pretty much like the BSD license, only it doesn't demand you name the copyright holders. When I open source stuff and people contribute, there are multiple people who own copyright on all the bits of code. The BSD license (at least the template on Codeplex) really only lets you enter one copyright holder. MS-PL is worded so that you don't have to list every single contributor.

Re:MS-PL (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27437079)

It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license

In fact that is the only area where one might make a reasonable objection, the lack of duty to redistribute source code, but the GP doesn't even take that road and criticizes the entire license simply because it was written by Microsoft. Not every OSI license is like the GPL and requires redistribution of modification source code, that doesn't mean that the license is "out to get you" it just means that you are free to license your modifications how you please without additional duties or encumbrances. Now, some open source zealots don't agree with that (which is a legitimate position, albeit one that I do not share) but the "blame Microsoft, source of all evil" argument is getting really stale, even by Slashdot standards.

Yeah! I can quit using Rails now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435277)

Right... Does anyone care?

Free stuff on top of paid (1, Insightful)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435307)

Yawn...to keep it in context, they are releasing something very few people want and can only use on top of and in conjunction with a commercial product. I would be more interested if they open sourced solitaire, at least that could run on another OS. This still requires the dotnet framework. And yes I know it could work with Mono, but why?

Re:Free stuff on top of paid (4, Insightful)

wbren (682133) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435393)

I'm not generally a fan of Microsoft, but I am actually quite impressed with the ASP.NET MVC framework. I certainly wouldn't say "very few people want it".

Re:Free stuff on top of paid (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27437135)

I agree. If the Mono project folds that code into mod-mono for Apache then ASP.NET might finally begin to give Ruby on Rails and PHP a real run for their money. Perhaps that is what Microsoft intended all along. I have used the pre-releases of MVC in a few experimental for-fun projects and it is actually quite good albeit not completely original (borrowing heavily from mono-rail, Ruby on Rails, and other previous implementations of RESTful MVC web frameworks). The GP might want to give it a whirl before writing it off completely.

Re:Free stuff on top of paid (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27437011)

So what if it's a commercial product. The world is ran on commercial products. Not everything has to be developed by individuals, non-commercial organizations, or non-profit foundations. A good portion of Linux was developed, sponsored by, or somehow made possible (either directly or indirectly) by companies with commercial products. Just because it's commercial doesn't mean it can't be open sourced or made freely available. The .NET framework is freely (as in without additional cost) to Windows users which still has a fairly decent installation base in the modern world. There are also free products to develop in VB, C#, ASP.Net, etc.

But to answer your question as to why... Because they can. Because others may be able to take what they've done and make it better. Because they thought that others might find it useful. Because maybe they "saw the light" and realized that keeping it closed wasn't necessarily beneficial to their goals. Because they hope that opening may increase adoption or allow more compatibility with other systems. Because they didn't necessarily need a reason.

Miguel de Icaza seems to be happy about it [tirania.org] . You don't necessarily have to be happy about it, but at least it gives people choices and options which is never a bad thing.

What about patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435311)

Does Microsoft make an enduring promise to never enforce any patents against the use of this code
or the ideas in it?

Re:What about patents (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436221)

In short: yes. Read the license.

If you (as a user or contributor) don't violate the license, you have a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software"

OMG, it is a trap!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27435527)

JUMPPPPPPPPP!!!!

Aprils Fool Was Yesterday!!! (1, Insightful)

mcnazar (1231382) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435537)

One day too late as Aprils Fool Was Yesterday!!!!1111onewon

And In Todays Top Story (5, Funny)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435735)

Microsoft, realizing that they are losing their developers to other software platforms, attempts to close the crack in the dam by shoveling sand into it. We go live to Lance Thruster on the scene.

Yes, Jim, 5 years after the dam began to crack, someone at Microsoft realized that the whole construction could be swept downstream at any moment. That's when this repair crew...

panning shot of Microsoft Open Source Evangelists at work shovelling sand

...began their labors. Unfortunately, it seems that this effort may be too little too late...

shot of developers spilling out of the Microsoft dam and into the PHP, Perl, Python, Java and Ruby streams

...I do have an unconfirmed report that Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer himself is on the way to the dam break with several truck-loads of chairs he will use in an attempt to help.

For Action Eyewitness OnTheSpot First News, I'm Lance Thruster reporting from the Microsoft dam.

Uh, yeah.... (0, Flamebait)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436145)

hot of developers spilling out of the Microsoft dam and into the PHP, Perl, Python, Java and Ruby streams

I'd say you have a ways to go before you get any Windows developer to give up on Visual Studio + SQL Server stack + Windows Server stack.

You could get some to switch out SQL Server for Oracle or MySQL. Some bolder developers could see switching out IIS for Apache.... But, you are going to have to do an awful lot to get developers to give up Visual Studio for some other environment.

Unless your IDE is -better- than Visual Studio, nobody is going to switch. And the funny thing is, I think Visual Studio is a beatable target.

PS. Linux needs a real installer / uninstaller for applications too, and that really means you need to suck it up and implement some sort of a registry for all of your settings. Woops, did I say that?

Re:Uh, yeah.... (5, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436361)

I agree that Visual Studio is a very nice tool.

Luckily the code that you produce with Visual Studio will run on Mono (no recompilations necessary) including code that uses ASP.NET MVC. And with the new support for ASP.NET precompiled sites in Mono (available in Mono 2.4) you do not even need to copy the source code to your target server.

Click "Publish" in visual studio, enter the location for your shared directory, and you have a fully working ASP.NET MVC app running on Linux, without leaving Windows.

We are working on various integration points for Visual Studio that will give developers even more: debugging from Visual Studio remote applications deployed on Linux systems and producing packages ready-for-distribution on Linux.

Re:Uh, yeah.... (0, Troll)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436525)

If you manage to duplicate the functionality of VS in MonoDevelop/Linux, you'll have a huge hit on your hands. The *nix crowd is still living in the "if it was hard for me it should be for you too" hole and one of the areas where they've traditionally lagged has been IDEs and useful debuggers. Whatever else, they are a huge boon to productivity, especially for less experienced developers.

Maybe Emacs + bash is good enough for Joe Linux, but that doesn't mean it's good enough for everybody, even if it has proven to work just fine.

Most FOSS people are completely clueless about how software development happens in corporate environments. Sell them something that behaves like VS with some sort of commercial support behind it (open source or otherwise, that's mostly irrelevant) and you'll have your VB revolution on the Linux desktop.

Re:Uh, yeah.... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436767)

and you'll have your VB revolution on the Linux desktop.

I think back to all the corporate VB applications I've ever had the pleasure to use.... and can't think of any. Now shitty crappy useless poxy annoying pieces of ignorant-mumpty-who-thought-he-was-a-programmer-because-he-could-click-a-few-toolbars ones, there were loads of.

I agree consistency in development toolkits and so on is a good thing, and making it easier to develop GUIs is a good thing (eg use QTCreator), but the 'ease of use' of VB is not necessarily something to emulate, make it difficult enough that you need a little bit of skill and/or knowledge to make it work.

car analogy: You wouldn't want me fixing your car engine, not even with a Haynes manual and all the 'how-to' youtube vids I could surf. I wouldn't want my manager (or salesman) writing line-of-business applications. Not again, please.

Re:Uh, yeah.... (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436749)

Publishing straight to a Linux server from Visual Studio? That's a pretty sweet trick right there. Mono is an excellent project, but I've yet to find an IDE I prefer over Visual Studio (aside from out-of-the-box refactoring capabilities, which are pretty weak).

Re:Uh, yeah.... (1)

riegel (980896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436891)

...

Click "Publish" in visual studio, enter the location for your shared directory, and you have a fully working ASP.NET MVC app running on Linux, without leaving Windows.

What would be nice if I could do all of that without leaving OS X. :)

Re:Uh, yeah.... (1, Insightful)

greenbird (859670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436397)

PS. Linux needs a real installer / uninstaller for applications too, and that really means you need to suck it up and implement some sort of a registry for all of your settings. Woops, did I say that?

You just blew any credibility you may have had. The registry was the single worst feature ever implemented in a mainstream OS and has nothing to do with an installer. On top of that it's way easier to install most software under Linux. No CDs, no license keys. Just select the software you want and it's downloaded and installed automajically. Worst case you have to add a URL for a repository.

Re:Uh, yeah.... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436627)

no, the registry was an improvement over windows .ini files, however where there was once less than a dozen such files, the registry became a place to store fecking everything, to the point where it became a multi-megabyte monster.

That's the moral of this story, it doesn't matter what you use, or how lovely the tool you choose is - someone can turn it into the beast from the black arse of sysadmin hell if they're not careful.

I hear samba is going to use a registry like system for their Samba 4 development. I doubt that'll be anything near as bad as how the registry turned out.

Re:Uh, yeah.... (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436751)

License keys have nothing to do with the OS - applications could use them on Linux if they wished to. Windows applications can be installed from the web too. Of course, if you want the user to make some installation choices, it can't be done automatically no matter what OS you use.

installer/uninstaller - apt (1)

egork (449605) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436425)

apt/adept does the job for me. I even manage to do a full system upgrade with it. Why a binary registry would be needed?

Re:And In Todays Top Story (1)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436785)

Come on now, Ballmer's not going to use chairs to plug holes. He's going to use developers, developers, developers.

Wait, April Fool's Day was yesterday.... (0, Flamebait)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27435985)

Oh, wait, it must be for April's FOOLS, LOL! So, does it run Linux?

Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL? (2, Interesting)

jacksinn (1136829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436181)

I'm just slightly concerned that all the work that has been put into the GPL by FSF (of which I'm a member thus a bit biased) and others will be overshadowed - at least in the mainstream - by Microsoft's step into open source. I support organizations' forays into FOSS, but I'm concerned that Microsoft is trying to eventually be perceived as the leader of FOSS development. And maybe I'm paranoid.

Re:Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL? (2, Insightful)

Jaykul (597144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27436991)

A little paranoia is healthy. ;)

I think Microsoft is certainly going to use "Open Source" as a marketing and PR tool -- as does every other corporation which gets involved in Open Source.

Could they be perceived as the leader? I think they could actually become the leader, and not just in perception -- considering how much code they write, that's just a question of whether that's what they want to do or not. If they committed themselves to it, you couldn't stop them.

Would it be a bad thing if Microsoft (or another company) began to be perceived as a leader in open source development --if that perception was due to the huge volume of Open Source software they produced? I mean I hate to break it to you, but the FSF isn't exactly a leader in software development right now. What have you done for me lately?

It is a free market man (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27437021)

GPL isn't the final word on open source licenses. Quite frankly, I'm pleased to see more options and further, I'm glad people are taking the time to think before they just blindly stamp a GPL on their project. GPL is good for some projects, but it isn't good for all.

And maybe I'm paranoid.

You are. If Microsoft starts going open source, it means you've won.

It is the same with the environmental movement. The environmentalists won. Their cause grew from a fringe group of "tree huggers" to something that is pretty much a solid part of our culture and values. Now every company is trying to go green. Now maybe *how* a company goes green might not be exactly what the environmentalists would have liked, but the important bit is they *are* making an effort.

Just giving you something to ponder...

Free vs. Open (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27436501)

The Open Source Initiative defines "open source" here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd [opensource.org] . The Free Software Foundation defines "free" software here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [gnu.org] .

"Free" software does not give me the freedom that I most want -- to incorporate available technology into non-GPL applications. "Open source" software often does, depending on the details of the license.

I don't understand (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27437119)

Is this like open sourcing Rails but not Ruby, Django but not Python? Kind of like Struts before Sun open sourced Java?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?