By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,749 Members | 1,627 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,749 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

News: .NET framework source code available soon...

P: n/a
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.

I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...ng-the-source-
code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx
Any comments?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Oct 3 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
66 Replies


P: n/a
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.

[...]
Any comments?
You mean other than it seems that Microsoft is taking some of the best
ideas from the open-source movement?

First they release a free development environment that has very few
really important features missing, and now they are offering the actual
source code for .NET?

As if that weren't great enough, an even cooler part is that the source
will be copied on-demand according to the framework version you're
actually using.

The one major downside I see is the potential for finding .NET
applications where the author took the original .NET code and used that
to create their own custom version of some .NET class, negating one of
the primary benefits of using a framework: using the same well-tested,
broadly-deployed component that everyone else is using.

But I'm guessing that the people who are likely to do that would
probably find other ways to write bad code anyway. :)

I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if Microsoft
would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.

Pete
Oct 3 '07 #2

P: n/a
On Oct 3, 2:26 pm, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <sk...@pobox.comwrote:
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.

I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...ng-the-source-
code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx

Any comments?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk...@pobox.com>http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog:http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
That's great news... it looks like quite a bit of the framework source
is going to be released. Did you see any mention of parts that they
are *not* planning to release? Scott's article made it sound like
they would be releasing more and more over time.

Oct 3 '07 #3

P: n/a
Well, that (esp. comment) will make debugging easier... I've grown
weary of trying to infer intent of some obscure corner via reflector!

Intersting times ;-p

Marc

Oct 3 '07 #4

P: n/a
John Duval <Jo********@gmail.comwrote:

<snip>
That's great news... it looks like quite a bit of the framework source
is going to be released. Did you see any mention of parts that they
are *not* planning to release? Scott's article made it sound like
they would be releasing more and more over time.
I suspect it's mostly just a matter of time at the moment. I'm sure
there will be *some* bits they won't release but hopefully they'll be
few and far between.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Oct 3 '07 #5

P: n/a
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Any comments?
Wow! :-)

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Oct 3 '07 #6

P: n/a
Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be learning
that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his Reflector if we can
now get right into the BCL source itself.

Thoughts ?


"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MP*********************@msnews.microsoft.com. ..
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.

I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...ng-the-source-
code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx
Any comments?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Oct 3 '07 #7

P: n/a
Jordan S. <A@B.comwrote:
Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be learning
that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his Reflector if we can
now get right into the BCL source itself.

Thoughts ?
Well, there are some other reasons to use Reflector. It does some funky
analysis of use (which I suspect won't be available in VS2008) and I
find it handy for analyzing the IL my own assemblies - a nicer
interface than ildasm, basically.

However, it'll certainly get a lot *less* use now...

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Oct 3 '07 #8

P: n/a
Well, there are some other reasons to use Reflector.

Agreed; it will still be to first tool I turn to when I need to use
Reflection.Emit (which is thankfully rare) - i.e. write something
indicative in C#, and investigate the IL via Reflector. Simply, it is
just a lot friendlier than ILDASM ;-p

Plus of course trying to figure out why some non-MS 3rd-party code
isn't working as expected...

Marc

Oct 3 '07 #9

P: n/a
I hope Microsoft doesn't bundle the licence agreement for access to the
source code with the licence agreement for any other products like Visual
Studio 2008 or others. If they do, they can sue customers who have viewed the
source code for having done so and taken ideas from it. I wouldn't want to
view the source code for such a price. And for that reason, I wouldn't want
to be in a situation where if I had agreed to the licence agreement for, say,
VS2008, I would, by default, be also agreeing to the licence agreement for
the source code.

I think I see a future where I'll be doing all my .NET development with
Visual Studio 2005 and .NET Framework 2.0 if Microsoft should follow such a
path.

I actually loved .NET. Java is so slow doing everything. I haven't bothered
to learn Ruby or Python. I can't stand Linux for being so programmer
unfriendly. And I had left C++ behind for a long time.

I thought Microsoft was a company for software developers. I have been using
their technologies for over 13 years. Now, I think my programming days are
almost over. Unless I learn Ruby or Python, which are not that mainstream.
Nevertheless, I hope I can implement my ideas using them since I love coding
and it's all I want to do.

JJ

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.

[...]
Any comments?

You mean other than it seems that Microsoft is taking some of the best
ideas from the open-source movement?

First they release a free development environment that has very few
really important features missing, and now they are offering the actual
source code for .NET?

As if that weren't great enough, an even cooler part is that the source
will be copied on-demand according to the framework version you're
actually using.

The one major downside I see is the potential for finding .NET
applications where the author took the original .NET code and used that
to create their own custom version of some .NET class, negating one of
the primary benefits of using a framework: using the same well-tested,
broadly-deployed component that everyone else is using.

But I'm guessing that the people who are likely to do that would
probably find other ways to write bad code anyway. :)

I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if Microsoft
would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #10

P: n/a
JJ wrote:
When you use or develop for Linux, most things have to done using command
line tools, which I avoid if I can.
I agree completely. However, I'm using F#, LINQ and the C FFI and these
contain several tools that only work from the command line. Moreover, DOS
sucks compared to bash. :-)
And is this the only point you thought you could comment on from my
posting?
You make your position sound bad but mine is arguably worse. Some of our
products will only work if we break their license agreement. That's hardly
going to endear me to the platform...

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Oct 4 '07 #11

P: n/a
Peter Duniho <Np*********@NnOwSlPiAnMk.comwrites:

[...]
The one major downside I see is the potential for finding .NET
applications where the author took the original .NET code and used
that to create their own custom version of some .NET class, negating
one of the primary benefits of using a framework: using the same
well-tested, broadly-deployed component that everyone else is using.
It looks like the license won't allow this (although that's not to say
it won't happen).

[...]
I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if
Microsoft would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.
It looks like the license doesn't allow this, either.

It's a "view only" license, at least according to the information
here:

http://www.whurley.com/blog/2007/10/...t-microso.html

----Scott.
Oct 4 '07 #12

P: n/a
JJ <JJ@discussions.microsoft.comwrites:
I hope Microsoft doesn't bundle the licence agreement for access to
the source code with the licence agreement for any other products
like Visual Studio 2008 or others. If they do, they can sue
customers who have viewed the source code for having done so and
taken ideas from it.
According to the information here:

http://www.whurley.com/blog/2007/10/...t-microso.html

there will be a separate, explicit license agreement step to access
the .NET source code, so you shouldn't have to worry about that.

[...]
I can't stand Linux for being so programmer unfriendly.
As far as GUIs go, Eclipse is getting better, but a long time ago I
learned to stop worrying and love the command-line. :-)

----Scott.
Oct 4 '07 #13

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if Microsoft
would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.
The current consensus is, that if you look at this code provided by MS, you
will no longer be able to contribute to Mono.

The problem is, that by looking at the code (and that is all you can,
really), you place yourself at risk for legal actions from MS against you,
if you happen to produce code that "looks" like their code.

This is a real risk, and should not be ignored. Please note, that MS license
does _not_ allow you to use their code, but actually place you in risk of
legal actions.

This probably wont be a problem to most, but as I have contributed 5-6 minor
patches to Mono and my company are producing more and more open source
software, I probably will not look at the MS code at all. Would be stupid
of me, really.

Regards,

Mads

--
Med venlig hilsen/Regards

Systemudvikler/Systemsdeveloper cand.scient.dat, Ph.d., Mads Bondo
Dydensborg
Dansk BiblioteksCenter A/S, Tempovej 7-11, 2750 Ballerup, Tlf. +45 44 86 77
34
Oct 4 '07 #14

P: n/a
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
>I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if Microsoft
would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.

The current consensus is, that if you look at this code provided by MS, you
will no longer be able to contribute to Mono.
But what does Microsoft say? A lot of people, especially those who are
more inclined to work with open-source and especially with Linux, have a
tendency to view Microsoft as a monolithic, power-hungry, lawyer-driven
company. And as with all great myths, there's probably at least some
grains of truth behind that view.

But without any evidence that suggests Microsoft's own position is that
looking at .NET code causes a person to be legally unqualified to work
on Mono, it's just rumor-mongering and not necessarily by people who
normally view Microsoft in a positive light anyway.

(Note: at this point it's been well-explained that the Microsoft license
would not permit the legal use of their source code as a foundation for
Mono or similar projects. So at this point, my original question has
been answered and I believe I understand that answer. I'm just
following the subsequent questions that now apply in that context).

So, no...you can't just port the .NET source code over to other
platforms. But where's the basis for the claim that you can't work on
Mono and also step through .NET code when you're debugging something else?
The problem is, that by looking at the code (and that is all you can,
really), you place yourself at risk for legal actions from MS against you,
if you happen to produce code that "looks" like their code.
You are already at risk for legal action, if you happen to produce code
that "looks" like their code. Especially if you work on Mono. Even
without source code, it is not difficult to reproduce in separate source
code the same algorithms used in a given piece of software, if that's
your intent and you use the compiled software you're trying to emulate a
as a reference.

Working on Mono, you are intentionally trying to reproduce the behavior
of the .NET Framework, and even without inspecting the compiled .NET
Framework code it would not be surprising if you should happen to on
occasion implement things in the same way they are implemented in .NET.
But how are you to prove to Microsoft in those cases that you didn't
actually use their compiled code as a reference?

They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
action on the basis of a copyright violation.

It seems to me that what puts you at risk for legal action (such as that
risk may be) is the fact that you work on Mono. This is true even
without the .NET source code.

Microsoft didn't need access to the Stacker source code for them to be
sued over DoubleSpace. All they needed was an implementation that
looked sufficiently like Stacker's implementation.
This is a real risk, and should not be ignored. Please note, that MS license
does _not_ allow you to use their code, but actually place you in risk of
legal actions.
Well, that's true of any published source code that carries an attached
license. Even regular "open source" stuff generally includes various
license requirements that can form the basis of a lawsuit of someone
believes you misused the source code.

So, for example, either you cannot look at any source code covered by
the GPL, or you must provide all of the disclosures and other
requirements made by the GPL, even if you did in fact not actually
intentionally reuse the source code you looked at. If you want to
follow the legal liability philosophy you're stating, that is.

Granted, in your specific case dealing with an open-source project your
own work may naturally already comply with the GPL, even if you don't
have a need to. But the more general "problem" still exists; it's
certainly not unique to Microsoft's publication of source code here.

As far as the question of actually being sued goes...

Not having any legal expertise, I wouldn't even try to make a claim as
to the reality of the situation. However, I suspect that fears of legal
action are highly over-inflated for a given individual, assuming no
actual misuse of the code happened (that is, assuming you didn't
actually copy the code or some non-obvious technique, that sort of thing).

Granted, there's a lot of gray area, but I think an individual worried
about being sued by Microsoft has, in most cases, a perception of their
value to Microsoft that is probably too high. :)
This probably wont be a problem to most, but as I have contributed 5-6 minor
patches to Mono and my company are producing more and more open source
software, I probably will not look at the MS code at all. Would be stupid
of me, really.
I think your concerns are overblown. But I'm not qualified to give
legal advice, so I won't try to argue the point. :) If you feel that
working on Mono and also in other situations using the .NET source code
are mutually exclusive, it's certainly true that that's the safest bet
if your highest priority is to avoid legal trouble at all costs.

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #15

P: n/a
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:32:36 -0700, Peter Duniho
<Np*********@NnOwSlPiAnMk.comwrote:
>You are already at risk for legal action, if you happen to produce code
that "looks" like their code.
No, you are not.
>They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
action on the basis of a copyright violation.
Copyright does not cover duplication of function or even accidental
recreation of the same exact program text, only intentional copying.
Hence "copy"right.

What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
functionality, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
the patented functionality is patentable at all.
>Microsoft didn't need access to the Stacker source code for them to be
sued over DoubleSpace. All they needed was an implementation that
looked sufficiently like Stacker's implementation.
No, what they needed was an implementation that duplicated Stacker's
_patented_ functionality. See here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219300.700.html
>Well, that's true of any published source code that carries an attached
license. Even regular "open source" stuff generally includes various
license requirements that can form the basis of a lawsuit of someone
believes you misused the source code.
Unlike patents, however, such licenses only apply to people who
actually acquired & used the software, and agreed to the license.

Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.
>So, for example, either you cannot look at any source code covered by
the GPL, or you must provide all of the disclosures and other
requirements made by the GPL, even if you did in fact not actually
intentionally reuse the source code you looked at. If you want to
follow the legal liability philosophy you're stating, that is.
That is correct. If you merely create _similar_ source code with an
identical purpose you're fine, though. The license only covers the
actual source code, not the function expressed by it. That's the
realm of patents.
>Not having any legal expertise, I wouldn't even try to make a claim as
to the reality of the situation. However, I suspect that fears of legal
action are highly over-inflated for a given individual, assuming no
actual misuse of the code happened (that is, assuming you didn't
actually copy the code or some non-obvious technique, that sort of thing).
For independent individuals that is probably correct. However, Mono
is a fairly high-profile project that needs a public website for
coordination. Microsoft would damn well shut it down if they thought
they're copying the .NET source code wholesale. Why else bother
having any read-only clause in the license in the first place?
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Oct 4 '07 #16

P: n/a
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:26:35 +0100, Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
<sk***@pobox.comwrote:
>Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.
That's pretty cool, especially that we can debug into the source code
right from within Visual Studio. I guess that means Microsoft finally
gave up the fight against Reflector. :)
>I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...ng-the-source-
code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx
Please turn off word wrap for URLs if possible. Viral marketing tip:
Forte Agent never wraps URLs! Here's the clickable URL:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...libraries.aspx
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Oct 4 '07 #17

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but
just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

[...]
Any comments?

You mean other than it seems that Microsoft is taking some of the
best ideas from the open-source movement?

First they release a free development environment that has very few
really important features missing, and now they are offering the
actual source code for .NET?

As if that weren't great enough, an even cooler part is that the
source will be copied on-demand according to the framework version
you're actually using.

The one major downside I see is the potential for finding .NET
applications where the author took the original .NET code and used
that to create their own custom version of some .NET class, negating
one of the primary benefits of using a framework: using the same
well-tested, broadly-deployed component that everyone else is using.

But I'm guessing that the people who are likely to do that would
probably find other ways to write bad code anyway. :)
You can't touch the code, that's not allowed by the 'Reference
license' this code is released under. So it's pretty much 'look, and
forget what you saw'-code.
I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if
Microsoft would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.
MS doesn't even allow you to fix bugs in the framework as you aren't
allowed to rebuild it.

Mono requires that developers who submit patches / changes have never
looked at MS sourcecode. So if you have looked at rotor, you aren't
allowed to submit patches, precisely because it would make Mono
vulnerable for lawsuits.

Now, why would they do that and why should that be different for a
..NET developer writing code for a project? Isn't that the same thing?
Please realize that.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 4 '07 #18

P: n/a
Jordan S. wrote:
Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.

Thoughts ?
If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use reflector.
Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

FB
>
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MP*********************@msnews.microsoft.com. ..
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but
just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...asing-the-sour
ce- code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx
Any comments?

-- Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 4 '07 #19

P: n/a
Chris Nahr wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:26:35 +0100, Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
<sk***@pobox.comwrote:
Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

That's pretty cool, especially that we can debug into the source code
right from within Visual Studio. I guess that means Microsoft finally
gave up the fight against Reflector. :)
Doesn't Roeder work for MS nowadays? :)

FB
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 4 '07 #20

P: n/a
On Oct 4, 11:26 am, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
<perseus.usenetNOS...@xs4all.nlwrote:
Jordan S. wrote:
Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.
Thoughts ?

If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use reflector.
Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.
I'm not sure that it does - I'd be very surprised if the licence
for .NET didn't prohibit reverse engineering. I know reverse
engineering is legal (despite the licence) in some countries for the
purpose of compatibility testing, but I don't think it would help you
if you were accused of copying the code itself.

Jon

Oct 4 '07 #21

P: n/a
"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe******************@xs4all.nlwrote in message
news:xn***************@news.microsoft.com...
Chris Nahr wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:26:35 +0100, Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
<sk***@pobox.comwrote:
Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

That's pretty cool, especially that we can debug into the source code
right from within Visual Studio. I guess that means Microsoft finally
gave up the fight against Reflector. :)

Doesn't Roeder work for MS nowadays? :)
Sure he does, coming from MS Research and since 2002 on the Blend team.

Willy.

Oct 4 '07 #22

P: n/a
JJ wrote:
I hope Microsoft doesn't bundle the licence agreement for access to the
source code with the licence agreement for any other products like Visual
Studio 2008 or others. If they do, they can sue customers who have viewed the
source code for having done so and taken ideas from it. I wouldn't want to
view the source code for such a price. And for that reason, I wouldn't want
to be in a situation where if I had agreed to the licence agreement for, say,
VS2008, I would, by default, be also agreeing to the licence agreement for
the source code.
From what I've seen posted here/read it sounds as though it will be
entirely separate.
I actually loved .NET. Java is so slow doing everything. I haven't bothered
to learn Ruby or Python. I can't stand Linux for being so programmer
unfriendly. And I had left C++ behind for a long time.
I really don't find Java slow for anything but GUI stuff. I've written a
lot of web services and server-type applications in Java though. It also
rocks on cell phones. :)

As for Linux being "programmer unfriendly" I have to completely
disagree. Your later comment that most stuff has to be done on the
command-line is also really wrong, at least in the more recent versions
of distributions I've used (Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and OpenSuSE). I don't
want to start a holy war at all, but I would just say my experiences of
doing daily development on both platforms, Linux made my life as a
developer far and away easier than Windows did.
Obviously I'm not complaining about Windows dev, I live with it every
day at home and at work. :P

Chris.
Oct 4 '07 #23

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>>I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if Microsoft
would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.

The current consensus is, that if you look at this code provided by
MS, you
will no longer be able to contribute to Mono.

But what does Microsoft say? A lot of people, especially those who are
more inclined to work with open-source and especially with Linux, have a
tendency to view Microsoft as a monolithic, power-hungry, lawyer-driven
company. And as with all great myths, there's probably at least some
grains of truth behind that view.

But without any evidence that suggests Microsoft's own position is that
looking at .NET code causes a person to be legally unqualified to work
on Mono, it's just rumor-mongering and not necessarily by people who
normally view Microsoft in a positive light anyway.
Unless MS put it in writing in a legal binding form, then Mono and
other projects would still be worried.

I can be solved.

Before Java went GPL there was a Java Research License which
allows it.

http://java.net/jrl.csp

Quote:

***
B. Residual Rights. If You examine the Technology after accepting
this License and remember anything about it later, You are not
"tainted" in a way that would prevent You from creating or
contributing to an independent implementation, but this License grants
You no rights to Sun's copyrights or patents for use in such an
implementation.
***

And FAQ answer from same link:

***
18. Does the JRL prevent me from being able to create an independent
open source implementation of the licensed technology?

The JRL is not a tainting license and includes an express Òresidual
knowledgeÓ clause which says you're not contaminated by things you
happen to remember after examining the licensed technology. The JRL
allows you to use the source code for the purpose of JRL-related
activities but does not prohibit you from working on an independent
implementation of the technology afterwards. Obviously, if your
intention is to create an ÒindependentÓ implementation of the technology
then it is inappropriate to actively study JRL source while working on
such an implementation. It is appropriate, however, to allow some decent
interval of time (e.g. two weeks) to elapse between working on a project
that involves looking at some JRL source code and working on a project
that involves creating an independent implementation of the same technology.
***

MS could do something similar.

Arne
Oct 4 '07 #24

P: n/a
Chris Nahr wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:32:36 -0700, Peter Duniho
<Np*********@NnOwSlPiAnMk.comwrote:
>You are already at risk for legal action, if you happen to produce code
that "looks" like their code.

No, you are not.
>They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
action on the basis of a copyright violation.

Copyright does not cover duplication of function or even accidental
recreation of the same exact program text, only intentional copying.
Hence "copy"right.

What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
functionality, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
the patented functionality is patentable at all.
No. I think they are thinking of license violation.
>Well, that's true of any published source code that carries an attached
license. Even regular "open source" stuff generally includes various
license requirements that can form the basis of a lawsuit of someone
believes you misused the source code.

Unlike patents, however, such licenses only apply to people who
actually acquired & used the software, and agreed to the license.

Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.
I don't think I would like to base an important product on that
assumption.

Considering that MS and SUN seems to have a different opinion.

Arne
Oct 4 '07 #25

P: n/a
On Oct 3, 1:26 pm, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <sk...@pobox.comwrote:
I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.

I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...ng-the-source-
code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx

Any comments?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk...@pobox.com>http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog:http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
That's pretty cool. Just the other day I was trying to figure out the
runtime complexity on one of the methods in the BCL using Reflector.
The code it generates, although good, is still hard to follow so
having the actual code will be helpful.

Oct 4 '07 #26

P: n/a
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:28:05 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
functionality, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
the patented functionality is patentable at all.

No. I think they are thinking of license violation.
Who is "they"? If you're talking about me, I can assure you that
judges do have to decide whether a patent is valid. The US patent
office merrily hands out patents for just about anything these days,
which is why patents need to be tested in court.
>Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.

I don't think I would like to base an important product on that
assumption.

Considering that MS and SUN seems to have a different opinion.
What are you talking about? And would you base your products
exclusively on Microsoft's and Sun's "opinions" even if they are in
conflict with the law? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Oct 4 '07 #27

P: n/a

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:11**********************@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
On Oct 4, 11:26 am, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
<perseus.usenetNOS...@xs4all.nlwrote:
>Jordan S. wrote:
Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.
Thoughts ?

If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use
reflector.
Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

I'm not sure that it does - I'd be very surprised if the licence
for .NET didn't prohibit reverse engineering. I know reverse
engineering is legal (despite the licence) in some countries for the
purpose of compatibility testing, but I don't think it would help you
if you were accused of copying the code itself.

Jon
Well, then this might surprise you. I just installed dotnetfx.exe from the
msdn site, and the only EULA that I must agree does not even mention reverse
engineering. As an end-user, I have accepted only this EULA, and if I
happend to have Reflector on my machine, it's just casual. :-)

The EULA is also here,
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms994405.aspx

Oct 4 '07 #28

P: n/a
"Laura T." <LT*****@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:ur*************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:11**********************@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>On Oct 4, 11:26 am, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
<perseus.usenetNOS...@xs4all.nlwrote:
>>Jordan S. wrote:
Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.

Thoughts ?

If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use
reflector.
Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

I'm not sure that it does - I'd be very surprised if the licence
for .NET didn't prohibit reverse engineering. I know reverse
engineering is legal (despite the licence) in some countries for the
purpose of compatibility testing, but I don't think it would help you
if you were accused of copying the code itself.

Jon

Well, then this might surprise you. I just installed dotnetfx.exe from the
msdn site, and the only EULA that I must agree does not even mention
reverse engineering. As an end-user, I have accepted only this EULA, and
if I happend to have Reflector on my machine, it's just casual. :-)

The EULA is also here,
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms994405.aspx

Note that this is a supplemental EULA , maybe you should read your OS
product EULA first ;-)

Willy.

Oct 4 '07 #29

P: n/a
Frans,

AFAIK do the laws of the EU not allow explicitily forbidding of reverse
enginering.

However it is not so difficult to do that implecitely.

Cor

Oct 4 '07 #30

P: n/a
Chris Nahr wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:32:36 -0700, Peter Duniho
<Np*********@NnOwSlPiAnMk.comwrote:
>You are already at risk for legal action, if you happen to produce code
that "looks" like their code.

No, you are not.
Please read the post to which I replied, as well as the last part of my
own post. In the statement you quoted out of context, I am taking as
granted the previous poster's assumption that merely producing similar
code is sufficient grounds for copyright violation.

It is in fact my assertion that concerns of legal action are overblown.
But inasmuch as they may exist at all, the mere act of having seen
someone else's source code is practically irrelevant issue.
>They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
action on the basis of a copyright violation.

Copyright does not cover duplication of function or even accidental
recreation of the same exact program text, only intentional copying.
Hence "copy"right.
I understand that. Please read my whole post.
What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
functionality, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
the patented functionality is patentable at all.
That's not what I'm thinking of at all.
>Microsoft didn't need access to the Stacker source code for them to be
sued over DoubleSpace. All they needed was an implementation that
looked sufficiently like Stacker's implementation.

No, what they needed was an implementation that duplicated Stacker's
_patented_ functionality. See here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219300.700.html
You are correct that I misremembered that as a copyright case. My
recollection was that Stacker accused Microsoft of actually copying
their implementation. If that recollection is mistaken, fine...it was
just an example anyway, and doesn't change the intent of what I wrote
(though it may have led to your own confusion about what I meant...sorry
if I wasn't clear enough for you).
>Well, that's true of any published source code that carries an attached
license. Even regular "open source" stuff generally includes various
license requirements that can form the basis of a lawsuit of someone
believes you misused the source code.

Unlike patents, however, such licenses only apply to people who
actually acquired & used the software, and agreed to the license.
So? In both scenarios I'm describing, that would be the case. Noting
that all of these licenses include some verbiage that basically says "if
you use our code, you've agreed to the license". It remains to be seen
just how well this sort of "unsigned, imbalanced" contract negotiation
holds up in court; oddly enough, there really hasn't been any strong
test of it, as piracy and other issues have been decided on more basis
legalities.
Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.
I'm not talking about duplicating functionality.
That is correct. If you merely create _similar_ source code with an
identical purpose you're fine, though.
Not according to Mads, and that's the point I'm disputing.
[...]
For independent individuals that is probably correct. However, Mono
is a fairly high-profile project that needs a public website for
coordination. Microsoft would damn well shut it down if they thought
they're copying the .NET source code wholesale. Why else bother
having any read-only clause in the license in the first place?
I really, _really_ wish you had bothered to actually read my post
completely before you replied. If nothing else, I made it VERY clear at
the very beginning of my post that it is clear that Mono does not have
the option of copying the .NET source code wholesale.

The question is whether someone working on Mono must now avoid even
using the .NET source code for other activities, simply because they are
working on Mono.

It's my opinion that they don't, and I believe I made that clear in my
post. I'm sorry you didn't figure that out from what I wrote, and I
apologize for any misunderstanding. But your entire reply has made some
pretty broad and incorrect assumptions about what I was writing about.

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #31

P: n/a
Frans Bouma [C# MVP] wrote:
[...]
Mono requires that developers who submit patches / changes have never
looked at MS sourcecode. So if you have looked at rotor, you aren't
allowed to submit patches,
That may be a matter of policy on Mono's part. But that's a lot
different from saying that it's Microsoft's policy or legal assertion.
precisely because it would make Mono vulnerable for lawsuits.
Define "vulnerable". Practically anyone can be sued for practically
anything, at least here in the US where these licenses are likely to be
enforced. Nothing Mono does makes it invulnerable from that.

On the other hand, for a _successful_ lawsuit to occur, very specific
violations must takes place. It's not sufficient for Microsoft to say
"hey, you looked at our source code and now you wrote something for
Mono" to win a lawsuit. They have to prove actual infringement. As
long as the Mono project doesn't actually include .NET source code or
implementations, they are already not vulnerable in that sense, whether
or not someone working on Mono has also used the .NET source code in
some other context.

I certainly see how the Mono group would feel that having such a policy
might help protect them against legal action by Microsoft. However,
I've seen no indication that they were a likely target by Microsoft
anyway, and there's certainly no justification for claiming that they
are under any legal _requirement_ to avoid looking at .NET source code.

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #32

P: n/a
Frans Bouma [C# MVP] wrote:
What's the relevance of what MS says, other than what's in their
reference license? That license has all what MS has to say about it.
So, where in the license then does it say "if you have used the .NET
source code in any way, you may not work on Mono"?
If
you don't agree with it, don't accept it and don't look at the code.
However if you DO accept it and DO look at the code, you're doomed to
do things on projects you might have been a great help for.
Why? What in the license says that you're "doomed"?
I once
looked at the rotor code (very first beta version), actually only the
compiler. However by doing that, I accepted the license it came with
and I can't work on mono stuff now.
Why? What was in the Rotor code's license under which you viewed the
code that specifically precludes you from working on Mono?
>But without any evidence that suggests Microsoft's own position is
that looking at .NET code causes a person to be legally unqualified
to work on Mono, it's just rumor-mongering and not necessarily by
people who normally view Microsoft in a positive light anyway.

It's precaution: if you haven't looked at the code, you can't literaly
copy/paste the code: you HAVE TO write it yourself.
I understand the precaution. But that's VERY different from saying you
are prohibited from performing the work otherwise.
Changes are that
the code will likely look different from what MS wrote as you have to
solve problems yourself. It's not about 'MS is evil', it's about
protecting the Mono code from lawsuits which they could have prevented.
Sure, it is about "MS is evil". It's only because of this fear of
Microsoft that the Mono project is taking such a defensive stance. If
they made the assumption that Microsoft is benevolent and would only
take legal where there's a valid legal case, then they would have no
problem with Mono developers using the .NET source code in situations
unrelated to Mono.
[...]
because you've access to code which you could copy/paste or learn how
it works inside and reproduce it for mono, which would make Mono look
like it has copy/pasted MS code and thus that it's open for a lawsuit.
But that concern only applies to someone who is specifically using the
..NET source code as a reference for Mono (whether copying directly or
using it as a guide). That in no way eliminates the possibility to use
the .NET source code in other contexts.
[...]
>Working on Mono, you are intentionally trying to reproduce the
behavior of the .NET Framework, and even without inspecting the
compiled .NET Framework code it would not be surprising if you should
happen to on occasion implement things in the same way they are
implemented in .NET. But how are you to prove to Microsoft in those
cases that you didn't actually use their compiled code as a reference?

it's THEIR job to proof you DID copy it.
True. But the question of whether a license was accepted has nothing to
do with that.
If you have never accepted
the license of this sourcecode, you have never been able to look at it.
That's a false conclusion. Accepting the license has nothing to do with
whether a person has seen the .NET source code. I can accept the
license and never look at the source code, and I can look at the source
code without ever accepting the license. The two are completely unrelated.
[...]
>They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
action on the basis of a copyright violation.

the sco case proofs that they have to. It would also be silly to claim
copyright infrigment without proof that someone indeed copied your
work, aint it? ;)
No, it wouldn't be silly at all. It's easy enough to duplicate the code
from a compiled implementation. You don't need the source code to
violate the copyright rules.
[...]
Anyone may sue you one day, it depends if they have a case or not.
What you and I can do is protect ourselves from losing these lawsuits.
There's no protection possible against a lawsuit being filed against
you, though you can protect yourself (at least try) against losing
these because the other has a strong case against you.
No doubt. I have said as much. But that's not the issue here. The
question is whether the Mono group has a legal _requirement_ to protect
themselves in this way, and my assertion is that they do not.

They may feel it makes sense to play it safe in this way, but that's not
the same as Microsoft imposing this requirement on them.
That's also why the license this code comes with is evil and everyone
looking at sourcecode on the internet should REALIZE that you only
should do so if you understand the license the code is distributed
under.
Again, the license is irrelevant to the copyright issues, and calling
the license "evil" is just the usual Microsoft demonizing that takes
place in the open-source community.
[...]
>Well, that's true of any published source code that carries an
attached license. Even regular "open source" stuff generally
includes various license requirements that can form the basis of a
lawsuit of someone believes you misused the source code.
[...]

Only if you copy the code. The GPL doesn't grant patents to be upheld
by the copyright holder if I'm not mistaken.
But copying the code is the issue here. That's what I'm talking about.
There are some obvious differences between the .NET situation and a
GPL'ed piece of code, but the basic question of adhering to the license
still exists, and the GPL has some of the same features the .NET license
does, particularly in the realm of reusing the code that is central to
this thread.
[...]
Also, if MS does something bad to YOU, you can't win a lawsuit against
them if they have a strong case against you in another area.
That's an absurd statement. The courts do not decide separate issues
together. If you have a case against Microsoft with respect to one
thing, it doesn't matter what other case they may have against you in
some unrelated area.

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #33

P: n/a
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
[...]
Lawyers takes these issues seriously, you know.
Of course they do. They wouldn't have jobs unless they did, and the
more they promote the idea of suing other people the more money they
make (usually whether or not they win).

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #34

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
>[...]
Lawyers takes these issues seriously, you know.

Of course they do. They wouldn't have jobs unless they did, and the
more they promote the idea of suing other people the more money they
make (usually whether or not they win).
Thats not the point. The point is, for my company, that the companies we
work with expect us to honor these things. Not doing so would seriously
taint our reputation and relations to these other companies.

And, the other companies has a lot of laywers...

Regards,

Mads

--
Med venlig hilsen/Regards

Systemudvikler/Systemsdeveloper cand.scient.dat, Ph.d., Mads Bondo
Dydensborg
Dansk BiblioteksCenter A/S, Tempovej 7-11, 2750 Ballerup, Tlf. +45 44 86 77
34
Oct 4 '07 #35

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
Frans Bouma [C# MVP] wrote:
>[...]
Mono requires that developers who submit patches / changes have never
looked at MS sourcecode. So if you have looked at rotor, you aren't
allowed to submit patches,

That may be a matter of policy on Mono's part. But that's a lot
different from saying that it's Microsoft's policy or legal assertion.
We never said that. You assumed that from what was said. Actually I tried
correcting your initial view asap.
>precisely because it would make Mono vulnerable for lawsuits.

Define "vulnerable". Practically anyone can be sued for practically
anything, at least here in the US where these licenses are likely to be
enforced. Nothing Mono does makes it invulnerable from that.
Cue the SCO case.

There is a reason the open source community fears FUD.

Regards,

Mads

--
Med venlig hilsen/Regards

Systemudvikler/Systemsdeveloper cand.scient.dat, Ph.d., Mads Bondo
Dydensborg
Dansk BiblioteksCenter A/S, Tempovej 7-11, 2750 Ballerup, Tlf. +45 44 86 77
34
Oct 4 '07 #36

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
>That is correct. If you merely create _similar_ source code with an
identical purpose you're fine, though.

Not according to Mads, and that's the point I'm disputing.
I do not recall writing anything about that, really.

I was stating the Mono policy on this.

I believe that the Mono folks have good reason for beeing careful about
this. You do not. I do not think we can resolve this issue, without using
lots and lots of time, that is better spent elsewhere.

Regards,

Mads

--
Med venlig hilsen/Regards

Systemudvikler/Systemsdeveloper cand.scient.dat, Ph.d., Mads Bondo
Dydensborg
Dansk BiblioteksCenter A/S, Tempovej 7-11, 2750 Ballerup, Tlf. +45 44 86 77
34
Oct 4 '07 #37

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
But what does Microsoft say? A lot of people, especially those who are
more inclined to work with open-source and especially with Linux, have a
tendency to view Microsoft as a monolithic, power-hungry, lawyer-driven
company. And as with all great myths, there's probably at least some
grains of truth behind that view.

But without any evidence that suggests Microsoft's own position is that
looking at .NET code causes a person to be legally unqualified to work
on Mono, it's just rumor-mongering and not necessarily by people who
normally view Microsoft in a positive light anyway.
So, no...you can't just port the .NET source code over to other
platforms. But where's the basis for the claim that you can't work on
Mono and also step through .NET code when you're debugging something else?
MS could have used a license that explicit allowed for people to view
source and still work on alternative implementations.

They did not. And I am confident that MS very carefully considered
what license to use.

I really can't see any reason why MS should decide to go after the
Mono project - it would be shooting themselves in the foot.

But if I were responsible for the Mono project then I would not
take the risk either.

It has been industry standard for decades to use clean room
implementations to avoid legal problems at least since IBM
published the BIOS source code in their DOS manuals and
they had to find engineers that had never read it when they
did another implementation of the BIOS code.

Arne
Oct 4 '07 #38

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
On the other hand, for a _successful_ lawsuit to occur, very specific
violations must takes place. It's not sufficient for Microsoft to say
"hey, you looked at our source code and now you wrote something for
Mono" to win a lawsuit. They have to prove actual infringement. As
long as the Mono project doesn't actually include .NET source code or
implementations, they are already not vulnerable in that sense, whether
or not someone working on Mono has also used the .NET source code in
some other context.
I think you are too optimistic.

Try read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese...mputer_science

Try read the SUN Java Research License they used for Java source
code before it was GPL'ed:
http://java.net/jrl.csp

It is not in any way given that a lawsuit would succeed.

But it is industry standard to not be willing to take
that risk.

Arne
Oct 4 '07 #39

P: n/a
Chris Nahr wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:28:05 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>>Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.
I don't think I would like to base an important product on that
assumption.

Considering that MS and SUN seems to have a different opinion.

What are you talking about? And would you base your products
exclusively on Microsoft's and Sun's "opinions" even if they are in
conflict with the law? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
I am saying that I have more confidence in the that MS and SUN
makes correct legal decisions based on the best legal advice
they can buy than on poorly formulated opinions from a mr. nobody
on usenet.

Arne
Oct 4 '07 #40

P: n/a
Chris Nahr wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:32:36 -0700, Peter Duniho
<Np*********@NnOwSlPiAnMk.comwrote:
>They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
action on the basis of a copyright violation.

Copyright does not cover duplication of function or even accidental
recreation of the same exact program text, only intentional copying.
Hence "copy"right.

What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
functionality, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
the patented functionality is patentable at all.
Try read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

Arne
Oct 4 '07 #41

P: n/a
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
>>Lawyers takes these issues seriously, you know.
Of course they do. They wouldn't have jobs unless they did, and the
more they promote the idea of suing other people the more money they
make (usually whether or not they win).
Thats not the point. The point is, for my company, that the companies we
work with expect us to honor these things. Not doing so would seriously
taint our reputation and relations to these other companies.
Actually, it is the point. You aren't very specific about what "these
things" are, but as far as the question of copyright infringement with
respect to the .NET source code goes, as long as you aren't actually
copying the .NET source, you have nothing to fear, except the lawyers.

The lawyers can't change what you've done from something that's legal to
something that's illegal. Only you can cause yourself to actually
engage in illegal practices, and if you are careful not to do so, no
amount of sword-rattling will change your legal standing.

But many lawyers stand to make lots of money rattling swords, whether
they win or not. That is the point as far my reply goes.

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #42

P: n/a
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
>Frans Bouma [C# MVP] wrote:
>>[...]
Mono requires that developers who submit patches / changes have never
looked at MS sourcecode. So if you have looked at rotor, you aren't
allowed to submit patches,
That may be a matter of policy on Mono's part. But that's a lot
different from saying that it's Microsoft's policy or legal assertion.

We never said that. You assumed that from what was said. Actually I tried
correcting your initial view asap.
I never said that's what you said, nor did I make any such assumption.
My point was to clarify the difference between Mono's defensive stance
and the question of what real risk, if any, actually exists.

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #43

P: n/a
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
>>That is correct. If you merely create _similar_ source code with an
identical purpose you're fine, though.
Not according to Mads, and that's the point I'm disputing.

I do not recall writing anything about that, really.
Sorry. That's the inference I take from your statement regarding Mono's
policy combined with your agreement with the policy.

If you believe that there is no legal risk in creating similar source
code as long as you haven't actually copied the .NET sources, then why
is it that you think Mono's policy has merit?

Pete
Oct 4 '07 #44

P: n/a
Jon Harrop wrote:
JJ wrote:
>When you use or develop for Linux, most things have to done using command
line tools, which I avoid if I can.

I agree completely. However, I'm using F#, LINQ and the C FFI and these
contain several tools that only work from the command line. Moreover, DOS
sucks compared to bash. :-)
Then run another shell on your windows box.

One possibility would be ............. bash !

Arne
Oct 4 '07 #45

P: n/a
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
JJ wrote:
When you use or develop for Linux, most things have to done using command
line tools, which I avoid if I can.
I agree completely. However, I'm using F#, LINQ and the C FFI and these
contain several tools that only work from the command line. Moreover, DOS
sucks compared to bash. :-)
Then run another shell on your windows box.

One possibility would be ............. bash !
Another possibility would be PowerShell. I haven't used it much yet,
but I *really* like the idea of mixing the power of the pipeline model
of Unix tools with the richness of .NET types.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Oct 5 '07 #46

P: n/a
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:
>Then run another shell on your windows box.

One possibility would be ............. bash !

Another possibility would be PowerShell. I haven't used it much yet,
but I *really* like the idea of mixing the power of the pipeline model
of Unix tools with the richness of .NET types.
All I wanted was decent tab completion and coloring. I hadn't thought of
running a different shell.

Thanks for the tip!

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Oct 5 '07 #47

P: n/a
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:50:23 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>I am saying that I have more confidence in the that MS and SUN
makes correct legal decisions based on the best legal advice
they can buy than on poorly formulated opinions from a mr. nobody
on usenet.
Last I checked Microsoft and Sun weren't charities providing public
lawyer services. They write up licenses to increase their profits and
for no other purpose, and they're quite happy to include unenforceable
items on the off chance that someone is intimidated by them.

You may choose to throw around childish insults at other posters but
all the while you're spamming your own "poorly formulated opinions"
all over this thread. Maybe your time would be better spent to inform
yourself about the actual legal situation, which requires surprisingly
little research.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Oct 5 '07 #48

P: n/a

"Willy Denoyette [MVP]" <wi*************@telenet.beha scritto nel
messaggio news:uk**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
"Laura T." <LT*****@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:ur*************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:11**********************@n39g2000hsh.googleg roups.com...
>>On Oct 4, 11:26 am, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
<perseus.usenetNOS...@xs4all.nlwrote:
Jordan S. wrote:
Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.

Thoughts ?

If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use
reflector.
Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

I'm not sure that it does - I'd be very surprised if the licence
for .NET didn't prohibit reverse engineering. I know reverse
engineering is legal (despite the licence) in some countries for the
purpose of compatibility testing, but I don't think it would help you
if you were accused of copying the code itself.

Jon

Well, then this might surprise you. I just installed dotnetfx.exe from
the msdn site, and the only EULA that I must agree does not even mention
reverse engineering. As an end-user, I have accepted only this EULA, and
if I happend to have Reflector on my machine, it's just casual. :-)

The EULA is also here,
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms994405.aspx


Note that this is a supplemental EULA , maybe you should read your OS
product EULA first ;-)

Willy.
:-)

Oct 5 '07 #49

P: n/a
Peter Duniho wrote:
Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>>Frans Bouma [C# MVP] wrote:
[...]
Mono requires that developers who submit patches / changes have never
looked at MS sourcecode. So if you have looked at rotor, you aren't
allowed to submit patches,
That may be a matter of policy on Mono's part. But that's a lot
different from saying that it's Microsoft's policy or legal assertion.

We never said that. You assumed that from what was said. Actually I tried
correcting your initial view asap.

I never said that's what you said, nor did I make any such assumption.
My point was to clarify the difference between Mono's defensive stance
and the question of what real risk, if any, actually exists.
My apoligies. Seems a number of misperceptions has occured. Please see my
other post.

Regards,

Mads

--
Med venlig hilsen/Regards

Systemudvikler/Systemsdeveloper cand.scient.dat, Ph.d., Mads Bondo
Dydensborg
Dansk BiblioteksCenter A/S, Tempovej 7-11, 2750 Ballerup, Tlf. +45 44 86 77
34
Oct 5 '07 #50

66 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.