Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Outs .NET Core 3.0 With Continued Linux Support & Better Performance

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    Legally you can view the code. Legally due to the licensing you cannot modify it without submitting those modifications to Microsoft. If you modify without doing that you have hope Microsoft does not patent attack you.

    Be sides before Microsoft published the source under this shared source. There was a Shared Source Initiative from 2001 where you could have looked at the .net source code with the same restrictions on modification after you signed the NDA.

    So all Microsoft dropped was the requirement for you to sign a NDA to see it. Fairly much everyone who requested to see the source of .net and was willing to sign the NDA got to see it.

    Really Microsoft has not given you as much as you are making out Fuzz.
    I specifically said "Legally or not". Even if they get rid of the project the source code will always be available, which is more important than law (if you even recognize that law). But thanks for ascribing your personal belief system to me.

    This also is not the only project they have open sourced. Don't get me wrong, I wish they would use the GPL. But all this hate just because it's microsoft is childish.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by fuzz View Post
      I specifically said "Legally or not". Even if they get rid of the project the source code will always be available,
      To be able to provide the source code you need to have copyright. patent and trademark law in alignment. With current licensing around .net and other item so called open source they can serous ally pull the rug out from under them.

      It goes like this to screwed.
      1) Microsoft takes down hosting.
      2) You are hosting Microsoft uses trademark law to say you have to alter the source to remove the trademarks.
      3) You remove the trademark stuff from the code as you are legally required todo so making it modified code.
      4) Microsoft hits you with the patent license because its now modified code.
      5) The source code is gone from the open at this point because you are checkmated.

      This is a shared source trap. They share source with you with some clause somewhere to screw you over.

      Originally posted by fuzz View Post
      This also is not the only project they have open sourced. Don't get me wrong,
      I would not call a lot of what you would called open source as open source. What Microsoft did is shared source. Looks close but there is a functional problem in the licensing that allows Microsoft if they choose to end the source access by force.

      Originally posted by fuzz View Post
      I wish they would use the GPL. But all this hate just because it's microsoft is childish.
      Microsoft would not had to do a GPL. Apache or MPL patent grant would have been good enough. If the stuff was under a MIT with a Apache/MPL patent grant we could be sure that someone could keep that source code around forever.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

        To be able to provide the source code you need to have copyright. patent and trademark law in alignment. With current licensing around .net and other item so called open source they can serous ally pull the rug out from under them.

        It goes like this to screwed.
        1) Microsoft takes down hosting.
        2) You are hosting Microsoft uses trademark law to say you have to alter the source to remove the trademarks.
        3) You remove the trademark stuff from the code as you are legally required todo so making it modified code.
        4) Microsoft hits you with the patent license because its now modified code.
        5) The source code is gone from the open at this point because you are checkmated.

        This is a shared source trap. They share source with you with some clause somewhere to screw you over.


        I would not call a lot of what you would called open source as open source. What Microsoft did is shared source. Looks close but there is a functional problem in the licensing that allows Microsoft if they choose to end the source access by force.



        Microsoft would not had to do a GPL. Apache or MPL patent grant would have been good enough. If the stuff was under a MIT with a Apache/MPL patent grant we could be sure that someone could keep that source code around forever.
        You don't seem to understand the meaning of "legally or not". I'm done trying to explain it to you.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pal666 View Post
          it was written when c++ wasn't available
          lol, no. C++ was surely around back then. Not so standard, nor the C++ we know and love today, but it existed.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B#History

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by fuzz View Post
            You don't seem to understand the meaning of "legally or not". I'm done trying to explain it to you.
            No I understand "legally or not".
            1) Problem for something to remain long term easy accessible it has to be legal.
            2) Problem for something to remain long term maintained it has to be legal as well.

            Legally or not is just a excuse people pull out so they can put their head in the sand to the legal problem. This means people are not asking Microsoft to make patent license part more correct.

            Really its a smart way Microsoft done it to look harmless.

            https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/bl...s/copyright.md

            The reality is sections of .net are already apache2 license. If Microsoft made the complete code base apache 2 there would not be legal question. If you read Apache2 it does not list a hosting location. So you can modify and mirror the code no problems.

            https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/bl...er/PATENTS.TXT
            "Covered Code" means those Microsoft .NET libraries and runtime components as made available by Microsoft at github.com/dotnet/coreclr,
            github.com/dotnet/corefx and github.com/dotnet/corert.
            See the problem the patent promise in fact details where the source has to come from. This means you make a fork and modify something its not patent promise covered. So this means a third party cannot effectively take over maintainer-ship of .net core.

            Yes Microsoft did not list everything in the dotnet github is covered either for example https://github.com/dotnet/core is not listed so not covered by the patent promise. So not all of net core 3.0 source is covered by the patent promise either. Like min useful patent promise would have been like everything under github.com/dotnet is covered but that is not what we have.

            Yes we need to be asking Microsoft please give us a proper patent license or just be simple and license the complete thing apache2. Until then it a shared source trap of unmaintainable by other parties.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
              Not the same problem in usermode.
              there are many usermode hardware drivers, so i don't buy it
              Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
              Yes the word class in Linux kernel is used a huge number of times
              fixed with trivial search and replace
              Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
              By the way some C++ compilers are case insensitive on the word class
              that's not standard c++ then

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                there are many usermode hardware drivers, so i don't buy it
                The specifications that have class, namespace and other things in them are normally drivers that only can be implemented in kernel space.

                Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                fixed with trivial search and replace
                No trivial as you will have to argue with the Hurd of cats todo it because just like you not all the developers will have the same idea on what it should be renamed to. Named as specification sheet kills naming arguements.

                Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                that's not standard c++ then
                Not current day C++ standard. The current day C++ standard is not written that class only has to process as lower case. So a compiler processing class case insensitive can be a full to current C++ standard compiler with a undefined behaviour.

                C++ ABI is not defined by the standard. The C++ standard also failed to include that particular things should only be processed if they are lower case.

                The C++ standard is unfortunately swiss cheese caused by its incompleteness. Lot of things are depending that compiler makers do stuff the same way with C++ not do what the standard lets them do.

                Comment

                Working...
                X