Re: VS.NET is written in C# and open source! CORRECTION

[Sean]

Sorry folks, I meant C# NOT VS.NET is going open source. No flame mail please.
Once again, announced at Tech-Ed Atlanta GA last week. Thanks...

-Sean-

"Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Not sure if all you know this, but it was mentioned in Tech-Ed Atlanta GA,
>last week that Visual Studio.Net is completely written in C#. That is something
>else!
>
>Also, it was announced that Visual Studio.Net is going to be open source.
>Now I am not sure how, or when, but they were talking about as early as
Beta
>2. Of course, they want to "clean up" some code as it were before anyone
>else gets to it, basically formating, proper comments and things of that
>nature.
>
>Just thought I'd share this...
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Sean-

[AJ Armstrong]

C# is a language, not an application. It can't be open source. Do you mean
the compiler will be open source? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps you are
referring to the fact that the C# language spec has been submitted to (can't
remember the org - the ECMA folks) for acceptance as an "Open Standard"?

I'll bet you a cookie (****, a fresh-from-the-oven tollhouse) that MS will
not release anything, ever, under GPL, but you might see some chunks of code
under something like the BSD. I doubt, however, that a compiler would be in
that category - too much proprietary optimization code.

-AJA


"Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b38d9b9$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Sorry folks, I meant C# NOT VS.NET is going open source. No flame mail
please.
> Once again, announced at Tech-Ed Atlanta GA last week. Thanks...
>
> -Sean-
>
> "Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Not sure if all you know this, but it was mentioned in Tech-Ed Atlanta
GA,
> >last week that Visual Studio.Net is completely written in C#. That is
something
> >else!
> >
> >Also, it was announced that Visual Studio.Net is going to be open source.
> >Now I am not sure how, or when, but they were talking about as early as
> Beta
> >2. Of course, they want to "clean up" some code as it were before anyone
> >else gets to it, basically formating, proper comments and things of that
> >nature.
> >
> >Just thought I'd share this...
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >-Sean-
>

[Shaun Wilson]

More dribble from the masses.

Here, read this... http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/dotn...27/dotnet.html

and now you know, you're not always right.

"AJ Armstrong" <nospamfor_ajarmstrong@ttg-inc.com> wrote:
>C# is a language, not an application. It can't be open source. Do you
mean
>the compiler will be open source? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps you are
>referring to the fact that the C# language spec has been submitted to (can't
>remember the org - the ECMA folks) for acceptance as an "Open Standard"?
>
>I'll bet you a cookie (****, a fresh-from-the-oven tollhouse) that MS will
>not release anything, ever, under GPL, but you might see some chunks of
code
>under something like the BSD. I doubt, however, that a compiler would be
in
>that category - too much proprietary optimization code.
>
>-AJA
>
>
>"Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b38d9b9$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> Sorry folks, I meant C# NOT VS.NET is going open source. No flame mail
>please.
>> Once again, announced at Tech-Ed Atlanta GA last week. Thanks...
>>
>> -Sean-
>>
>> "Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Not sure if all you know this, but it was mentioned in Tech-Ed Atlanta
>GA,
>> >last week that Visual Studio.Net is completely written in C#. That is
>something
>> >else!
>> >
>> >Also, it was announced that Visual Studio.Net is going to be open source.
>> >Now I am not sure how, or when, but they were talking about as early
as
>> Beta
>> >2. Of course, they want to "clean up" some code as it were before anyone
>> >else gets to it, basically formating, proper comments and things of that
>> >nature.
>> >
>> >Just thought I'd share this...
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >-Sean-
>>
>
>

[AJ Armstrong]

Actually, I already knew I wasn't always right. However, so far you haven't
shown me that I'm wrong in this case. Did you read the article you posted?
Stutz never says that MS will release anything under "open source". He uses
the phrase "shared source". The link I include below has descriptions of
what MS means by "shared source", and it quite obviously excludes just about
everything that we would normally attribute to an open source licencse.
From the FAQ:

"Shared Source is a balanced approach that allows us to share source code
with customers and partners while maintaining the intellectual property
rights needed to support a strong software business. Shared Source is a
framework that creates business value and fosters technical innovation. It
covers a variety of source licensing programs tailored to the diverse needs
of customers and partners for source code access."

Doesn't sound like "free speech, not free beer" to me. Sounds like the sort
of licensing that MS has always offered to universities, research orgs, etc.
Just because MS has started using the phrase "shared source" and a whole
bunch of people have misinterpreted that to mean that VS.Net will be
released as open source doesn't by any means detract from my points.

That, however, is beside the point. What I have been saying is that Visual
Studio will not be released under open source and that I didn't think that
the only currently extant C# compiler (the one for Windows that is included
in VS.Net and the SDK) would be, either. It looks like part of my statement
might be wrong, or incomplete, with MS releasing a C# compiler as "shared
source", but if you look at the fine print - the offer is to allow others to
"license" their source, and a specific preclusion from using the source for
commercial purposes.

If you look at other articles posted in this thread, you'll see that MS is
reserving much of the proprietary code of the framework (garbage collection,
for example) from any shared source arrangement. The article you post says
that Microsoft is going to let (some of) us see some of the code on two
compilers (compilers that don't currently exist) and "a subset" of the CLI,
and specifically restrict commercial users from using the code directly.
What it does not say is whether MS will have ownership (partial or full) of
any derivative works based on the source. It specifically precludes the
sort of community-maintenance scheme that is the core of open-source
development. What it says is that we can (under very specific circumstances
and subject to carerfully written license strictures) see some of the source
code for a compiler. That is not an open source release of a C# compiler,
not by a long shot. I applaud it, but I am not going to pretend it is more
than it is - certainly not to the point of proclaiming that VS.Net was going
to be released as open source - the statement that started this thread.

I still stand by my statement that Microsoft will never release anything
under GPL (the open source license used throughout the Linux community) and
I stand by that (note that Stutz doesn't even say they will release under
FreeBSD licensing - they have their own (currently secret) license). Here's
why:

http://www.microsoft.com/business/li...aredsource.asp

Looks like you're not always right, either.


-AJA


"Shaun Wilson" <elywilson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b3ae5f5@news.devx.com...
>
>
> More dribble from the masses.
>
> Here, read this...
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/dotn...27/dotnet.html
>
> and now you know, you're not always right.
>
> "AJ Armstrong" <nospamfor_ajarmstrong@ttg-inc.com> wrote:
> >C# is a language, not an application. It can't be open source. Do you
> mean
> >the compiler will be open source? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps you are
> >referring to the fact that the C# language spec has been submitted to
(can't
> >remember the org - the ECMA folks) for acceptance as an "Open Standard"?
> >
> >I'll bet you a cookie (****, a fresh-from-the-oven tollhouse) that MS
will
> >not release anything, ever, under GPL, but you might see some chunks of
> code
> >under something like the BSD. I doubt, however, that a compiler would be
> in
> >that category - too much proprietary optimization code.
> >
> >-AJA
> >
> >
> >"Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b38d9b9$1@news.devx.com...
> >>
> >> Sorry folks, I meant C# NOT VS.NET is going open source. No flame mail
> >please.
> >> Once again, announced at Tech-Ed Atlanta GA last week. Thanks...
> >>
> >> -Sean-
> >>
> >> "Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Not sure if all you know this, but it was mentioned in Tech-Ed Atlanta
> >GA,
> >> >last week that Visual Studio.Net is completely written in C#. That is
> >something
> >> >else!
> >> >
> >> >Also, it was announced that Visual Studio.Net is going to be open
source.
> >> >Now I am not sure how, or when, but they were talking about as early
> as
> >> Beta
> >> >2. Of course, they want to "clean up" some code as it were before
anyone
> >> >else gets to it, basically formating, proper comments and things of
that
> >> >nature.
> >> >
> >> >Just thought I'd share this...
> >> >
> >> >Cheers,
> >> >
> >> >-Sean-
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Frank Gleeson]

Shared Source: is MSs new licensing concept. You pay
big money and they let you look at the source code and
tell them what is wrong with it. I guess it's better than the
current state of affairs. Everyone knows about a bug
codes around it and waits for the next service pack in the
hopes that it was fixed.

Shared source bears little resemblance to any open source
licensing. It is basically irrelevant to individual developers.
It is only big companies with big IT budgets who would even
consider doing this.

Shaun Wilson wrote:

> More dribble from the masses.
>
> Here, read this... http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/dotn...27/dotnet.html
>
> and now you know, you're not always right.
>
> "AJ Armstrong" <nospamfor_ajarmstrong@ttg-inc.com> wrote:
> >C# is a language, not an application. It can't be open source. Do you
> mean
> >the compiler will be open source? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps you are
> >referring to the fact that the C# language spec has been submitted to (can't
> >remember the org - the ECMA folks) for acceptance as an "Open Standard"?
> >
> >I'll bet you a cookie (****, a fresh-from-the-oven tollhouse) that MS will
> >not release anything, ever, under GPL, but you might see some chunks of
> code
> >under something like the BSD. I doubt, however, that a compiler would be
> in
> >that category - too much proprietary optimization code.
> >
> >-AJA
> >
> >
> >"Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b38d9b9$1@news.devx.com...
> >>
> >> Sorry folks, I meant C# NOT VS.NET is going open source. No flame mail
> >please.
> >> Once again, announced at Tech-Ed Atlanta GA last week. Thanks...
> >>
> >> -Sean-
> >>
> >> "Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Not sure if all you know this, but it was mentioned in Tech-Ed Atlanta
> >GA,
> >> >last week that Visual Studio.Net is completely written in C#. That is
> >something
> >> >else!
> >> >
> >> >Also, it was announced that Visual Studio.Net is going to be open source.
> >> >Now I am not sure how, or when, but they were talking about as early
> as
> >> Beta
> >> >2. Of course, they want to "clean up" some code as it were before anyone
> >> >else gets to it, basically formating, proper comments and things of that
> >> >nature.
> >> >
> >> >Just thought I'd share this...
> >> >
> >> >Cheers,
> >> >
> >> >-Sean-
> >>
> >
> >

[Sam Stokes]

Ok, so open source allows "free" stuff for everyone and shared source means
that you have to pay for the tools, etc. So how does anyone make money?
Please explain to me the model to make money from "open" source. I am afraid
that you will not in the long term continue to make money using open source
and it's threat of intellectual property infrigement.


Frank Gleeson <fgleeson@rcn.com> wrote:
>Shared Source: is MSs new licensing concept. You pay
>big money and they let you look at the source code and
>tell them what is wrong with it. I guess it's better than the
>current state of affairs. Everyone knows about a bug
>codes around it and waits for the next service pack in the
>hopes that it was fixed.
>
>Shared source bears little resemblance to any open source
>licensing. It is basically irrelevant to individual developers.
>It is only big companies with big IT budgets who would even
>consider doing this.
>
>Shaun Wilson wrote:
>
>> More dribble from the masses.
>>
>> Here, read this... http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/dotn...27/dotnet.html
>>
>> and now you know, you're not always right.
>>
>> "AJ Armstrong" <nospamfor_ajarmstrong@ttg-inc.com> wrote:
>> >C# is a language, not an application. It can't be open source. Do you
>> mean
>> >the compiler will be open source? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps you are
>> >referring to the fact that the C# language spec has been submitted to
(can't
>> >remember the org - the ECMA folks) for acceptance as an "Open Standard"?
>> >
>> >I'll bet you a cookie (****, a fresh-from-the-oven tollhouse) that MS
will
>> >not release anything, ever, under GPL, but you might see some chunks
of
>> code
>> >under something like the BSD. I doubt, however, that a compiler would
be
>> in
>> >that category - too much proprietary optimization code.
>> >
>> >-AJA
>> >
>> >
>> >"Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b38d9b9$1@news.devx.com...
>> >>
>> >> Sorry folks, I meant C# NOT VS.NET is going open source. No flame mail
>> >please.
>> >> Once again, announced at Tech-Ed Atlanta GA last week. Thanks...
>> >>
>> >> -Sean-
>> >>
>> >> "Sean" <ilogix@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Not sure if all you know this, but it was mentioned in Tech-Ed Atlanta
>> >GA,
>> >> >last week that Visual Studio.Net is completely written in C#. That
is
>> >something
>> >> >else!
>> >> >
>> >> >Also, it was announced that Visual Studio.Net is going to be open
source.
>> >> >Now I am not sure how, or when, but they were talking about as early
>> as
>> >> Beta
>> >> >2. Of course, they want to "clean up" some code as it were before
anyone
>> >> >else gets to it, basically formating, proper comments and things of
that
>> >> >nature.
>> >> >
>> >> >Just thought I'd share this...
>> >> >
>> >> >Cheers,
>> >> >
>> >> >-Sean-
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>