If Microsoft can't beat free programming languages, it appears willing to join them, as it open sources its .NET compiler for C# and Visual Basic, under the Apache 2.0 license.
The "Roslyn" compiler platform also contains code-analysis APIs that could be useful if you were trying to make, for example, code-completion or syntax-checking features in your own code-editor.
To manage this and other recently liberated projects, the .NET foundation has been launched, including "community leaders such as Miguel de Icaza (Xamarin), Laurent Bugnion (IdentityMine), Niels Hartvig (Umbraco), Nigel Sampson (Compiled Experience), Anthony van der Hoorn (Glimpse) and Paul Betts."
The inevitable victory of free and open-source as the dominant model of software development is drawing closer than ever before.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @12:01PM
Did they only Open Source the compiler, or also the library?
And do they hold any patents related to this?
(Score: 1) by jcross on Friday April 04 2014, @03:10PM
Looks like it's just the compiler, not the CLR, so you could make a better IDE, but not say, improve the feature compatibility of something like Mono.
(Score: 1) by Subsentient on Friday April 04 2014, @12:01PM
The new CEO, I thought he'd be a trainwreck on chernobyl's category 10 shit storm (because of his love of smartphones and cloud), but I am strongly convinced these changes are his doing, and I like what I see.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Noldir on Friday April 04 2014, @12:22PM
Does this mean the Mono project will have an easier time? I understand that they still have to implement the libraries that come with .NET but I can't really oversee the implications of this move for .NET on Linux
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday April 04 2014, @05:57PM
Yes, it will be easier for Microsoft to spread mono far and wide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @11:05PM
With Mono, M$ has always been the 800 pound gorilla on the other end of the whipsaw. [wikimedia.org]
Mono couldn't possibly succeed; the deck is stacked.
All M$ has ever had to do was make an addition to dotNET and Mono was left in the lurch.
Mono has always been the bastard stepchild.
Microsoft Rumoured to be Taking 100 percent Control of Mono [techrights.org]
Just avoid apps that use Mono. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [techrights.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rliegh on Friday April 04 2014, @02:32PM
Every time you turn around, another GNU project is being "replaced" by a BSD or apache-licensed version. Stallman and GNU have always been a lightning rod for detractors, but just reading commentary and seeing what people think -there appears to be a backlash against "Free" (as in "Freedom") software, probably driven largely by companies who do NOT wish to give back to the world at large.
This article assumes that adoration for Free software/open source is increasing -I think the opposite. I see the beginning of a backlash happening.
I just tell 'em the truth and they think it's trolling!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @03:59PM
Your confusion stems from bundling open source and free software. One is a development method, other a social movement. The article at hand only deals with the former, so you're off-topic.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses- the-point.html [gnu.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @06:44AM
From the summary:
The summary makes a prediction about the future of software development from a social angle; so no, I'm not off-topic.
But thank you for playing.
-Posting anon because plus che change
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @11:13PM
assumes that adoration for Free software/open source is increasing -I think the opposite
Well, of course you do.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @06:52AM
So we're devolving into /. group-think already?
THAT was certainly quick!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @08:07PM
While you appear to have defended his position, what you didn't do was rebut my assertion.
...nor did you add a data set that would serve to validate his unsupported claim.
I like GPL-like licenses, which do NOT allow Free Software be turned into closed, proprietary code, and he likes the sort of "permissive" license that allows open code to be made closed.
I'm clearly against EULAware and he is clearly against mandated inheritable code freedom.
Those are polar opposite positions. There isn't a way to reconcile them. Deal with it.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @10:38PM
Your paranoid ad-hominem was not only false (and paranoid), but not worth rebutting.
His critique was that companies are funding projects that under-cut the GNU movement. Your critique was moonbat-crazy bullshit: advantage -him.
Get a brain -or at least loosen the tinfoil hat on your current one, get some reading comprehension and then you come on back again.
Or don't. If SN is simply going to indulge in the same /.-style groupthink, where any critique of the FOSS movement is considered anathema, you'll probably be talking to yourself, anyway (we've already got one slashdot).
--posting anon because I've seen this movie already...fifteen years ago...and like most remakes, it's pretty crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @04:28PM
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.h tml [ebb.org]
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Friday April 04 2014, @04:40PM
I see the point, and I really do want free and open software to be successful. I understand when people are frustrated with not getting a full GPLv3 release on things that deserve them.
But you know what? I still love this. Microsoft released DOS and Word for Windows source and people complained it wasn't the right license to be useful. And they released the WinJS JavaScript library and now they released .Net compiler source code.
Even if I can't use any of these in my projects, I can still see how they did something and learn from their code. I may not be able to reuse it or even do things the same way, but I can become a better programmer and get better at supporting their closed sourced systems if I can guess that they might have done something the same way.
I get it, too little, too late, blah blah blah, but the fact is that today programmers have resources that they didn't yesterday and Microsoft didn't have to do this, they chose to. Hate on MS all you want, and they deserve a lot of it, but stop hating it when they actually do something good just because it isn't good enough for you.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday April 05 2014, @01:19AM
While I agree with the basic moral of your post, I have a hard time believing this.
They're a corporation; without a good reason to do so, they would avoid changing anything.
If they were serious about Free software or open source, they would do things differently. I'll see this as a PR stunt at best and, more realistically, as a covert method of harming their competition (e.g. by a thousand cuts).
It could also be a defensive action (i.e. a response to a threat), but then that makes them look rather weak, if they still misunderstand how to properly claim developer mindshare nowadays.
(Score: 2) by caseih on Saturday April 05 2014, @04:17AM
Possibly you can learn from their code. But if you are currently contributing to any open source project that is remotely related to either DOS or Word, then no, you had better not look at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @01:43AM
.NET as a "failing codebase"? I dont know what that guy is taking but thats some really good stuff. .NET is not a codebase but a specification that also runs on linux.
Maybe he should open his mind a little and see that
Nothing like some good old fashioned anti-MS sentiment!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @11:27PM
M$'s fortunes have been built on "intellectual property".
Even when M$ declares something to be "open", it is in no way free (as in freedom). [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [gnu.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Saturday April 05 2014, @12:29AM
Your cynicism seems well-founded based on history, but in this case I don't see the problem. Can you be more specific? The Apache 2.0 Licence looks pretty good, for example:
"Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form."
You could be worried about the "Subject to the terms and conditions of this License" part, but from looking at the rest of the text, it seems those terms and conditions are all about ensuring the license is maintained. They want to make sure that you don't, for example, distribute derivative works without also including the same license, or without indicating that you've changed the files; and to ensure that you don't take legal action against other contributors or distributors for patent infringement.
You're right that MS fortunes are built on intellectual property, but they also have a long tradition of giving away at least some tool for free (as in beer), in order to keep developers happy on their platforms. Maybe giving some tools away as free (as in freedom) is just an extension of this policy.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @03:36AM
Your cynicism seems well-founded based on history
Yup. I got rid of my rose colored glasses many years ago.
There was a real smart dude who covered this before I was born.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [wikipedia.org]
Can you be more specific?
I'm surprised that more folks haven't seen the parallel that I see. [google.com]
In another post in this thread [soylentnews.org] I mentioned M$'s m.o. [wikipedia.org]
The license they chose allows them to do just that yet again.
Maybe giving some tools away as free (as in freedom) is just an extension of [free as in beer]
...and maybe the Sun will start orbiting the Earth. [wikipedia.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @07:12AM
I understand "open"; yet confused on your use of "free".
Is this 'merica style "freedom" you speak of?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @08:11PM
Feel "free" to follow my link.
...and to not look like a fool.
-- gewg_