See the programme for Linux Bangalore 2002 (Dec 3-5) at http://linux-bangalore.org/2002/schedules
Interestingly, Microsoft's Tarun Anand also speaks on 'Shared Source: Implementation of .NET'.
Just a query, how does this concept of 'shared source' compare with GNU/Free Software or Open Source licences?
FN
If memory serves me right, Frederick Noronha wrote:
Interestingly, Microsoft's Tarun Anand also speaks on 'Shared Source: Implementation of .NET'.
Just a query, how does this concept of 'shared source' compare with GNU/Free Software or Open Source licences?
Some of the entries of the license like , derievative works should be only under a license including all this provisions of this License , remind me of the GPL's restrictions ....
But this is a sort of license to keep software on the wrong side of freedom...
|| You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after || accessing the Software.
Which means I can quote what happens inside .... but if I attempt to repeat it somewhere else (even from memory) in working form it is considered tangible and therefore a license violation ...
Sort of like "flashing proprietary code before a hacker and saying 'all your future code belongs to us !'" ... Which is my interpretation of this license.
IANAL, and so you should hear what a real lawyer says about this ... ( an FS lawyer too, someone who enforces GPL for the sake of all)
From: Eben Moglen moglen@columbia.edu Subject: [CoreTeam]Re: Microsoft Shared Source License and Portable.NET
Hi Rhys,
The key provision in the license is:
You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the Software. However, this right does not grant you a license to any of Microsoft's copyrights or patents for anything you might create using such information.
This is pretty clear (they're becoming rather good at drafting "shared source" licenses; I'm beginning to feel stylistically challenged). It means that they don't claim any right to control knowledge you may gain from reading their code, but you can't copy their code or practice any of their patent claims. The patent issue is unaffected by the reading of their code, from our point of view. On the copyright side, our responsibility is the same as it would be under any other circumstances: we must write all our code from scratch, copying nothing contained in their Rotor code. If there is no copying there is no infringement under their license.
My advice is to tell people to code where possible from the ECMA standard. Where (which is likely to be everywhere), ECMA is insufficiently descriptive to create interoperable code, it is acceptable to read the source of the Rotor implementation. Notes taken in the course of reading that source should be made in pseudocode, so that programmers do not copy snippets of the Rotor source as aides to their memory. We want every line of code in our projects to have come out of the original invention of one of our coders, having been expressed in his or her own way. Ideas abstracted from the Rotor implementation should always have been put in our programmer's own "words," because copyright protects expressions, not ideas.
This is somewhere in 2002 March in DotGNU mailing lists ... (hmmm... [coreteam] archives are private for obvious reasons, which i why quoted the entire mail...)
Some later discussions have happened this month about Rotor (Shared source CLI for *BSD) ... Read it here at http://dotgnu.org/pipermail/developers/2002-November/008669.html and follow the thread ...
Rotor is a perpetual license trap for somebody looking to contribute to Free Software communities ... But MS seems terribly fond of people using X11 licenses ... (there are free software giants who switched their entire libraries to X11 from LGPL to avoid MS hot-footing...)
If someone is thinking of doing some .NET development , please do try DotGNU Portable.Net ... It's part of the GNU project and IIRC is bundled in Mandrake CD 3 (the bundled version will prolly be outdated) ... Lend a hand ...
Gopal
Hi Gopal,
What about going to Blore and give a talk DotGNU and GNU GPL. Dont forget to Keep your eyes and ears closed during Tarun's presentation.
Regards Arun
May be you will get an offer at Redmond ;)
If memory serves me right, Arun M wrote:
What about going to Blore and give a talk DotGNU and GNU GPL.
If I could just find time ... December is the big exam month ... And I have an exam on 4th.. which sort of rules this entire thing out ..
Dont forget to Keep your eyes and ears closed during Tarun's presentation.
Naah... need to keep awake to ask him questions like "Won't contributing to Rotor sort of be like working unpaid for Microsoft ?" ... And of course "How will Rotor succeed without Windows.Forms support ?, All .NET programs seem to be primarily GUI tools ..."
May be you will get an offer at Redmond ;)
Well ... if recieved an offer from MS , it means we've scared them already ... which is IMHO a very good thing :-)
Well someone *could* put in a nice word for DotGNU, the "Free Software" Implementation of .NET and ask how it will affect contributions to Rotor..
Gopal
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Interestingly, Microsoft's Tarun Anand also speaks on 'Shared Source: Implementation of .NET'.
Nice. Me, I tried digging the m$ site on Shared Source. I digged and digged and digged and digged and clicked on link and clicked on a link which said 'more info' and clicked on link which said 'more info' and clicked on link which said 'more info' and ............... there was more and more and more and more and more and more and more on 'benefits' of Shared Source; they told that you will get the access to the source code if you 'agree' but the license was not available to read ....
Just a query, how does this concept of 'shared source' compare with GNU/Free Software or Open Source licences?
Access to code will enable you to write programs which work better with the s/w. That is good for M$, coz more people can write programs which integrate better with M$ programs.
But it is bad for programers, who 'share' the source with M$, coz M$ will not permit to *modify*, *improve* or *re-use* the s/w. There is no scope for sharing with your neighbour - you need to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
You, will still have to pay for two copies for using the same piece of s/w in your office and home computers. Even if you have one comp. in the living room and another in the bed room, you still have to pay two license fees.
In fact, the concept of shared source is more dangerous than not having any access at all - coz. there are limited ways of implementing concepts in coding ( caveat - I am not a programmer ).
If you merely 'see' a piece of code, you are prone to use the same methods that is natural human conduct. (Much the same way youngesters imitate film stars and their fashions). That will expose you to copyright infringement; coz you cannot re-use. In effect, you become a slave.
Shared source is another way of saying "my code is my code; your code is our code".
Mahesh T. Pai.
If memory serves me right, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
But it is bad for programers, who 'share' the source with M$, coz M$ will not permit to *modify*, *improve* or *re-use* the s/w. There is no scope for sharing with your neighbour - you need to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
The *shared* part of the license is that there is no non-disclosure agreement ... And the shared code is not available for commercial purposes .. So you can't deploy it for your product ...
You, will still have to pay for two copies for using the same piece of s/w in your office and home computers. Even if you have one comp. in the living room and another in the bed room, you still have to pay two license fees.
No... Shared source CLI is available for free download ... And the program distributed under Shared Source is *NOT* the original program .. It is sort of a stripped down version of .NET without the GUI components or the server parts ... (or ActiveX.)
So shared source is useful only for educational purposes... but from Rhys' opinion it isn't that well written either .... Our interpreter is topping about 70% of their JIT performance which is pathetic ...
But It's sort of like MS saying "Hey, .NET is not monopolizing with windows ... we're even *giving* out copies for *free* for the BSDs too ... " to a future Antitrust judge ...
Gopal
"Fred" == Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org writes:
Fred> See the programme for Linux Bangalore 2002 (Dec 3-5) at Fred> http://linux-bangalore.org/2002/schedules
Fred> Interestingly, Microsoft's Tarun Anand also speaks on Fred> 'Shared Source: Implementation of .NET'.
Fred> Just a query, how does this concept of 'shared source' Fred> compare with GNU/Free Software or Open Source licences?
Shared source means that you, as a MS customer, get to see the source code of selected Windows operating systems and (perhaps) applications. This is under a non-disclosure agreement, and you are not permitted to change the software or redistribute it. In other words, MS wants the open source benefits that ESR lists in The Cathedral and the Bazaar for its closed-source applications. In the process they also get to thump their chests and shout `Look, we are open!!!' from the treetops.
Regards,
-- Raju
-
Arun M -
Frederick Noronha -
Gopal V -
Mahesh T Pai -
Raju Mathur