Any time you see the word core in an open source announcement such as
this, it's a huge red flag. Generally it means that only one specific
component is being opened, and the majority of the framework (the actual
important bits that an application requires to run) is being kept closed.
The
Thanks, and I should point out that if someone were to try to add that stuff
outside of Core into some implementation of their own (such as Mono) they
don't get the patent promise because the promise only extends to Covered
Code and it defines it that: Covered Code means those Microsoft .NET
So this turned out exactly how I expected it too. Sounds good at first but
then all my suspicitions about it are true.
If history is anything to go by M$ pronouncements are best understood with a
copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War in the other hand.
Still, free software has to fight the incumbents on their ground at some
point and the .NET framework, (i.e. when M$ tried to expand to something not
hardware
What is the problem? As long as the free software remains free software then
that is a positive.
Oh wait... you won't be happy until that piece of free software forces the
other bits to have their source code made open when its not supposed to be.
Isn't it true free software about giving
You wrote that it was smart to go with a permissive license instead of the
GPL and I pointed out that the main difference it makes is the possibility
to surround the free core with proprietary software. Given Microsoft history,
I even assumed it is their business plan. I have no sympathy for
I'm also going with the angle of the ease of integrating with other FLOSS
software that may be GPL incompatible, but is still under a free software
license.
I don't code in C# and mainly a Python guy on the desktop and server side,
but will this improve Wine and make it easier to port Windows programs that
were heavily dependent on .NET?
I couldn't believe my eyes:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2014/11/12/net-core-is-open-source.aspx
Thankfully its under the MIT license, meaning there are no restrictions on
development and deployment. It was smart to go with a permissive license
instead of the GPL since these are libraries.
I've said this here multiple times about Mozilla Public License 2.0 being a
good choice as it is copyleft at the file level.
Well said.
Covered Code only covers what you get from Microsoft. It doesn't apply to,
say, independent implementations - only to that which you get from Microsoft
(reference Covered Code means those Microsoft .NET libraries and runtime
components as made available by Microsoft at... and
12 matches
Mail list logo
