Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-05 Thread Stephan Rose
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:38 -0500, James Hawkins wrote: > On 10/4/07, Brian Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/4/07, Stephan Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But just because code, that implements the same functionality looks > > > similar?? Well of COURSE it looks similar...it is t

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-04 Thread James Hawkins
On 10/4/07, Brian Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/07, Stephan Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But just because code, that implements the same functionality looks > > similar?? Well of COURSE it looks similar...it is trying to do the same > > thing! > > > > I mean seriously, how doe

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-04 Thread Brian Vincent
On 10/4/07, Stephan Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But just because code, that implements the same functionality looks > similar?? Well of COURSE it looks similar...it is trying to do the same > thing! > > I mean seriously, how does any of this stuff have legal ground? Is the > US system serious

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-04 Thread Stephan Rose
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:00 +0100, Chris Spencer wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > This article [ http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp ] > sums up pretty well why this is a bad thing. As you can imagine if MS > ever releases Windows source code under thei

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-04 Thread Chris Spencer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This article [ http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp ] sums up pretty well why this is a bad thing. As you can imagine if MS ever releases Windows source code under their stupid non-open open source licence, the consequences could potenti

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-04 Thread Steven Edwards
On 10/4/07, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The license doesn't allow redistribution or modifications, so it's > clearly completely useless for any kind of open source development. > Anybody who plans to work on implementing .NET support should stay far > away from that code. The p

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-04 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:48:21 EA Durbin wrote: >> Looks like Microsoft is making their source code available for the .NET >> libraries. under their reference license. >> >> http://www.whurley.com/blog/2007/10/opennet-microso.html > > IIRC the MS refer

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-03 Thread Steven Edwards
On 10/3/07, Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:48:21 EA Durbin wrote: > > Looks like Microsoft is making their source code available for the .NET > > libraries. under their reference license. > > > > http://www.whurley.com/blog/2007/10/opennet-microso.html > > IIR

Re: .NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-03 Thread Kai Blin
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:48:21 EA Durbin wrote: > Looks like Microsoft is making their source code available for the .NET > libraries. under their reference license. > > http://www.whurley.com/blog/2007/10/opennet-microso.html IIRC the MS reference license is pretty useless for (L)GPL devel

.NET going open source(sort of)

2007-10-03 Thread EA Durbin
Looks like Microsoft is making their source code available for the .NET libraries. under their reference license. http://www.whurley.com/blog/2007/10/opennet-microso.html _ Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the wo