To Microsoft, Open Source means "Windows Encumbered"
opensource.org
opensource.org
I don't mind paying you to use your software/wesite, but I object very much to you then acting as if that's your data. It's not.
Bring on Open Data, and make sure it applies to web apps as well
Every app should have some sort of "I'd like to take my ball and go home" bulk-export.
Because no matter what you tell users up front, they won't read it. Most people simply assume reasonableness.
Pretending otherwise is just seeking to take advantage of human nature.
Free software (as in beer), is a whole different matter entirely. Microsoft has only claimed to be releasing free software when that is indeed the case.
As a developer for the Windows platform, I've never been mislead or under any illusions that anything is free. In fact, understanding the licensing and pricing was critical before making the decision to develop on the platform.
Do I still appreciate that the source for ASP.Net MVC is available? Definitely. I even ran a fork of it for a time.
Also, how is "They continue to attack, with legal action or threats, any open source that competes with any of their core products." any different from what other companies do ? How do you think google would react if some one was to brand and name a search engine similar to theirs ? What about Red-Hat ? If I was to take their distro and start selling it as Red-Hat Enhanced Pro Super Cool version what you think their response would be.
The way I see it, its easy for companies like google to beat the open drum because it does not hurt their core business, microsoft however sees direct impact on revenue.
So there's nothing wrong with Microsoft's behaviour, apart from how they're describing what they're doing. A lovely example is their Office Open XML formats, which only work with Microsoft products because the specification includes things like "Behaves like Microsoft Word 97".
But "open source" does not imply that -- it implies that you will have access to the source code, and the rights to redistribute and to make/distribute derivative works.
Or, to maybe drive the point home in a different way: if, say, a game is released under an OSI-approved license, but for sake of speed contains some inline assembly, would you then claim it's not really "open" since it only runs on a single CPU architecture?
Adobe is doing it with Flash. Sun/Oracle does it with Java. FOSS projects do it even with C/C++ code. Javascript, HTML, AJAX, PDF, .doc.
Microsoft claims that they have developed a "standard" called .net, so it's their responsibility to maintain the ecosystem in a manner that makes .net code portable.
>If I was to take their distro and start selling it as Red-Hat Enhanced Pro Super Cool version what you think their response would be.
Now you're just trolling. Trademarks are entirely separate from copyright and patents. Both Red Hat and Google in fact encourage companies to take their code and build on top of it. Of course, Google keeps some things, like Gmail and Maps closed source, but they don't pretend that they are standards or available for anyone to use as they please.
Adobe is doing it because its in their direct interest to port to as many platforms as possible.
> Microsoft claims that they have developed a "standard" called .net, so it's their responsibility to maintain the ecosystem in a manner that makes .net code portable.
When google started Android shouldn't they have used the already existing open standard J2ME for their stuff? But since they're google they can ignore any standard and fragment any space.
You cannot actually expect microsoft to invest millions of dollars into platforms where there is guaranteed to be no return. It is a standard, if you want to use go ahead and implement it yourself. Mono does this, they even get help from microsoft, including the testing suites to silverlight etc.
> Now you're just trolling.
No I'm not trolling. My point is its alright when google keeps its core revenue maker, its search engines, code and algos top secret. If however microsoft does the same for their core revenue streams they get called evil.
Also, even microsoft encourages people to use their stuff to build on top off, its just a different view point where a lot of it isn't open source.
I think it's fair to add if they want to. It's surely up to them whether they wish to support .Net on other platforms or not.
In fact that matches typical FOSS project workings; where a piece of software is usually put together for a particular platform and then a third party (or sub project) takes on the porting/cross compiling.