Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Software Microsoft

Microsoft Open Sources ASP.NET MVC 227

Jimmy Zimms writes "Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC is an extension built on the core of ASP.NET that brings some of the popular practices and ease of development that were popularized by Ruby on Rails and Django to the .NET developers. Scott Guthrie, the inventor of ASP.NET, just announced that Microsoft is open sourcing the ASP.NET MVC stack under the MS-PL license. 'I'm excited today to announce that we are also releasing the ASP.NET MVC source code under the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL). MS-PL is an OSI-approved open source license. The MS-PL contains no platform restrictions and provides broad rights to modify and redistribute the source code.' Here's the text of the MS-PL.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Open Sources ASP.NET MVC

Comments Filter:
  • Read it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sp4c3 C4d3t ( 607082 ) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @03:19PM (#27435071)
    If you read it you'll find out that it's basically the BSD license. Why jump to conclusions just because it's Microsoft?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ohhhhhh maybe because it's microsoft -__-

    • Read it PLEASE!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Vu1turEMaN ( 1270774 ) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @04:22PM (#27435987)

      Thank god someone said it. Ya know, HALF of the posts on here so far are "I wont trust MS" or some other closed-mind bullshit from Linux fanbois who MUST have it compatible with the GPL otherwise they piss their pants.

      If you take a step back and look at it, it is an amazing licence coming from Microsoft to use on something like this. The only issue the GPL has with it is its slight copyleft policies...go read the copyleft wiki to see if that's really a bad thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft [wikipedia.org]

    • The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.

      I know I'm just a paranoid geek, but does that seem like a potential exploit? The license can be changed retroactively.

      • Not really. They can create a new license (call it MS-PL v2 for convenience). However, they can't change the MS-PL itself without needing to re-certify it; it would automatically be a new version.

        Additionally, they can't do any kind of "retroactive" change to the licensing. They can state that all of their MS-PL code is now MS-PL v2 code, and not available to anybody with brown eyes if they want. However, the old code is already distributed; they can't revoke that.

        More specifically and importantly, they can

    • Dude, this is Slashdot. People will cry 'Just like the BSD license? Yet ANOTHER thing M$ has stolen! Man, can't they even come up with their own LICENSE?'

    • Why jump to conclusions just because it's Microsoft?

      You're new here, huh?

    • Yeah... the M$ specific license could just be the arrogance of M$ for not using any other established/competitor's license, and for their lawyers to pass a bigger check because a whole "new license text".

      Now, I don't know almost anything about the product being open sourced, but it would only matter if that product could be really usable standalone outside Windows platforms (what is the utility of opening the source code of a single module of a big stack like .NET?): Sadly, most M$ products seem to be unnat

  • by JCSoRocks ( 1142053 ) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @03:20PM (#27435085)
    April Fools was yesterday. You're a day late.
  • MS-PL (Score:5, Informative)

    by scribblej ( 195445 ) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @03:23PM (#27435131)

    I really don't /want/ to like the MS-PL or anything Microsoft, but I read it, and re-read it, and I can't see anything wrong with it. In fact, at the risk of being modded to oblivion, I gotta' say it's a far cry easier to understand than the GPL license, seems straightforward, and truly "open." It seems roughly as open as the BSD license. It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license. What am I missing? Is this a late April Fools' joke?

    • Re:MS-PL (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anachragnome ( 1008495 ) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @04:11PM (#27435831)

      I'm a self-proclaimed EULA/License Nazi, and I have to agree.

      It did occur to me that Microsoft might actually have a toe in the pool of common sense...testing the waters, so to speak. Play fair and see what happens?

      This is a good thing, no?

      • Ha, say what you like about Microsoft- they're survivors.

        They've never had the best software, they've never had had the most corporate friends, the law isn't even on their side, but by god they know how to stay on top.

        They've caught on that Free Software is kicking their rear all over the development and server-side scene. When in Rome?

    • It's the BSD license with one major change: it acknowledges software patents, and provides bi-directional protection from them. Specifically:
      * You receive a royalty-free patent license to use anything covered by the MS-PL.
      * If anybody sues you over a patent in software covered by the MS-PL, they lose the patent license mentioned above.
      * You must retain all patent notices (as well as copyright, attribution, and trademark notices) when you redistribute the software.
      * Patents ap

    • For the simple reason it is worded pretty much like the BSD license, only it doesn't demand you name the copyright holders. When I open source stuff and people contribute, there are multiple people who own copyright on all the bits of code. The BSD license (at least the template on Codeplex) really only lets you enter one copyright holder. MS-PL is worded so that you don't have to list every single contributor.

    • It doesn't even require you to open your own code under the same license

      In fact that is the only area where one might make a reasonable objection, the lack of duty to redistribute source code, but the GP doesn't even take that road and criticizes the entire license simply because it was written by Microsoft. Not every OSI license is like the GPL and requires redistribution of modification source code, that doesn't mean that the license is "out to get you" it just means that you are free to license your modifications how you please without additional duties or encumbrances. Now,

    • (B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

  • by BigBlueOx ( 1201587 ) on Thursday April 02, 2009 @04:03PM (#27435735)
    Microsoft, realizing that they are losing their developers to other software platforms, attempts to close the crack in the dam by shoveling sand into it. We go live to Lance Thruster on the scene.

    Yes, Jim, 5 years after the dam began to crack, someone at Microsoft realized that the whole construction could be swept downstream at any moment. That's when this repair crew...

    panning shot of Microsoft Open Source Evangelists at work shovelling sand

    ...began their labors. Unfortunately, it seems that this effort may be too little too late...

    shot of developers spilling out of the Microsoft dam and into the PHP, Perl, Python, Java and Ruby streams

    ...I do have an unconfirmed report that Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer himself is on the way to the dam break with several truck-loads of chairs he will use in an attempt to help.

    For Action Eyewitness OnTheSpot First News, I'm Lance Thruster reporting from the Microsoft dam.
    • Come on now, Ballmer's not going to use chairs to plug holes. He's going to use developers, developers, developers.
  • I'm just slightly concerned that all the work that has been put into the GPL by FSF (of which I'm a member thus a bit biased) and others will be overshadowed - at least in the mainstream - by Microsoft's step into open source. I support organizations' forays into FOSS, but I'm concerned that Microsoft is trying to eventually be perceived as the leader of FOSS development. And maybe I'm paranoid.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jaykul ( 597144 )

      A little paranoia is healthy. ;)

      I think Microsoft is certainly going to use "Open Source" as a marketing and PR tool -- as does every other corporation which gets involved in Open Source.

      Could they be perceived as the leader? I think they could actually become the leader, and not just in perception -- considering how much code they write, that's just a question of whether that's what they want to do or not. If they committed themselves to it, you couldn't stop them.

      Would it be a bad thing if Microsoft (o

    • GPL isn't the final word on open source licenses. Quite frankly, I'm pleased to see more options and further, I'm glad people are taking the time to think before they just blindly stamp a GPL on their project. GPL is good for some projects, but it isn't good for all.

      And maybe I'm paranoid.

      You are. If Microsoft starts going open source, it means you've won.

      It is the same with the environmental movement. The environmentalists won. Their cause grew from a fringe group of "tree huggers" to something that is

    • And maybe I'm paranoid.

      It is actually part of an evil conspiracy by aliens (Steve Ballmer is actually one of them) to melt your brain and take over the world.

    • Will MS-PL Overshadow GPL?

      First of all, it won't, because the amount of code that is released under Ms-PL is, in practice, minuscule compared to that under GPL. Furthermore, Ms-PL is mostly only used by Microsoft so far, and perhaps for some OSS projects based on MS technologies, hosted on CodePlex, etc. It doesn't show any signs of spreading beyond those boundaries.

      Second, even if it ever does that, why would you care? If Ms-PL will indeed overshadow GPL, then it's still a true open source license; and if Microsoft releases enough

    • RTFL [opensource.org].

      It's very generous. Similar to the BSD license, which has been around for ages.

    • Outside the tech world, nobody cares in the least (it's not even like they open-sourced a end-user program - this is a development framework). Inside the tech world, everybody already knows about the GPL and Linux.

      Inherently, the fact that something is F/OSS really only matters to developers. End users may like its features, or security, or the fact that it's free of charge. However, none of those are exclusive to the F/OSS world. Even things like the ability to extend the product are available in proprieta

  • by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Friday April 03, 2009 @11:25AM (#27445699)

    When I first read the summary title, I thought this was a thread about software which I was interested in, as this may help Mono, which I would very much like to use in on FBSD in place of my Windows ASP.NET servers. Then I read the summary and thought maybe it was more about licensing. Finally I noticed douchebagtimothy's jab at the end and realized this is just a Troll.

    Why is it that 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' translates to 'news for GPL fanatics who don't even understand WHY they like GPL?'

    Allow me to troll and rant myself for a bit ...

    To all the twits who scream 'MS IS UP TO SOMETHING THEY SHOULD USE GPL AND BE TRUELY FREE!!!' ... go fuck yourself. The license they are using if FAR more free than anything your little hippie daddy Stallmen has ever even considered. Its a lot more focused on accomplishing what you think you're accomplishing with GPL than GPL is.

    To all the twits who scream 'NOT GPL COMPATIBLE!' ... again, go fuck yourself, your not only wrong, but obviously completely oblivious to the fact that GPL incompatibilities are almost always caused by retarded bullshit clauses in GPL designed to make it as bad for society as AIDS. GPL is virus. A virus that needs to fucking die. Its turned into a far more restrictive license than anything I've ever got from Apple OR Microsoft.

    To all the twits who think GPL is an open license.

    my final one ... go fuck yourselves. GPL is about as open as the proprietary licenses I deal with from Microsoft, RSA, Apple. Those proprietary licenses I can actually negotiate and get what I want out of them for a fee. With GPL that requires me to negotiate with everyone contributor, a practically impossible task for any project large enough for me to bother wanting to use it in another project rather than writing it myself.

    GPL just makes people write software over and over again, not reuse it. Someone makes a GPL library, everyone wants to use it and realizes that the licensing is just fucking ridiculous, so they write there own and release it under an actual open source license.

    I'm so sick if you retarded 13 year old GPL fanboys who have no ability to think for yourself and all you do is listen to your bleeding heart professors and that fat hippie fuck Stallmen, neither of which are capable of holding a real just that can actually be considered useful to society.

    If you've ever even looked at Stallman's home page you should be afraid of him. Most kids go through an 'activist' stage where they fill the need to make things 'better'. Then somewhere along the lines reality sets in and they get out of school and realize theres more to life than the one sided view they had previously. Stallman and his GPL fanatics are like this, except too damn retarded to grow up. Or apparently make themselves appear presentable in public.

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker