News: .NET framework source code available soon...

[Chris Nahr]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:32:36 -0700, Peter Duniho
<NpOeStPeAdM@Nn OwSlPiAnMk.comw rote:

>You are already at risk for legal action, if you happen to produce code
>that "looks" like their code.

No, you are not.

>They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
>action on the basis of a copyright violation.

Copyright does not cover duplication of function or even accidental
recreation of the same exact program text, only intentional copying.
Hence "copy"right .

What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
functionality, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
the patented functionality is patentable at all.

>Microsoft didn't need access to the Stacker source code for them to be
>sued over DoubleSpace. All they needed was an implementation that
>looked sufficiently like Stacker's implementation.

No, what they needed was an implementation that duplicated Stacker's
_patented_ functionality. See here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219300.700.html

>Well, that's true of any published source code that carries an attached
>license. Even regular "open source" stuff generally includes various
>license requirements that can form the basis of a lawsuit of someone
>believes you misused the source code.

Unlike patents, however, such licenses only apply to people who
actually acquired & used the software, and agreed to the license.

Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.

>So, for example, either you cannot look at any source code covered by
>the GPL, or you must provide all of the disclosures and other
>requirements made by the GPL, even if you did in fact not actually
>intentionall y reuse the source code you looked at. If you want to
>follow the legal liability philosophy you're stating, that is.

That is correct. If you merely create _similar_ source code with an
identical purpose you're fine, though. The license only covers the
actual source code, not the function expressed by it. That's the
realm of patents.

>Not having any legal expertise, I wouldn't even try to make a claim as
>to the reality of the situation. However, I suspect that fears of legal
>action are highly over-inflated for a given individual, assuming no
>actual misuse of the code happened (that is, assuming you didn't
>actually copy the code or some non-obvious technique, that sort of thing).

For independent individuals that is probably correct. However, Mono
is a fairly high-profile project that needs a public website for
coordination. Microsoft would damn well shut it down if they thought
they're copying the .NET source code wholesale. Why else bother
having any read-only clause in the license in the first place?
--

http://www.kynosarges.de

[Chris Nahr]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:26:35 +0100, Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
<skeet@pobox.co mwrote:

>Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
>(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
>viewing and debugging into.

That's pretty cool, especially that we can debug into the source code
right from within Visual Studio. I guess that means Microsoft finally
gave up the fight against Reflector. :)

>I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
>Guthrie's blog:
>
>http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archi...ng-the-source-
>code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx

Please turn off word wrap for URLs if possible. Viral marketing tip:
Forte Agent never wraps URLs! Here's the clickable URL:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx

--

http://www.kynosarges.de

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

Peter Duniho wrote:

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:

I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but
just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

[...]
Any comments?

>
You mean other than it seems that Microsoft is taking some of the
best ideas from the open-source movement?
>
First they release a free development environment that has very few
really important features missing, and now they are offering the
actual source code for .NET?
>
As if that weren't great enough, an even cooler part is that the
source will be copied on-demand according to the framework version
you're actually using.
>
The one major downside I see is the potential for finding .NET
applications where the author took the original .NET code and used
that to create their own custom version of some .NET class, negating
one of the primary benefits of using a framework: using the same
well-tested, broadly-deployed component that everyone else is using.
>
But I'm guessing that the people who are likely to do that would
probably find other ways to write bad code anyway. :)

You can't touch the code, that's not allowed by the 'Reference
license' this code is released under. So it's pretty much 'look, and
forget what you saw'-code.

I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if
Microsoft would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
implementations of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.

MS doesn't even allow you to fix bugs in the framework as you aren't
allowed to rebuild it.

Mono requires that developers who submit patches / changes have never
looked at MS sourcecode. So if you have looked at rotor, you aren't
allowed to submit patches, precisely because it would make Mono
vulnerable for lawsuits.

Now, why would they do that and why should that be different for a
..NET developer writing code for a project? Isn't that the same thing?
Please realize that.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Re: .NET framework source code available soon...

Jordan S. wrote:

Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.
>
Thoughts ?

If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use reflector.
Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

FB

>
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co mwrote in message
news:MPG.216def 3af6f6862e4eb@m snews.microsoft .com...

I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but
just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-the-sour

ce- code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx


Any comments?

-- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

Chris Nahr wrote:

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:26:35 +0100, Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
<skeet@pobox.co mwrote:
>

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

>
That's pretty cool, especially that we can debug into the source code
right from within Visual Studio. I guess that means Microsoft finally
gave up the fight against Reflector. :)

Doesn't Roeder work for MS nowadays? :)

FB
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: .NET framework source code available soon...

On Oct 4, 11:26 am, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
<perseus.usenet NOS...@xs4all.n lwrote:

Jordan S. wrote:

Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.

>

Thoughts ?

>
If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use reflector.
Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

I'm not sure that it does - I'd be very surprised if the licence
for .NET didn't prohibit reverse engineering. I know reverse
engineering is legal (despite the licence) in some countries for the
purpose of compatibility testing, but I don't think it would help you
if you were accused of copying the code itself.

Jon

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.usenet NOSPAM@xs4all.n lwrote in message
news:xn0fc1qaz8 5zsv005@news.mi crosoft.com...

Chris Nahr wrote:
>

>On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:26:35 +0100, Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
><skeet@pobox.c omwrote:
>>

Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both
for viewing and debugging into.

>>
>That's pretty cool, especially that we can debug into the source code
>right from within Visual Studio. I guess that means Microsoft finally
>gave up the fight against Reflector. :)

>
Doesn't Roeder work for MS nowadays? :)

Sure he does, coming from MS Research and since 2002 on the Blend team.

Willy.

[Chris Shepherd]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

JJ wrote:

I hope Microsoft doesn't bundle the licence agreement for access to the
source code with the licence agreement for any other products like Visual
Studio 2008 or others. If they do, they can sue customers who have viewed the
source code for having done so and taken ideas from it. I wouldn't want to
view the source code for such a price. And for that reason, I wouldn't want
to be in a situation where if I had agreed to the licence agreement for, say,
VS2008, I would, by default, be also agreeing to the licence agreement for
the source code.

From what I've seen posted here/read it sounds as though it will be
entirely separate.

I actually loved .NET. Java is so slow doing everything. I haven't bothered
to learn Ruby or Python. I can't stand Linux for being so programmer
unfriendly. And I had left C++ behind for a long time.

I really don't find Java slow for anything but GUI stuff. I've written a
lot of web services and server-type applications in Java though. It also
rocks on cell phones. :)

As for Linux being "programmer unfriendly" I have to completely
disagree. Your later comment that most stuff has to be done on the
command-line is also really wrong, at least in the more recent versions
of distributions I've used (Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and OpenSuSE). I don't
want to start a holy war at all, but I would just say my experiences of
doing daily development on both platforms, Linux made my life as a
developer far and away easier than Windows did.
Obviously I'm not complaining about Windows dev, I live with it every
day at home and at work. :P

Chris.

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

Peter Duniho wrote:

Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:

>Peter Duniho wrote:

>>I guess the one thing missing from this announcement is how this all
>>relates to a project like Mono. It would be pretty awesome if Microsoft
>>would allow the source code to be used for cross-platform
>>implementatio ns of .NET, and could dramatically decrease the lag of
>>non-Windows .NET implementations behind the Windows releases.

>>
>The current consensus is, that if you look at this code provided by
>MS, you
>will no longer be able to contribute to Mono.

>
But what does Microsoft say? A lot of people, especially those who are
more inclined to work with open-source and especially with Linux, have a
tendency to view Microsoft as a monolithic, power-hungry, lawyer-driven
company. And as with all great myths, there's probably at least some
grains of truth behind that view.
>
But without any evidence that suggests Microsoft's own position is that
looking at .NET code causes a person to be legally unqualified to work
on Mono, it's just rumor-mongering and not necessarily by people who
normally view Microsoft in a positive light anyway.

Unless MS put it in writing in a legal binding form, then Mono and
other projects would still be worried.

I can be solved.

Before Java went GPL there was a Java Research License which
allows it.

http://java.net/jrl.csp

Quote:

***
B. Residual Rights. If You examine the Technology after accepting
this License and remember anything about it later, You are not
"tainted" in a way that would prevent You from creating or
contributing to an independent implementation, but this License grants
You no rights to Sun's copyrights or patents for use in such an
implementation.
***

And FAQ answer from same link:

***
18. Does the JRL prevent me from being able to create an independent
open source implementation of the licensed technology?

The JRL is not a tainting license and includes an express Òresidual
knowledgeÓ clause which says you're not contaminated by things you
happen to remember after examining the licensed technology. The JRL
allows you to use the source code for the purpose of JRL-related
activities but does not prohibit you from working on an independent
implementation of the technology afterwards. Obviously, if your
intention is to create an ÒindependentÓ implementation of the technology
then it is inappropriate to actively study JRL source while working on
such an implementation. It is appropriate, however, to allow some decent
interval of time (e.g. two weeks) to elapse between working on a project
that involves looking at some JRL source code and working on a project
that involves creating an independent implementation of the same technology.
***

MS could do something similar.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

Chris Nahr wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:32:36 -0700, Peter Duniho
<NpOeStPeAdM@Nn OwSlPiAnMk.comw rote:

>You are already at risk for legal action, if you happen to produce code
>that "looks" like their code.

>
No, you are not.
>

>They don't have to show you their source code for them to file legal
>action on the basis of a copyright violation.

>
Copyright does not cover duplication of function or even accidental
recreation of the same exact program text, only intentional copying.
Hence "copy"right .
>
What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
functionality, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
the patented functionality is patentable at all.

No. I think they are thinking of license violation.

>Well, that's true of any published source code that carries an attached
>license. Even regular "open source" stuff generally includes various
>license requirements that can form the basis of a lawsuit of someone
>believes you misused the source code.

>
Unlike patents, however, such licenses only apply to people who
actually acquired & used the software, and agreed to the license.
>
Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.

I don't think I would like to base an important product on that
assumption.

Considering that MS and SUN seems to have a different opinion.

Arne

[Brian Gideon]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

On Oct 3, 1:26 pm, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <sk...@pobox.co mwrote:

I'm sure the net will be buzzing with this news fairly soon, but just
in case anyone hasn't seen it yet:
>
Microsoft are going to make the source code for the .NET framework
(parts of it, including the BCL, ASP.NET and LINQ) available both for
viewing and debugging into.
>
I won't go into all the details here, as they're covered on Scott
Guthrie's blog:
>

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-the-source-

code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx
>
Any comments?
>
--
Jon Skeet - <sk...@pobox.co m>http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog:http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

That's pretty cool. Just the other day I was trying to figure out the
runtime complexity on one of the methods in the BCL using Reflector.
The code it generates, although good, is still hard to follow so
having the actual code will be helpful.

[Chris Nahr]

Re: News: .NET framework source code available soon...

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:28:05 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d k>
wrote:

>What you are thinking of are software _patents_ which is entirely
>different. Patents must be explicitly filed for specific pieces of
>functionalit y, they are not valid outside America and I think Japan,
>and they are subject to interpretation by a judge regarding whether
>the patented functionality is patentable at all.

>
>No. I think they are thinking of license violation.

Who is "they"? If you're talking about me, I can assure you that
judges do have to decide whether a patent is valid. The US patent
office merrily hands out patents for just about anything these days,
which is why patents need to be tested in court.

>Any license that tried to prevent the user from duplicating the
>software's functionality, patent-style, would be null and void. The
>power of licenses, like copyright, is restricted to the actual product
>as it is. They cannot regulate independent recreations.

>
>I don't think I would like to base an important product on that
>assumption.
>
>Considering that MS and SUN seems to have a different opinion.

What are you talking about? And would you base your products
exclusively on Microsoft's and Sun's "opinions" even if they are in
conflict with the law? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
--

http://www.kynosarges.de

[Laura T.]

Re: .NET framework source code available soon...


"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co mha scritto nel messaggio
news:1191496541 .268162.106670@ n39g2000hsh.goo glegroups.com.. .

On Oct 4, 11:26 am, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
<perseus.usenet NOS...@xs4all.n lwrote:

>Jordan S. wrote:

Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.

>>

Thoughts ?

>>
> If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use
>reflector.
>Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
>lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

>
I'm not sure that it does - I'd be very surprised if the licence
for .NET didn't prohibit reverse engineering. I know reverse
engineering is legal (despite the licence) in some countries for the
purpose of compatibility testing, but I don't think it would help you
if you were accused of copying the code itself.
>
Jon

Well, then this might surprise you. I just installed dotnetfx.exe from the
msdn site, and the only EULA that I must agree does not even mention reverse
engineering. As an end-user, I have accepted only this EULA, and if I
happend to have Reflector on my machine, it's just casual. :-)

The EULA is also here,
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms994405.aspx

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

Re: .NET framework source code available soon...

"Laura T." <LT_stop@yahoo. comwrote in message
news:urcytTqBIH A.324@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...

>
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co mha scritto nel messaggio
news:1191496541 .268162.106670@ n39g2000hsh.goo glegroups.com.. .

>On Oct 4, 11:26 am, "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]"
><perseus.usene tNOS...@xs4all. nlwrote:

>>Jordan S. wrote:
>Will I no longer need Lutz Roeder's Reflector? I was going to be
>learning that, but now I'm wondering what the value may be of his
>Reflector if we can now get right into the BCL source itself.
>>>
>Thoughts ?
>>>
>> If you don't accept the reference license, you have to use
>>reflector.
>>Reflector reverse engineers the IL, which makes you less vulnerable for
>>lawsuits than the reference licensed code makes you.

>>
>I'm not sure that it does - I'd be very surprised if the licence
>for .NET didn't prohibit reverse engineering. I know reverse
>engineering is legal (despite the licence) in some countries for the
>purpose of compatibility testing, but I don't think it would help you
>if you were accused of copying the code itself.
>>
>Jon

>
Well, then this might surprise you. I just installed dotnetfx.exe from the
msdn site, and the only EULA that I must agree does not even mention
reverse engineering. As an end-user, I have accepted only this EULA, and
if I happend to have Reflector on my machine, it's just casual. :-)
>
The EULA is also here,
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms994405.aspx
>

Note that this is a supplemental EULA , maybe you should read your OS
product EULA first ;-)

Willy.

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Re: .NET framework source code available soon...

Frans,

AFAIK do the laws of the EU not allow explicitily forbidding of reverse
enginering.

However it is not so difficult to do that implecitely.

Cor