8 ms·

> ChakraCore > The MIT License (MIT) > Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Incredible! https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https

> ChakraCore > The MIT License (MIT) > Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Incredible! https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/blob/master/LICENSE....

thebouv 11y ago
So many things coming out of "the new Microsoft" that it is hard to keep up with. Gone from being vehemently anti-Microsoft most of my career to going "Hmmmm, I should look at that." Now to carve out time to do anything with any of it. :\
jsingleton 11y ago
Great stuff. I've worked professionally in the .NET development ecosystem for almost a decade and I've never been so enthusiastic about the direction that Microsoft is taking. Their embracing of open source practices is very positive and will help to retain and maybe even attract developers. You just don't have to worry about licensing any more this way. You can actually sit an MCP exam in MS product licensing, it's that complicated. This announcement is probably timed to coincide with NDC. There were lots of similar open source announcements at a previous MS conference I was at. Although it was a bit weird due to the time difference on the embargo.
- tracker1 11y ago
  MS is betting that their services division(s) will be the future of the company... from Azure to Office 365, XBox services, etc. It probably is the safest bet given the monumental shift in computer/online usage away from typical desktops to phones/tablets and their middling encroachments into that space. MS is being open because it makes sense to, and it's the only way to maintain mindshare in the near future. Azure's a decent enough offering, but AWS and GCE are right there as well, each with advantages over the others. I actually like windows (mostly), but need it far less, as I can do what I like with OSX and Linux and do daily. As a developer/user it's nice to see the changes.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  I might be wrong, but I think the attitude change really started with .NET. I'm not sure that many people remember the "shared source" version of .NET. I worked at Corel, who was contracted to work on it, at the time. Although I didn't work on the project itself, I interacted with quite a few people who did. I'm not going to pretend that MS "got it" at the time. "Share Source" was an insult to everyone. However, internally you could see light bulbs going off in people's heads. People who worked on the shared source version were proud of what they were doing and were really eager to have people look at it. The fact that "shared source" essentially crippled it to the point that it would be useless to everyone was surely a thorn in those people's sides. It (and every other shared source project) died in obscurity (thankfully). I often wonder if this was one of the seeds that eventually sprouted inside MS to make them start to take open source seriously. I even wonder if one day we will see them embrace software freedom. Well... I can dream can't I ;-)
mordocai 11y ago
I'd prefer Apache with its patent clause but what can you do?
- k__ 11y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - viraptor 11y ago
    If you publish something using apache license you grant users the right to use your patents that cover this software. When you publish under MIT, you can still keep a patent and sue any user.
    - nchelluri 11y ago
      Can you explain how this works in more detail? If I use someone's MIT license code that has patented stuff in it, does that make me a potential target? Seems hard to justify using MIT licensed code in that case?
      - viraptor 11y ago
        That's right. MIT does not protect you from any patent-related legal action. It's not that hard to justify though - it's the same for BSD and MIT/BSD has been used for ages. Both Apache and GPL grant patent use to everyone. I'd paste the relevant bit, but it's stupid-law-level-long. Point 3 in https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt - also see the exploding trap at the end of that point. You cannot sue the author for patent reasons.
        carussell 11y ago
        Please don't say things like, "MIT does not protect you from any patent-related legal action." It isn't that the MIT License is known to provide no protection; rather, it's unknown whether the MIT License provides protection. The MIT License contains strong wording to suggest it may very well provide protection against patents, but it's untested and not quite as strong as the patent grant in, say, Apache 2.0. It's a matter of knowns and unknowns. Consequently, this is why the MIT License and the BSD License should not be lumped together.

thebouv 11y ago

So many things coming out of "the new Microsoft" that it is hard to keep up with. Gone from being vehemently anti-Microsoft most of my career to going "Hmmmm, I should look at that." Now to carve out time to do anything with any of it. :\

jsingleton 11y ago

Great stuff. I've worked professionally in the .NET development ecosystem for almost a decade and I've never been so enthusiastic about the direction that Microsoft is taking. Their embracing of open source practices is very positive and will help to retain and maybe even attract developers. You just don't have to worry about licensing any more this way. You can actually sit an MCP exam in MS product licensing, it's that complicated. This announcement is probably timed to coincide with NDC. There were lots of similar open source announcements at a previous MS conference I was at. Although it was a bit weird due to the time difference on the embargo.

tracker1 11y ago
MS is betting that their services division(s) will be the future of the company... from Azure to Office 365, XBox services, etc. It probably is the safest bet given the monumental shift in computer/online usage away from typical desktops to phones/tablets and their middling encroachments into that space. MS is being open because it makes sense to, and it's the only way to maintain mindshare in the near future. Azure's a decent enough offering, but AWS and GCE are right there as well, each with advantages over the others. I actually like windows (mostly), but need it far less, as I can do what I like with OSX and Linux and do daily. As a developer/user it's nice to see the changes.
mikekchar 11y ago
I might be wrong, but I think the attitude change really started with .NET. I'm not sure that many people remember the "shared source" version of .NET. I worked at Corel, who was contracted to work on it, at the time. Although I didn't work on the project itself, I interacted with quite a few people who did. I'm not going to pretend that MS "got it" at the time. "Share Source" was an insult to everyone. However, internally you could see light bulbs going off in people's heads. People who worked on the shared source version were proud of what they were doing and were really eager to have people look at it. The fact that "shared source" essentially crippled it to the point that it would be useless to everyone was surely a thorn in those people's sides. It (and every other shared source project) died in obscurity (thankfully). I often wonder if this was one of the seeds that eventually sprouted inside MS to make them start to take open source seriously. I even wonder if one day we will see them embrace software freedom. Well... I can dream can't I ;-)

mordocai 11y ago

I'd prefer Apache with its patent clause but what can you do?

k__ 11y ago
Care to elaborate?
- viraptor 11y ago
  If you publish something using apache license you grant users the right to use your patents that cover this software. When you publish under MIT, you can still keep a patent and sue any user.
  - nchelluri 11y ago
    Can you explain how this works in more detail? If I use someone's MIT license code that has patented stuff in it, does that make me a potential target? Seems hard to justify using MIT licensed code in that case?
    - viraptor 11y ago
      That's right. MIT does not protect you from any patent-related legal action. It's not that hard to justify though - it's the same for BSD and MIT/BSD has been used for ages. Both Apache and GPL grant patent use to everyone. I'd paste the relevant bit, but it's stupid-law-level-long. Point 3 in https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt - also see the exploding trap at the end of that point. You cannot sue the author for patent reasons.
      - carussell 11y ago
        Please don't say things like, "MIT does not protect you from any patent-related legal action." It isn't that the MIT License is known to provide no protection; rather, it's unknown whether the MIT License provides protection. The MIT License contains strong wording to suggest it may very well provide protection against patents, but it's untested and not quite as strong as the patent grant in, say, Apache 2.0. It's a matter of knowns and unknowns. Consequently, this is why the MIT License and the BSD License should not be lumped together.