5 ms·

I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?

keithnz 5y ago
I think one of the big things is that Microsoft associates its name with the projects. It seemed to me at the time it was a nod towards enterprises to encourage them to use open source libraries that were mature and trustworthy and that it was unlikely Microsoft themselves would build something in the same space.
- oaiey 5y ago
  Hmm .. this is a problem and surely the foundation is a nod... But the last sentence I would remove. If Microsoft will or will not compete, is a different story. Azure AD e.g. competes with the IdentityServer solution at the time they were in the foundation.
kevingadd 5y ago
Among other things, the CLA for .NET projects assigns copyright to the foundation (a non-profit) instead of Microsoft and also has some similar patent terms to protect people who use those projects
- oneplane 5y ago
  So essentially, this means that the foundation is setup for the benefit of companies that would otherwise deem the use of open-source software too risky since they cannot be legally sure that they will be able to use this software for their business.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    Well, it also means that you as an open source dev don't have to constantly worry about someone challenging your copyrights or trademarks. And if they do, you don't have to worry about the legal expenses.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      On the other hand: it's not like a foundation has infinite resources either, and as an open source dev I don't really worry about copyright or trademark challenges (neither constantly nor intermittently). I'm not entirely sure how big of an issue this is anyway, your comment here is the first time I've actually had to do some thinking about it. Maybe this also depends on how litigious your current context of development/living/residence is. Looking at some individuals that apparently did get into some legal stuff: it has almost always turned out fine, and when needed the EFF and FSF have been helping plenty. If legal issues are really a thing, then a foundation isn't what we need, but just more money and people for the EFF.
    - electroly 5y ago
      It was mentioned in one of the discussion threads that the foundation does not offer legal representation to its member projects. It only does so for its own director, officers, and employees. This is explicitly spelled out in Article V of the foundation's bylaws: https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/bylaws https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/bylaws My understanding is that the legal benefit of being a member project is essentially just that they run the CLA bot. If you actually get sued you're still on your own.
- achandlerwhite 5y ago
  Not necessarily true. The CLA assigns copyright as outlined in the project agreement with the foundation, which does not have to use the copyright assignment model. My project used the contribution model wherein my contributors and I retain copyright.
CameronNemo 5y ago
I'm not 100% either, but IIRC there were different groups working with C# back in the day. Microsoft was the largest, but least open. I think Xamarin was one of the large open groups that was developing for/with C#. The .NET foundation was supposed to make C# a vendor and platform agnostic language from what I understand, giving Microsoft and others like Xamarin a seat at the table.
danroth27 5y ago
See https://dotnetfoundation.org/about https://dotnetfoundation.org/about.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  If you follow the link to Miguel de Icaza comment, you'll see the original comment that shows that no one knows what it actually does.
MauranKilom 5y ago
In short, if someone wants to pick a fight with an open source dev over e.g. copyright, it's much easier (and more of a deterrent) if it's an entity like the .NET foundation defending the project, instead of the dev having to foot all the bills (and time) themselves. Beyond that, the .NET foundation would, in theory, also be able to provide resources for project maintenance (think CI hours) and events (funding for conferences/meetups etc.). (Disclaimer: I am entirely uninvolved, this is what I recall from reading the discussions.)
sneak 5y ago
It's a front for Microsoft proprietary software money to participate in open source communities and ecosystems in an effort to gain prominence and control in those cultures, same as their purchase of GitHub and NPM. AFAIK ~all of the people who work there are on the Microsoft concentration-camp-money payroll.
- SgtBastard 5y ago
  Miguel worked on open-source for decades before joining Microsoft. The snide Godwin comment at the end doesn’t belong on HN.
  - sneak 5y ago
    It's fact, although my choice of which facts to point out may be snide.
jlawer 5y ago
The .NET community largely grew up having a "source of truth" for best practice, architecture, etc. Microsoft shaped not just the language, but the culture around the language, having vast influence on how people learnt the language, the processes on how they worked and naturally used this to push MS technologies. MS tried to own the whole stack, and thus they had libraries and frameworks for much of what you would try and do with .NET. While competing against other companies this strategy worked as MS were larger and able to have a more complete solution. This was enabled by their huge share of desktop computing with Windows. However as the shift to Web and Mobile came, the number of platforms grew (especially outside of MS controlled ones), and the centrally planned .NET experience was breaking down. MS's centrally planned competitors threw in the towel or had gone bankrupt. Java was opened, Sun was out of business and the smaller software development offerings had long since tried to incorporate open source, or had switched to growing only through milking the existing customer base. Microsoft saw the change coming, as well as the move to the cloud, and was able to see the cost involved with competing against open source, and started their shift to open source. The foundation is their attempt to both reduce their relative investment, by having users start taking on some of the development while controlling the core of the language. Keep in mind this was the time .Net was becomming cross platform, with linux becoming a major hosting option. Due to these origins it has lead to the foundation being in a central position in the .Net ecosystem. As such if your library is part of the foundation, its likely to be THE standard solution in the .NET space. So the advantage you get is you get to participate, and if your project joins, it becomes the de-facto standard for .NET. That credibility is likely worth a bit for consultants and definitely paints you as an expert in that field. The downside is you cede control. I am not arguing that it is worth it for most people / projects, however I can understand why people want to be involved.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- oaiey 5y ago
  There are some flaws in the argument: .NET has today more funding in Microsoft than ever (this is a gut feeling from seeing the things they move). The argument Project being part of the foundation equals de-facto is not correct. I think there is zero evidence for that. It is however often the other way around, that successful projects fold into the foundation because of it being the de facto foundation and no other foundation has strong ties to .NET

keithnz 5y ago

I think one of the big things is that Microsoft associates its name with the projects. It seemed to me at the time it was a nod towards enterprises to encourage them to use open source libraries that were mature and trustworthy and that it was unlikely Microsoft themselves would build something in the same space.

oaiey 5y ago
Hmm .. this is a problem and surely the foundation is a nod... But the last sentence I would remove. If Microsoft will or will not compete, is a different story. Azure AD e.g. competes with the IdentityServer solution at the time they were in the foundation.

kevingadd 5y ago

Among other things, the CLA for .NET projects assigns copyright to the foundation (a non-profit) instead of Microsoft and also has some similar patent terms to protect people who use those projects

oneplane 5y ago
So essentially, this means that the foundation is setup for the benefit of companies that would otherwise deem the use of open-source software too risky since they cannot be legally sure that they will be able to use this software for their business.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  Well, it also means that you as an open source dev don't have to constantly worry about someone challenging your copyrights or trademarks. And if they do, you don't have to worry about the legal expenses.
  - oneplane 5y ago
    On the other hand: it's not like a foundation has infinite resources either, and as an open source dev I don't really worry about copyright or trademark challenges (neither constantly nor intermittently). I'm not entirely sure how big of an issue this is anyway, your comment here is the first time I've actually had to do some thinking about it. Maybe this also depends on how litigious your current context of development/living/residence is. Looking at some individuals that apparently did get into some legal stuff: it has almost always turned out fine, and when needed the EFF and FSF have been helping plenty. If legal issues are really a thing, then a foundation isn't what we need, but just more money and people for the EFF.
  - electroly 5y ago
    It was mentioned in one of the discussion threads that the foundation does not offer legal representation to its member projects. It only does so for its own director, officers, and employees. This is explicitly spelled out in Article V of the foundation's bylaws: https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/bylaws https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/bylaws My understanding is that the legal benefit of being a member project is essentially just that they run the CLA bot. If you actually get sued you're still on your own.
achandlerwhite 5y ago
Not necessarily true. The CLA assigns copyright as outlined in the project agreement with the foundation, which does not have to use the copyright assignment model. My project used the contribution model wherein my contributors and I retain copyright.

CameronNemo 5y ago

I'm not 100% either, but IIRC there were different groups working with C# back in the day. Microsoft was the largest, but least open. I think Xamarin was one of the large open groups that was developing for/with C#. The .NET foundation was supposed to make C# a vendor and platform agnostic language from what I understand, giving Microsoft and others like Xamarin a seat at the table.

danroth27 5y ago

See https://dotnetfoundation.org/about https://dotnetfoundation.org/about.

dmitriid 5y ago
If you follow the link to Miguel de Icaza comment, you'll see the original comment that shows that no one knows what it actually does.

MauranKilom 5y ago

In short, if someone wants to pick a fight with an open source dev over e.g. copyright, it's much easier (and more of a deterrent) if it's an entity like the .NET foundation defending the project, instead of the dev having to foot all the bills (and time) themselves. Beyond that, the .NET foundation would, in theory, also be able to provide resources for project maintenance (think CI hours) and events (funding for conferences/meetups etc.). (Disclaimer: I am entirely uninvolved, this is what I recall from reading the discussions.)

sneak 5y ago

It's a front for Microsoft proprietary software money to participate in open source communities and ecosystems in an effort to gain prominence and control in those cultures, same as their purchase of GitHub and NPM. AFAIK ~all of the people who work there are on the Microsoft concentration-camp-money payroll.

SgtBastard 5y ago
Miguel worked on open-source for decades before joining Microsoft. The snide Godwin comment at the end doesn’t belong on HN.
- sneak 5y ago
  It's fact, although my choice of which facts to point out may be snide.

jlawer 5y ago

The .NET community largely grew up having a "source of truth" for best practice, architecture, etc. Microsoft shaped not just the language, but the culture around the language, having vast influence on how people learnt the language, the processes on how they worked and naturally used this to push MS technologies. MS tried to own the whole stack, and thus they had libraries and frameworks for much of what you would try and do with .NET. While competing against other companies this strategy worked as MS were larger and able to have a more complete solution. This was enabled by their huge share of desktop computing with Windows. However as the shift to Web and Mobile came, the number of platforms grew (especially outside of MS controlled ones), and the centrally planned .NET experience was breaking down. MS's centrally planned competitors threw in the towel or had gone bankrupt. Java was opened, Sun was out of business and the smaller software development offerings had long since tried to incorporate open source, or had switched to growing only through milking the existing customer base. Microsoft saw the change coming, as well as the move to the cloud, and was able to see the cost involved with competing against open source, and started their shift to open source. The foundation is their attempt to both reduce their relative investment, by having users start taking on some of the development while controlling the core of the language. Keep in mind this was the time .Net was becomming cross platform, with linux becoming a major hosting option. Due to these origins it has lead to the foundation being in a central position in the .Net ecosystem. As such if your library is part of the foundation, its likely to be THE standard solution in the .NET space. So the advantage you get is you get to participate, and if your project joins, it becomes the de-facto standard for .NET. That credibility is likely worth a bit for consultants and definitely paints you as an expert in that field. The downside is you cede control. I am not arguing that it is worth it for most people / projects, however I can understand why people want to be involved.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oaiey 5y ago
There are some flaws in the argument: .NET has today more funding in Microsoft than ever (this is a gut feeling from seeing the things they move). The argument Project being part of the foundation equals de-facto is not correct. I think there is zero evidence for that. It is however often the other way around, that successful projects fold into the foundation because of it being the de facto foundation and no other foundation has strong ties to .NET