5 ms·

I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor

by mastax 5y ago

I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. Microsoft is by far the biggest contributor to .NET in general, and the .NET foundation projects in particular. No organization can purport to have a say over the evolution of .NET unless Microsoft has a seat at the table.

nuerow 5y ago
> I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. What's the point of putting up a foundation if it ends up being nothing more than a facade of a single corporation?
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > * Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".* This assertion is rejected by ReedCoopsey's statement regarding the fact that Microsoft reserves its right to appoint and control a foundation's director that happens to also have the privilege of single-handedly dictating and overriding any change.
simion314 5y ago
The comparison with UN is weird, UN does not have 1 member that is super special. Anyway the issue seems to be that the messaging does not match the reality, MS needs to be transparent and very clear in this, then projects can decide if they agree with the conditions. Java world had from a long time foundations that were independent of Sun/Oracle.
- qaq 5y ago
  Well they have 5 five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) with veto power ...
  - oneplane 5y ago
    So they are all one-fifth special then.
    - noizejoy 5y ago
      One veto is enough to kill a resolution, so it’s not quite the same as one-fifth
      - simion314 5y ago
        It is not the same when in a group just 1 has veto or when more have veto, for good or worse the 2 cases are completely different. If you think is the same I could elaborate but if it would be exactly the same MS could share it with 4 others from community right?
- rob_c 5y ago
  Yeah, tbh I'd with that Java was more independent then there maybe they're wouldn't have been so much of that mitigation over android... I think there is still the fear of something like this happening with .net if anyone ships with a modified version or reimplements a piece to meet their own needs, at least from chatting with my developer friends over coffee.
  - simion314 5y ago
    >Yeah, tbh I'd with that Java was more independent then there maybe they're wouldn't have been so much of that mitigation over android... Wouldn't then Java be already EEE by MS with their Visual J++ /J# ? You would have fragmentation in Java like you have with JavaScript APIs that can be non standard , or work differently in different browsers. From my memory in the end Google had to pay because they really copy pasted code from the original Java source so they did not respected the license.
nathanaldensr 5y ago
But the .NET Foundation as far as I understand isn't about "the evolution of .NET," it's about providing assistance to unpaid open source contributors of popular libraries and such (which I learned today does not include indemnification).

by mastax 5y ago

nuerow 5y ago

> I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. What's the point of putting up a foundation if it ends up being nothing more than a facade of a single corporation?

FooBarWidget 5y ago
Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".
- nuerow 5y ago
  > * Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".* This assertion is rejected by ReedCoopsey's statement regarding the fact that Microsoft reserves its right to appoint and control a foundation's director that happens to also have the privilege of single-handedly dictating and overriding any change.

simion314 5y ago

The comparison with UN is weird, UN does not have 1 member that is super special. Anyway the issue seems to be that the messaging does not match the reality, MS needs to be transparent and very clear in this, then projects can decide if they agree with the conditions. Java world had from a long time foundations that were independent of Sun/Oracle.

qaq 5y ago
Well they have 5 five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) with veto power ...
- oneplane 5y ago
  So they are all one-fifth special then.
  - noizejoy 5y ago
    One veto is enough to kill a resolution, so it’s not quite the same as one-fifth
    - simion314 5y ago
      It is not the same when in a group just 1 has veto or when more have veto, for good or worse the 2 cases are completely different. If you think is the same I could elaborate but if it would be exactly the same MS could share it with 4 others from community right?
rob_c 5y ago
Yeah, tbh I'd with that Java was more independent then there maybe they're wouldn't have been so much of that mitigation over android... I think there is still the fear of something like this happening with .net if anyone ships with a modified version or reimplements a piece to meet their own needs, at least from chatting with my developer friends over coffee.
- simion314 5y ago
  >Yeah, tbh I'd with that Java was more independent then there maybe they're wouldn't have been so much of that mitigation over android... Wouldn't then Java be already EEE by MS with their Visual J++ /J# ? You would have fragmentation in Java like you have with JavaScript APIs that can be non standard , or work differently in different browsers. From my memory in the end Google had to pay because they really copy pasted code from the original Java source so they did not respected the license.

nathanaldensr 5y ago

But the .NET Foundation as far as I understand isn't about "the evolution of .NET," it's about providing assistance to unpaid open source contributors of popular libraries and such (which I learned today does not include indemnification).