5 ms·

ASP.NET isn't so open source. Also, at it's current state, it looks like any novice web dev could code up a similar app in a few weeks.

Anon84 18y ago
At most, it's not Free Software (you have to pay for the ASP.NET/Windows licenses) but if you release the source, it's open source.
- cabalamat 18y ago
  > if you release the source, it's open source That's not what Open Source means, read the Open Source Definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Incidently, Oxite is Open Source, it's licensed under the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) -- http://www.codeplex.com/oxite/license http://www.codeplex.com/oxite/license The Ms-PL is a BSD-like license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL; it's part of Microsoft's attempt to poison the well of open source by introducing gratuitous incompatibilities with the most common open source license.
  - johns 18y ago
    Can you explain how it is incompatible? Ms-PL is OSI-approved (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html), which I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses.
    - cabalamat 18y ago
      > I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses. In the genreral case, you can't just assume that one OSI-approved license will be compatible with another. Back to this license, the Ms-PL. Term 3(D) says "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license". In other words you can't dual license it under another license. This means that I can't take some code licensed under Ms-PL, other code licensed under the GPL, add my own code, and publish the result; i.e. the Ms-PL is incompatible with the GPL. It's my opinion that this is a deliberate incompatibility. When the Ms-PL was undergoing OSI approval process, I asked Microsoft's lawyer whether it was intended that the Ms-PL be compatible with the GPL, and he refused to give a straight answer.
  - evanlong 18y ago
    "Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL. It is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL because of the conditions in sections 3(B) and 3(C). Please do not use this license for anything you write; there are already well-known free software licenses that serve the same purpose, such as the Apache License version 2.0, and we must all stand together to combat license proliferation. However, there is no reason to avoid using software released under this license. " source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLice...
    - cabalamat 18y ago
      If the FSF says it's compatible, then I guess it is. My bad.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Run it on Mono. There you go. The entire stack is open. (and free)
- chaostheory 18y ago
  yeah but Mono is never up to date when it comes to the current state of .NET and there are tons of compatibility issues... it's a losing battle. I just don't see the point when there are tons of other good alternatives that are fully open (not to mention more mature).
nihilocrat 18y ago
As the article points out, that's probably going to be a huge roadblock. I don't really see this ever becoming successful, open source or not.
- johns 18y ago
  I don't think that's the point. It's a reference application for ASP.NET MVC.

Anon84 18y ago

At most, it's not Free Software (you have to pay for the ASP.NET/Windows licenses) but if you release the source, it's open source.

cabalamat 18y ago
> if you release the source, it's open source That's not what Open Source means, read the Open Source Definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Incidently, Oxite is Open Source, it's licensed under the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) -- http://www.codeplex.com/oxite/license http://www.codeplex.com/oxite/license The Ms-PL is a BSD-like license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL; it's part of Microsoft's attempt to poison the well of open source by introducing gratuitous incompatibilities with the most common open source license.
- johns 18y ago
  Can you explain how it is incompatible? Ms-PL is OSI-approved (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html), which I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses.
  - cabalamat 18y ago
    > I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses. In the genreral case, you can't just assume that one OSI-approved license will be compatible with another. Back to this license, the Ms-PL. Term 3(D) says "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license". In other words you can't dual license it under another license. This means that I can't take some code licensed under Ms-PL, other code licensed under the GPL, add my own code, and publish the result; i.e. the Ms-PL is incompatible with the GPL. It's my opinion that this is a deliberate incompatibility. When the Ms-PL was undergoing OSI approval process, I asked Microsoft's lawyer whether it was intended that the Ms-PL be compatible with the GPL, and he refused to give a straight answer.
- evanlong 18y ago
  "Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL. It is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL because of the conditions in sections 3(B) and 3(C). Please do not use this license for anything you write; there are already well-known free software licenses that serve the same purpose, such as the Apache License version 2.0, and we must all stand together to combat license proliferation. However, there is no reason to avoid using software released under this license. " source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLice...
  - cabalamat 18y ago
    If the FSF says it's compatible, then I guess it is. My bad.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Run it on Mono. There you go. The entire stack is open. (and free)

chaostheory 18y ago
yeah but Mono is never up to date when it comes to the current state of .NET and there are tons of compatibility issues... it's a losing battle. I just don't see the point when there are tons of other good alternatives that are fully open (not to mention more mature).

nihilocrat 18y ago

As the article points out, that's probably going to be a huge roadblock. I don't really see this ever becoming successful, open source or not.

johns 18y ago
I don't think that's the point. It's a reference application for ASP.NET MVC.