SJVN's Hole in One
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Oct 03, 2007 6:46 PM EDT |
He's right on this one. Under the license that MS is going to do this with, it isnt opening up anything. More like hiding a brick under a hat on the side walk and waiting for someone to kick it. There isn't a doubt in my mind that this falls into the MS dirty trick category. |
| tracyanne Oct 03, 2007 7:31 PM EDT |
Now this is the real Microsoft trap. It will also keep Mono under a cloud, even if Mono never has any code that could conceivably be copied from the .NET code base. Much more effectively slowing the uptake of Mono than the current methods they have been using. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 03, 2007 11:34 PM EDT |
The same is true for pretty much any non-free source code anywhere. If you ever signed an NDA with some company in order to look/work on their source, you had better be extra careful about working on a similar technology in the open source field. Same goes for leaked code. There were ample warnings around back when the Win2K source leaked, that anyone even remotely interested in ever contributing to Linux should stay far away from it. That said, this has written "bad intent" written all over it. I mean, who are the people interested in looking at .Net's innards? People working on competing implementations of .Net. People working on top of .Net only need the specifications/documentation. They'd only ever touch .Net's innards if they find a bug in .Net and are determined to find the root cause. |
| schestowitz Oct 04, 2007 1:53 AM EDT |
It'll be interesting to see what step Microsoft will take against Wine and CrossOver. It has them targeted in the contracts as well. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 4:22 AM EDT |
>It has them targeted in the contracts as well. I don't understand what you mean by that. Has Microsoft entered into contracts to go after Wine and CrossOver? With whom? What do the contracts call for these people to do? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 04, 2007 5:33 AM EDT |
Ofcourse you do Dino. You know very well that Mono, Wine, Crossover, OOo and a few other bits and pieces were explicitly excluded from the so-called "safety" of the MS-Novell deal. That basically means that, if someone from Novell looks at the .Net reference implementation and creates something that works similar in Mono, that MS can still sue Novell for it and try to obliterate Mono in the process. [sarcasm] Wait, wasn't there some Miguel Somethin-de-something guy working at Novell doing Mono stuff? [/sarcasm] |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 6:21 AM EDT |
>You know very well that Mono, Wine, Crossover, OOo and a few other bits and pieces were explicitly excluded from the so-called "safety" of the MS-Novell deal. Come on Sander, you're not that stupid. The original statement was that Wine and CrossOver were targetted in contracts. You are referring to contracts from which they were excluded. Hello!!! Logic, people!!! |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 04, 2007 9:16 AM EDT |
Explicit exclusion is also targetted. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 9:44 AM EDT |
>Explicit exclusion is also targetted. Hmmm. Targeted for what? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 04, 2007 2:29 PM EDT |
Sorry Dino. I don't feel like playing your flame-n-game tonight :-) |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 2:42 PM EDT |
Sorry Sander, no flame involved. When people say or write something, it should mean something and not just because you want to be paranoid. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!