Microsoft's .NET Poison Pill?

Earlier today, Microsoft said that it will make available .NET Framework libraries under a "Reference" license. Anyone accepting the license agreement would be able to look at the code but not modify or redistribute it. The question: Would anyone really want to open this Pandora's Box?

My colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols sure doesn't think so. "Microsoft's so-called opening up of .NET Framework is setting a trap for open-source programmers," he asserts. "Open-source developers should avoid this code at all costs."

SJVN's conclusion: Anyone viewing the source code could later be accused of using code or concepts in other projects. This is one situation where the phrase, "What you don't know can't hurt you," really applies. For some developers, looking into this code could be the same as looking into the abyss.

The risk is greatest for commercial and open-source developers and least for those doing in-house corporate applications. Microsoft isn't much in the business of suing its customers, but the company has already laid claim—assertion of 235 patent violations—against open-source software. Microsoft has the means and incentive to sue open-source developers, and .NET Framework code could make the assault that much easier.

What Microsoft offers will tempt many developers. .NET Framework is the secret sauce sprinkled throughout nearly all available Microsoft products. That look at the recipe could be very useful for debugging code and better tapping into .NET 3.0 or 3.5. Microsoft plans to make the code damn easy to get—or perhaps hard to resist—with .NET 3.5 or Visual Studio 2008.

What's that saying about getting "too much of a good thing"? The source code could be less a poison pill if developers could actually use it. Risk would remain for open-source and some commercial developers, but Microsoft customers could maybe better use .NET Framework in their custom apps.

Microsoft would also benefit from third-party feedback, which will probably come even with the look-but-don't-touch license. What developers really could use is less wholesale code released and more disclosure of API information.

Microsoft puts the code disclosure in context of greater transparency. Sure, if penguins behind Plexiglas at the National Zoo is greater transparency. Why not take the kiddies to the petting zoo and let them feed the animals, instead?

My position isn't as extreme as my Linux-Watch colleague. I don't see the code disclosure as all bad. Nor am I convinced Microsoft has nefarious intentions. Bagging a few open-source developers on the open range is just a bonus. Microsoft's broader goal is improving development around .NET Framework. The company would benefit from the release of better .NET-supporting applications, whether they're commercial or enterprise custom. But the license terms are a "keep out" sign for open-source developers.

source: microsoft-watch.com

Submit Article :- BlinkList + Blogmarks + Digg + Del.icio.us + Ekstreme Socializer + Feedmarker + Furl + Google Bookmarks + ma.gnolia + Netvouz + RawSugar + Reddit + Scuttle + Shadows + Simpy + Spurl + Technorati + Unalog + Wink

Related Posts by Categories

Widget by Hoctro