Dare Obasanjo offers a very balanced view on the recent announcement by Microsoft to release the .NET 3.5 source under a highly restrictive license. He writes:

This is one of those announcements I find hard to get excited about. Any developer who’s been frustrated by the weird behavior of a .NET Framework class and has wanted to look at it’s code, should already know about Lutz Roeder’s Reflector which is well known in the .NET devoper community. So I’m not sure who this anouncement is actually intended to benefit.

The Microsoft Reference License says:

"Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.

So, if you look at the source code for .NET you better stop working on *any* plumbing or infrastructure code, because you might get tainted. Why are they doing this? I'd rather see the .NET code going under a GPL license, or even a BSD derivative.

Microsoft R-L is NOT open source - it is not even closed source Or, to use a Wolfgang Pauli expression: "This is so bad, it is not even wrong."

tag: opensource, .NET, Microsoft