Frans said:
You make all kinds of remarks and then I agree with you? where?
Where you wrote practically the same statement I made several posts ago:
That's why I quoted it when I made my statement.
I just
said that the CONSEQUENCES of the MS licenses are to be understood
well, and aren't something you can just ignore. What license MS puts
their stuff, it's their responsibility. What we've to deal with, are
the consequences of the license they pick.
The only consequences I am discussing here are those that are
self-imposed by the Mono project. There's nothing in the license that
specifically prohibits Mono developers from using the .NET source code
for other purposes.
So why does MS forbid their employees to look at GPL-ed code?
I'm aware of no such prohibition. If it does exist, Microsoft doesn't
enforce it very well, because I know Microsoft developers who have seen
GPL-ed code.
If you say it can be assumed, how can I copy something if you can't
proof I had access?
Whether I can prove you had access in no way affects whether you can
copy something. It is bizarre that you would even imply the two are
connected somehow.
Isn't it so that closed source code isn't
accessable to people outside the company?
First of all, just because a software publisher hasn't purposely
disclosed their source code, that in no way proves that their source
code hasn't been disclosed.
Secondly (and I don't know why you still don't understand this...I've
already pointed it out twice), you don't need the source code in order
to copy someone else's code. I haven't yet downloaded any .NET source
code, but I have everything I need on my computer that I need to copy
their code. I have the actual compiled implementation, which is
perfectly sufficient in order to achieve copying.
You live under rocks apparently.
Why do you think that writing insults is somehow a legitimate debating
tactic? All it does is show that you need to resort to ad hominem
attacks rather than using actual factual information. And you tend to
do it a lot.
Some time ago, MS put their
heavyweight onto testdriven.net because it was usable in a free vs.net
SKU. Now, you're telling me MS isn't going to do anything less lame
than that? You're dreaming. They'll kill off any company who gets in
their way, as any major corp will, because that's today's level of
business. If you think MS is a different company than any other big
corp, you're naive.
Well, so far you've posted the most naive comments. But that said, my
point is that having .NET available on other platforms isn't a threat to
Microsoft. Your entire premise is based on the assumption that it is,
so all of your conclusions fail.
Last time I checked, they're making money by selling OS licenses. If
..NET runs on Linux, they don't sell a windows license if the user picks
up OpenSuse. That's the point.
No, it's not the point. You even quoted the part of my post in which I
explain why it's not the point.
Microsoft stands to gain a LOT more by owning the development platform
on Linux than they would lose from possibly losing the OS license sale.
Besides, that assumes the Linux installation represents a lost sale of
Windows, when in fact it's more likely that which OS is chosen will
continue for some time to be based on factors other than whether .NET is
supported on the platform or not.
hehehe, you really have no clue what the real world looks like, do you
.
Ah. Yes, again with your personal attacks. Honestly, all you're doing
is showing how you can't support your points without insulting the person.
If you think .NET is of any relevance in the overall software
world, you're mistaken. Even in the narrow scope of webapps, .net has
no real significance and that will only become less with RoR and
friends. This isn't about desktops, mind you.
Well, first of all, .NET isn't "about desktops" either. It's supported
and useful on server-class platforms. Beyond that, this is only about
platforms where Microsoft has a presence. Mentioning any variety of
other computer software implementations that are entirely outside of
Microsoft's market is pointless. It has nothing to do with this.
how is buying an intel mac equal to buying an ms license?
Because the main inroads Apple has made are due specifically to their
choice of Intel hardware, that is because those people buying Macs that
wouldn't have otherwise are doing so because they can run Windows on
them. So practically all of those sales that are due to the hardware
switch also represent a sale of a Windows license.
Peter, C# (and also Java) have no real significance in the big world
of software development. So how MS can dominate development platforms
is beyond me. (hint: most code on the planet is still cobol (around
30%), C and C++ each 10% and the rest is divided among 500+ languages. )
Even if your numbers are real (and they sound made up to me), we are not
talking about all of the code on the planet. The only relevant
environments are those in which .NET _is_ in fact a significant factor:
Windows applications (including servers), and other platforms serving
the same needs.
Also, note that we aren't talking about C#. We're talking about .NET.
There's a different.
Finally, if .NET (not C# or Java) "have no real significant in the big
world", then how could your assertion be true that .NET being present on
other platforms would cause Microsoft to lose sales of Windows?
I think at the very least, you should stick with one thesis or another,
rather than trying to assert two mutually exclusive ones.
Ah, and because you say so, it's true?
No, it's a basic consequence of the question of copying. It's
practically axiomatic.
You must compare two works when determining whether one has been copied
from the other or not. If the two works when compared aren't actually
the same, then it really doesn't matter what else may or may not be
proved. Something can't be copied unless the copy is like the original.
I can also sign their special license as an MVP and look at their code
but I also don't do that for the same reason. How can I otherwise look
at their code, Peter?
And I'm the one who's naive?
Yeah, and where is it? Or do you mean Rotor's sourcecode?
No. As I wrote: "I'm talking about the actual source code Microsoft is
providing."
How can it freely be available if no-one is allowed to COPY it? So how
can anyone copy the sourcecode no-one-is-allowed-to-copy and place it
somewhere I could access it?
Seriously. You have the gall to call me naive, and then post something
like that? What is allowed has absolutely zero to do with what can (and
will) be done.
That would mean that the code is already freely available out there
because there are MVPs who have signed the license to peek into MS'
code. But you can't point me to a site where the .NET source is
available for download, can you?
I don't need to in order for it to be a trivially true statement that
once Microsoft has made the .NET source code broadly available, it will
be able to be obtained by a person who has not explicitly accepted the
license.
Frankly, I'm amazed that you still believe the license has anything to
do with it. The code is not legally allowed to be copied with or
without the license. How a person gets the code doesn't affect
anything, and it certainly doesn't affect how difficult it is to prove
that someone copied the code.
So how can you ASSUME I copied anything if there's no proof I can
access it without accepting a license I didn't accept?
The mere fact that the copy is the same as the original is generally
acceptable proof. Things are copied on a regular basis without legal
access to the original. That doesn't stop the legitimate owner of the
copyright from successfully making a claim.
Pete
