[ale] [OT] Interesting Take on MS Programming Tools

[Dennany, Jerome {D177~Roswell}]

Well spoken!  

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Rose [mailto:jojerose at mindspring.com]
To: ale at ale.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:27 PM
To: ale at ale.org
Subject: RE: [ale] [OT] Interesting Take on MS Programming Tools


Uh yeah, sorry sent the last email before I was ready.

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 10:44, Dennany, Jerome {D177~Roswell} wrote:
> You are misreading the EULA.
> 
> 1.  It doesn't tell you that you can't write cross platform code with VS.NET.  You are free to use Mono or Rotor instead of the BCL (Base Class Libraries).  It just says that if you want to distribute to non-MS platforms, you can't use their distributable libraries.  (This is a particularly annoying clause, I'll agree).
> 
It says you can't port your program if you use their libraries or CRT. 
So basically if you want to port your program, of what value is VS.Net. 
>From what I've seen, using the libraries is the big time saver.  And if
you can't use those because you want to port the program to Linux or Mac
or whatever, is VS.Net going to be worth it?  Why not wait for Mono to
get finished?  At least you can use the libraries without restriction. 
Portability is a big issue.  That's why Java is popular.  It may be slow
and convoluted but it is fairly easy to port.  


> 2.  It doesn't tell you that you can't write an application that directly competes with Access.  It does say that you can't use their desktop database engine to do so.  Considering that this is a key part of Access itself, I actually think that this is reasonable.  They are basically saying that if you want to write an Access (database) competitor, develop your own darn database engine.

VS.Net is supposed to be the apex of IDEs.  Developers should be able to
use it to write what they want.  When MS slips clauses into the EULA
prohibiting competition with their products, it looks very suspicious. 
No matter what their reasoning and given their anti-competitive nature
it is enough to make me think twice about using VS.Net.   
> 
> 3.  It doesn't say that you can't write GPL software.  It DOES say that you can't 'link' Microsoft libraries and GPL software.  This is actually a GPL restriction - It's the GPL that restricts itself from linking with non-GPL libraries.  Notice that there is no restriction against BSD style licences.
> 

Of course you can use VS.Net to write GPL software, you just can't use
any of its best features.  Same with porting.  So why spend the money
for something that so severely limits what it can be used for? 
I don't know that the GPL really restricts you from linking to non-GPL
libraries.  It merely states that if you make changes to the software,
you must freely make the changes available.  It protects developers who
are nice enough to give their code away.  It stops people from hijacking
code and making proprietary changes.  It's the anti-embrace_and_extend,
if you will.  
	Well we all know that MS hates GPL but doesn't mind BSD.  But the EULA
states that you must have a license that protects IP equally or greater
than MS licensing if you want to use their libraries.  Fine.  That is
MS's choice.  It is MS's response to the GPL.  I really have no problem
with their licensing.  I just hope that people realize that using VS.Net
hamstrings your ability to produce programs the way you want to.  It
subtlety tries to tie you to Windows, discourages you from competing and
discourages licensing that MS doesn't like.  

> ---------------------------------
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale