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

[Greg]

I think that perhaps it is not Access that MS is worried about but something
called MSDE - Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine which is a specialized version of
their SQL 2000 Server.  It is totally compatible with SQL Server and is free
with any of the .NET products.  It comes with the .NET Framework SDK in
fact.  Considering that it is a mini-SQL Server, perhaps this is what the
EULA is talking about with regards to their "desktop data engine" ??  It
would make more sense, as it is no longer little bitty Access we are talking
about but their main server engine.  Dunno, just a thought.

Greg Canter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-admin at ale.org [mailto:ale-admin at ale.org]On Behalf Of Dennany,
> Jerome {D177~Roswell}
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:56 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: RE: [ale] [OT] Interesting Take on MS Programming Tools
>
>
> Well spoken!
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rose [mailto:jojerose at mindspring.com]
> 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
>
>

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