[PallarelCoedr]

They have open-sourced quite a lot (aspnet webstack, reactive extensions, etc). The problem is that a lot of their compiled binaries, delivered via nuget packages have been restricted to windows. This is slowly being undone ( http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2013/11/13/pcl-and-ne... ).

Another problem is that they don't run their open source projects in an open manner. Contributing requires a CLA and a signature from your boss. Issues and planning are often behind closed doors, but that seems to be slowing changing too (see KatanaProject / signalr).

If they really wanted to grow their ecosystem 10x, and give windows phone the possibility of a fighting chance, making VS Pro free would be the required.

[thatthatis]

I've never had to work so hard to find out _what_ license they're releasing things under. I followed about seven links and finally got it.

EDIT: Apparently they haven't updated their nuget packages and some of these components truly are licensed under FOSS, per: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mv... and https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=adolfojp

The license that used to cover all of these, and that may still cover some of the components is this:

http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/aspnetcomponent_rtw_...

I like to think of things as copyright, copyleft and copy middle. This looks like an entirely new beast: copyquagmire

A few pieces of the license:

* For any Distributable Code you distribute, you must · add significant primary functionality to it in your programs; ... · indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs. *

So, if you redistribute these libraries, you agree to be on the hook for MS legal bills.

* Distribution Restrictions. You may not · modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that

· the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or

· others have the right to modify it. *

So it is anti-GPL. I personally think this is a good thing, I hate the copy-virus in the GPL. Maybe this is even a poison pill that invalidates GPL code in a project, thereby protecting you from inadvertently letting your code fall under GPL (which I would consider to be a good thing). Whichever clause wins, this is a quagmire.

Lets continue.

* you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

· work around any technical limitations in the software;

· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

· publish the software for others to copy;

· rent, lease or lend the software;

· transfer the software or this agreement to any third party; or

· use the software for commercial software hosting services. *

So, basically you can't modify it or change it.

* BACKUP COPY. You may make one backup copy of the software. You may use it only to reinstall the software. *

Why the hell is this in an "open source" license?

This isn't an open source license, this is a free commercial license with a bit of lipstick, a wink, and a head-fake towards openness.

Thankfully, it seems other divisions of msft (F# for instance) use the Apache License V2 which is in fact a copy-middle free as in beer and freedom open source license.

[adolfojp]

>I've never had to work so hard to find out _what_ license they're releasing things under. I followed about seven links and finally got it.

Microsoft's open source software repository is codeplex. If you go to codeplex you'll find out that the projects that you mention are Apache 2 licensed too.

http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/license

http://entityframework.codeplex.com/license

[thatthatis]

Thank you for the correction!

I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that the license in the package manager operated by the company who is granting the license would be accurate.

[adolfojp]

I agree with you 100%. I don't know why they're releasing the source code and the binaries under different licenses so hopefully someone who knows this will reply to these comments. If I find out I'll let you know.

[belorn]

Congratulations, you clearly found your perfect license. Since you clearly hate being given the right to copy, modify and redistribute (as in the GPL), have fun using a license that forbids modification, and only give you max 1 backup copy.

Oh wait, you want to make modifications, and then sue people who then dare to copy, modify or redistribute your version? Pity you can't use that GPL compatible Apache 2 licensed code. Better use that non-compliant free commercial license instead.

[thatthatis]

Uhm, what?

To me, perfect licences are: BSD, MIT, Apache2, WTFPL

I like copy middle far far better than copy right or copy left.

My entire comment was about how bad the MS free commercial license was and how I wished it was a real FOSS license. There was a tangent in there about hating the copy-virus of the GPL, but that was an aside.

[belorn]

If you want to comment about how bad the MS free commercial license is, you should not bundle it with your desire to redistribute other peoples software and then sue your users if they dare to do the same by copy, modify or redistribute your version.

It takes away from your main arguments and distracts.