[Avalon.Net] VS.Net implications

[hammett <ha...@apache.org>]

Folks,

Last week I was in a kind of Java vs .Net conference. I and a friend
presented the .Net architecture and in the end of the day a kind of Fight
Club (tm) was presented. Some guy from the Java side said that MS included a
statement in license agreement for VS.Net beta that read "VS.Net should not
be used for development of Open source projects". While other projects
cleary uses and exposes VS.Net entries in their projects I think ASF should
protected itself.

I don't know if this statement stills there but I'll remove each VS.Net
entries from CVS. From now the development will be eclipse-based.

I'm also in contact with mono-brasil (yes, at here my country is called
brasil with 's') for adapting the nant build and have Avalon.Net be a CLI
compliant.

I would like to ask again for a new name. The .Net suffix establishes a
relation with a company that don't respect the open source community at all.


Regards,

--
hammett


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

Re: [Avalon.Net] VS.Net implications

[Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>]

hammett wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> Last week I was in a kind of Java vs .Net conference. I and a friend
> presented the .Net architecture and in the end of the day a kind of Fight
> Club (tm) was presented. Some guy from the Java side said that MS included a
> statement in license agreement for VS.Net beta that read "VS.Net should not
> be used for development of Open source projects". While other projects
> cleary uses and exposes VS.Net entries in their projects I think ASF should
> protected itself.
> 
> I don't know if this statement stills there but I'll remove each VS.Net
> entries from CVS. From now the development will be eclipse-based.
> 
> I'm also in contact with mono-brasil (yes, at here my country is called
> brasil with 's') for adapting the nant build and have Avalon.Net be a CLI
> compliant.
> 
> I would like to ask again for a new name. The .Net suffix establishes a
> relation with a company that don't respect the open source community at all.

Avalon.sharp

Avalon#

Makes you wonder if we should brand it as a C# derivitive or simply call it
Avalon.  We have Java libraries and C# libraries.  Hmmm.

But I agree we should not call it Avalon.NET.

One of the OSS idioms for C# projects is to prefix an "N" (NAvalon) to the
name.

:/

Suggestions?


-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

Re: [Avalon.Net] VS.Net implications

[Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>]

hammett wrote:
 > Some guy from the Java side said that MS included a
> statement in license agreement for VS.Net beta that read "VS.Net should not
> be used for development of Open source projects".

That's old news, actually. Did some searching...

from http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,877112,00.asp:

"OPEN SOURCE: Recipient warrants that (a) an Application will not 
incorporate, be combined or distributed with Publicly Available Software 
in whole or in part, and (b) Recipient will not use Publicly Available 
Software in the development of any part of such Application in a manner 
that may subject the Redistributables or derivative thereof, in whole or 
in part, to all or part of the license obligations of any Publicly 
Available Software.
"Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that 
contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any 
software that is distributed as free software, open source software 
(e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any 
software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or 
distribution of such software that such software or other software 
incorporated into, derived from or distributed with such software (a) be 
disclosed or distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for the 
purpose of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable without 
charge.

Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software 
licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or 
distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any 
of the following: (a) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or 
Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (b) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (c) 
the Mozilla Public License, (d) the Netscape Public License, (e) the Sun 
Community Source License (SCSL), (f) the Sun Industry Source License 
(SISL), and (g) the Apache Server license. "

In other words, open source and Visual Studio are, according to this 
section of the EULA, totally and fully incompatible to just about the 
maximum extent possible.

BUT...this section is not in the eula for VS.Net 2003. I don't think it 
ever made it into a final VS.Net release.

> I would like to ask again for a new name. The .Net suffix establishes a
> relation with a company that don't respect the open source community at all.

Yep.

- LSD



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org