Re: [OT] .Net goes Open Source
Re: [OT] .Net goes Open Source
- Subject: Re: [OT] .Net goes Open Source
- From: Ray Kiddy <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:48:35 -0800
Some of us, at the last WOWODC in Montreal, started an effort to build
a clean-room software project to provide something to run under Wonder,
without IP problems and not under an Apple license, creating software
that would be an API-compatible implementation of WO.
As hard as it was going to be to do that and actually keep it clean,
the wind was taken out of the sails of the effort by the US Supreme
Court decision in one of the Oracle/Google cases that an API could
itself by under copyright restriction. So, it was not even going to be
theoretically possible to get out from under the issue until this
decision gets reversed.
This was a departure for the Court and, arguably, a stupid decision, but
they are on the Supreme Court and I am not. So there you are.
cheers - ray
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:07:11 +0000
"Beatty, Daniel D CIV NAVAIR, 474300D" <email@hidden> wrote:
> Hi gang,
> I seem to remember talk amongst the project wonder gang that we might
> actually refactor Wonder to use a pseudo-web-objects. If looks like
> WO, smells like WO, but legally not WO could Wonder be the owner?
>
> V/R,
>
> Daniel Beatty, Ph.D.,
> IEEE Certified Software Development Professional (CSDP)
> Computer Scientist
> Code 474300D
> 1 Administration Circle. M/S 1109
> China Lake, CA 93555
> email@hidden
> (760)939-7097
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=email@hidden
> [mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=email@hidden]
> On Behalf Of Troy Lumasag Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:15 PM
> To: email@hidden Subject: Re: [OT] .Net goes Open
> Source
>
> Hey guys,
>
> What really are the problems - direct, impending or long term
> problems being as it is now? I can recall these stated problems if I
> understood it correct: 1. porting issues(moving to future java
> versions) 2. single-threaded editing context <- Must be a bottleneck
> problem for multiple instance setup?
>
> Sorry if I'm being naive on my question haha
>
> --Troy
>
> On 2/5/2015 11:55 AM, Timothy Worman wrote:
> > WebObjects is one of Apple’s weapons - it helps them be fluid and
> > quick - especially with the devs they have. Maybe open sourcing WO
> > seems threatening because it is a internal business advantage.
> >
> > Tim Worman
> > UCLA GSE&IS
> >
> >> On Feb 4, 2015, at 4:59 PM, OC <email@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5. 2. 2015, at 1:42, Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden> wrote:
> >>> Apple cares about money, not us.
> >> Oh, absolutely! Given the zilliards Apple charges for WebObjects
> >> licences... oh, wait.
> >>
> >> Actually I just don't get it -- for long long years I don't get it
> >> at all.
> >>
> >> (i) first, they seriously cripple the world's best web application
> >> framework by cutting out the ObjC support, leaving it Java-only,
> >> and thus half-unusable.
> >>
> >> (ii) then they stop bundling it.
> >>
> >> (iii) then they stop supporting it at all.
> >>
> >> All right, I can see after (i) they could hardly charge any money
> >> for licencing, whilst the support price would skyrocket; but why
> >> on earth not put it to open source at the same moment?!?
> >>
> >> The same company who is known to put _lots_ of pretty interesting
> >> things to public (see Darwin).
> >>
> >> Oh, sigh.
> >>
> >> About the only (dumb and conspirational) theory I can think of is
> >> that were the sources open, hacking App Store would get the usual
> >> 'varsity freaks pastime :)
> >>
> >>> - hugi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2015/02/03/coreclr-is-now-op
> >>>> en-source.aspx
> >>>>
> >>>> The github is here
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr
> >>>>
> >>>> It’s a shame Apple never did the same with WO.
> >>>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden