# Tuesday, 13 May 2008

aspnet During my ANUG talk about the ASP.NET MVC Framework a question came up regarding what the landscape of ASP.NET land would look like with ASP.NET MVC being open source. Would we start to see lots of different branches floating around out there?

The answer to this is a resounding no as the license model of ASP.NET MVC only allows for you to download the code off of CodePlex, make changes, but not redistribute those changes.

What this means that you'll be able to take the code make tweaks here and there if you're not satisfied with how a particular aspect of ASP.NET MVC works.

The Gu has the word.

posted on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 09:23:26 (Romance Daylight Time, UTC+02:00)  #    Comments [4] Trackback
Related posts:
Virtualized Development
ReSharper 4.x Nuggets
The C# Keyword var is Evil
Do! Community! How?
Do! Community! What?
Do! Community! Why?
Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:10:52 (Romance Daylight Time, UTC+02:00)
Hvis man ikke må videredistribuere ændringer, så er det jo ikke open source.
arne_v
Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:38:25 (Romance Daylight Time, UTC+02:00)
Det er sandt, men det er dog stadig mere open source end resten af frameworket i og med at kilden kan downloades, compiles og endda modificeres. Jeg mangler et bedre begreb for det end "Open Source" :)
Thursday, 15 May 2008 20:20:19 (Romance Daylight Time, UTC+02:00)
Shared source?
Thursday, 15 May 2008 20:55:24 (Romance Daylight Time, UTC+02:00)
Shared Source, I believe, is the term under which the .NET Framework source code is available and it's a bit different from what's going on with MVC Framework as the .NET Framework source is not directly downloadable and buildable but rather viewable from within Visual Studio. In essence Shared Source seems to be more about being able to view the code but not actually about downloading it. Now I haven't worked with the VS integration yet so please correct me if I'm way off base here.
Comments are closed.