145 reputation
8
bio website gorangligorin.com
location Slovenia
age 27
visits member for 3 years, 8 months
seen Jul 8 at 9:10
I'm a C#, PHP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript programmer in that order. I also know me some Java, C/C++ and Assembler.

Aug
31
awarded  Announcer
Dec
5
awarded  Teacher
Dec
5
awarded  Editor
Nov
21
accepted Which Open Source License to choose for an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit?
Nov
21
comment Which Open Source License to choose for an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit?
@Jakub: I finally published it. Go to mvcopenid.codeplex.com for more info. But it's still in an early stage.
Nov
19
comment Which Open Source License to choose for an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit?
I saw your edit and as I thought Apache v2 and Ms-PL are quite similar. I've heard that Apache v2 is a bit more defined so I'm probably going to go with that I'm just waiting for some answers from people who have projects on CodePlex and chose either on of those. Thanks for your help. And I'll post what I decide.
Nov
19
awarded  Commentator
Nov
19
comment Which Open Source License to choose for an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit?
Thank you, David. I'm looking forward to your edit as you seem to understand a lot more about this whole thing as I do.
Nov
19
comment Which Open Source License to choose for an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit?
Thanks for this extensive answer. I did some search and found that Ms-PL is NOT GPL compatible (see bit.ly/aACG5U). And as far as I've read it is also not viral (see stackoverflow.com/questions/175762/…;. It would probably be very unproductive of Microsoft to release ASP.NET MVC under Ms-PL and then make everyone release software using it under Ms-PL. For example all all Stack Exchange communities (starting with SO) are using ASP.NET MVC and DotNetOpenAuth. And I've also seen derivatives (MvcTrubine) release under different licenses.
Nov
19
comment Which Open Source License to choose for an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit?
The problem here is that I do not wish to release this as a web application. It technically is one as it can be run on a server and it would work if the server is configured properly, but it would not do you much good. This is meant to be starting point FOR web applications. These web applications derived from it can then be open source, commercial or non-commercial or any other kind (if there is any). That said I've never actually read AGPL or even heard much about it. But I've heard about GPL and AGPL. How do they compare?
Nov
18
awarded  Scholar
Nov
18
comment What does Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) clause 3 section (A) actually limit?
Thanks David. I've accepted your answer as it's probably as close as I'll get without speaking to a lawyer.
Nov
18
accepted What does Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) clause 3 section (A) actually limit?
Nov
18
awarded  Supporter
Nov
18
comment Which Open Source License to choose for an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit?
@Robert: Why the negativity? @Jakub: Will post you somehow :) Thanks for the interest.
Nov
17
comment What does Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) clause 3 section (A) actually limit?
Implying something can, as far as I understand it, be quite a subjective thing. If I get this correctly a name like "Microsoft Windows OpenID provider" can be easily confused to be from Microsoft itself. But a name like "OpenID provider for Microsoft Windows" is not nearly as confusing. And it thus not violate any licenses. Is this right or wrong?
Nov
17
comment What does Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) clause 3 section (A) actually limit?
@Peter: If I understand things correctly now, the key word in your name sample is 'for'. That doesn't imply that ASP.NET MVC of DotNetOpenAuth has anything more to do with the project than simply use these technologies. At least that's what I understand.
Nov
17
comment What does Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) clause 3 section (A) actually limit?
David, thanks for your answer. It doesn't clear things up for me all the way (I guess most things in law work that way), but it does further my understanding a bit. A project name like 'Microsoft ASP.NET MVC OpenID Starter Kit' would make users think that Microsoft made this, thus creating reasonable confusion. But a name like 'OpenID Starter Kit for Microsoft ASP.NET MVC' just implies that the project builds on/uses Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC platform. So the first name is not acceptable, but the second is? Am I getting this right?
Nov
17
comment What does Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) clause 3 section (A) actually limit?
Rob: Thanks for creating a tag for me :)
Nov
16
awarded  Student