ASP.NET 2.0 Providers Toolkit


So it has been a long while since I last blogged. I have been buried under a project and am just now lifting my head back above the water. In the interim, the ASP.NET team has just released the first of a set of providers for ASP.NET 2.0. The first one is the Access provider (in source form and under a Shared Source license), and it will be followed by providers for SQL Server, SQL Express, and Windows AD.  All good stuff.


Also, I’m looking forward to the kick off of OSCON tomorrow in my home town of Portland, OR.  It should be a great show as usual and I’m glad to be a sponsor again this year. I’ll be writing about what I see and hear at the show.


Comments (1)

  1. Wesley Parish says:

    Good to see you back posting! I was afraid we’d scared you off! 😉

    The major two questions I’ve got about the ASP.NET providers you’re releasing is, the source code license you’re releasing it under – is it business-friendly and GPL-compatible? And the SQL-Server ASP.NET provider – is that a generic SQL provider, or is it a strictly MS SQL-Server provider?

    Or to put it another way, Microsoft has been making noises recently about becoming more compatible, and demanding Open Source Software be more compatible with Microsoft, etc … not that anyone actually believes what Microsoft top brass say any more. We’re looking at what Microsoft’s own development teams actually produce – that’s where the rubber hits the road.

    And with a huge number of web-sites dependent on MySQL, those of us responsible for running (setting up, maintaining, altering, bugfixing) [LWS]AMP web-sites through a Windows front-end, are wondering if Microsoft still doesn’t trust its tyres on the public roads.

    (OOPS! I’ve just checked the license at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/eula.aspx?id=96713a8e-b8d4-4d6e-bb8f-027e6c8e15d8 and this:

    "(iii) that if the Licensee Software is distributed beyond Licensee’s premises or externally from Licensee’s organization, to distribute the Licensee Software containing the MS Samples pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be "break-the-seal", "click-wrap" or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA".

    What on earth were the lawyers who drew these license terms up, smoking? If the software concerned is part of a network-enabled server package designed to be accessible to the general public via the Internet, then none of those terms can apply. Shrinkwrap doesn’t scale to the Internet, sorry.

    This whole issue of network-accessible software, etc, has been through the FSF etc, and been thoroughly argued on both sides of the question. So no one can plead ignorance.)