This project has moved and is read-only. For the latest updates, please go here.

Source code?


Where is the source? Doesn't Codeplex require source code to be uploaded?


bijanjavidi wrote Oct 23, 2012 at 6:45 AM

Codeplex doesn’t require source code for posting which is a helpful option in this case. We went through an aggressive shortcut by delivering the binaries first and avoiding the legal review for source code release. We are working through that process now. In the meantime, we appreciate your feedback to make sure that we understand your motivations and business requirements. To get to the point, here are a couple of examples that I can think of:
  • As the developer, looking into the source code helps me understand the cause of erratic behavior
  • As the ALM consultant, I can customize the solution to cover unique customer needs
    In any case, we believe that keeping the source for the 1st iteration has also the benefit of addressing the initial issues more effectively. We hope that we get tons of feedback during this phase.
Bijan Javidi
Visual Studio ALM Rangers lead

ajryan wrote Oct 24, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Hi, thanks for the reponse.

Legal review?! You already chose MS-PL, and anyone can just crack open your assemblies in Reflector anyway.

Codeplex does, in fact, require source code - you can't publish a project without uploading something. Obviously you've put some placeholder in there to get around that requirement. As far as whether Codeplex requires that the project itself must be open source, I'm not sure. I would say that the .NET community has an expectation that Codeplex-hosted projects be truly open source. Microsoft has also taken the position that source msut be available with at least one of its own Codeplex-hosted proejcts:

On your question about business requirements: In my particular case, I'd like to rebuild the add-in to target Word 2013.

How does holding back the source code for the first iteration help you address initial issues more effectively? That's ridiculous, it does the opposite. If the source was out there, people could contribute fixes. I would personally love to contribute, but I can't yet.

wrote Dec 4, 2012 at 10:14 PM

wrote Dec 5, 2012 at 6:11 PM

wrote Jan 4, 2013 at 3:07 PM

wrote Feb 14, 2013 at 8:48 PM

wrote Feb 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM

wrote Mar 8, 2013 at 8:07 AM

wrote Aug 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM

wrote Mar 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

wrote May 28, 2014 at 8:20 PM

sspotts wrote May 28, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Perhaps that this project is still in "Proposed" status means source code is not required, but the "legal review" response is what, a quarter shy of two years old now?

I'd like to get the source to better see how things are referenced, and customize a few bits to produce documents that require less clean-up (because of our required format). Some additional logical tests during the processing of work items based on their values is something we'd also like to be able to do.

So when do we actually get to download source code now?