Microsoft Puts SourceForge Clone Into Beta

M$ Mole writes "Microsoft is working hard to build their .NET community and has released the beta of an online software project management site. The service being provided is very similar to SF.net, but problems are arising around Microsoft's license, which (originally) granted all rights to the software place on the server to Microsoft. MS has back-pedaled a bit since their 'beta' license and is working on a new, more "acceptable" license."

Comments

Not much different than SourceForge

[Dr. Eric Peters]

Microsoft's original license wasn't much different than what SourceForge does since they regularly take source from program kept on their servers and use it in their own software, but since it's on the internet and never technically "distributed", they don't have to open their sources under the terms of the GPL. Maybe we should be looking at the problems and questionable practices in our own communities before questioning the practices of Microsoft, otherwise, we'll just look like hypcocrites.

Re:Not much different than SourceForge

[quantaman]

Well do they actually distribute and/or sell these programs they take the code from and then not open their sources? If not you're critisizing them for using their own development network. Besides, SourceForge never took rights away from the origional authors.

Re:Not much different than SourceForge

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, sourceforge requires your project to be under an open source license. Thus, they and anyone else can use your code. That's the point of sourceforge. That sounds a bit different from the microsoft allegation to me. It's not like they're stealing your code.

Re:Not much different than SourceForge

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

I think that you missed my distinction.

I'm not talking about the people at SF or GotDotNet "pulling" any of the code for use on inside projects without distribution. That's fair. I'm refering to "yanking it off the servers because we don't want ANYONE to see it" type of pulled. That's more what I'd be afraid of on the MS site. Even if everything else was clean (no porno, no theft, no IP problems, etc.).

You understand how much temptation there would be to pull a project if it were something like a "free" as in beer Office clone? How long would they allow that to compete with their commercial offerings, especially if it was better.

They could incorporate it...sure, but blocking it's distribution to save the empire, that's another thing completely.

To the best of my knowledge, that's how SF works. All them buzzwords that MS throws around like "best of breed" and "competition" are actually playing out on SF!....that's the arena where the action is.

Oh, and one more jab.....the "Community links" area doesn't even have a link back to Slashdot... How ungratefull, since we've prob. been 95% of their hits today.........

Re:MS license

[Jouster]

GPL: All our code is belong to us.

Oh, you thought it was yours? Nope, it's ours.

Jouster

Re:Ugh

[Libor Vanek]

Maybe we should get them together but on some distant island without any connection to rest of world ;-)

Sigh, more /. FUD

[Principal Skinner]

Hey, /. community, I love you guys, but geez, you've just committed yet another baseless smear. M$'s licensing requirement was nothing more drastic than "All your software must have a BSD-like license". From the linked-to message:

The section as it originally appeared in the agreement:

"By posting Your Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won't commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights."

Seems pretty clear to me that they're not saying you must sign your code over to them, merely that they are free to do as they please with it (though probably not contribute back to it).

website design

[asv108]

Is it just me, or does that website look like it was made by someone who just picked up a copy of frontpage last week? What's up with that logo? I realize there are a lot of software developers in San Francisco but just because you live there, doesn't mean you swing that way..

Interesting point

[einhverfr]

I think you have a point. My guess however is that the lawyers are trying to protect Microsoft against all possible contingencies. So basically, it is to give Microsoft as many possibilities in the event of a lawsuit as possible.

The problem here however is that this further bolsters Microsoft's image as a predatory company which can do whatever it wants with impunity. So this continues to show that people that Microsoft is fundamentally not interested in accepting responsibility for their actions, or worse, is actually out to get them.

Re:Ugh

[fuali]

Did you sleep through class, or maybe you were in the wrong room. C# is "Java"-ish. VB.net is nothing like java. They are both OO and that's about it. Oh and if you have IE6.0 you more then likely got the CLR, or if you run windows update, or whatever. And the last time I checked Sun's JVM does not include an Application Server(ie like ASP.NET).

Re:Endgame

[Jeremi]

How can anyone stop them from forking GPL'd code? Part of the GPL is the right to fork.

Re:How very microsoftonian

[Tadrith]

I find it rather entertaining that you'd post a comment such as that smack dab in the middle of a community wrought with childish jabs and insults.

This isn't a troll, I'm simply pointing out that it would be better to leave such judgement calls to those who are actually familiar with such development. I'm a Microsoft developer, and I've shared code/ideas/software with a number of other developers. Despite what most people think, there's a very large group of people out there who not only enjoy developing in a Windows environment, but share ideas and collaborate!

Just imagine if people made such broad generalizations of Slashdot, instead of really looking at it and finding the value within. Not that people don't, but there's good to be found in looking past the surface.

Re:Ugh

[kubrick]

and the JVM has already been distributed with most copies of Windows

Isn't that only v1.1? The class libraries improved quite a bit after that.

FYI sf.net by OS

[J4]

sf.net hosted projects by OS

BeOS (302 projects)
MacOS (1386 projects)
Microsoft (10878 projects)
OS Independent (11647 projects)
OS/2 (72 projects)
Other OS (635 projects)
PDA Systems (420 projects)
POSIX (20179 projects)

Point being there are a considerable amount of
projects coded to win32 on sourceforge, so it's
not like free software doesn't exist on the platform.
I suppose you could look at what MS is doing as
providing an alternative for people who don't
want to be forced into an OSI approved license
as per SF's TOS.
I'll refrain from commenting on the TOS from
MS' dealie, since I haven't read it, except to say
if you have to have terms rammed down your throat, it's better for all parties to get the same deal.

Upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

Upgrade in progress

We are currently upgrading GotDotNet. Please check back soon. We appreciate your patience.

--

They are just adding some more WinXP servers to the cluster.... It will be back online as soon as they have entered all those licence keys, rebooted 3 times and patched all the software

Should take about 2 years!

Also noticed that they have changed the logo from an upward facing hand (denoting openness and honesty) to a downward facing hand (denoting control and domination).. very scary

Why do M$ always release something to the public, realise its crap - then have to 'upgrade' it??

Re:How very microsoftonian

[ibennetch]

One wonders if there is really a community of MS developers older than 13 years old who would give away thier software anyway.

Tell me about it. I'm searching for some code, mostly asp to do various database tasks including a message board and calendar. I've found several perl/php/linux/free solutions that work perfectly; but unfortunatly I'm restricted to using w2k and php is out because it's free and free!=secure. All the asp stuff I've found both costs money and isn't quite what I need. It's really frustrating, because it means I need to start from scratch in a language that I don't know. Speaking of which I find the MS support/tutorials/documentation on the web to suck. They're not complete, not helpful, and most often out dated. 9 times out of 10 I can't even find a tutorial for what I want to do, when I do; it doesn't do a good job of teaching me. Try the documentation at http://www.php.net - that's so real documentation.

EXTRA EXTRA, Slashdot Users Can't Read!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious the number of complaints about Microsoft's WorkSpaces license and the comparisons made to SourceForge. The problem is that apparently nobody has ever read SourceForge's EULA, therefore they're simply talking out of their ass. Let me help you get your foot into your mouth:

6. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CODE AND OTHER CONTENT POSTED ON SOURCEFORGE.NET:

Use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net ("Source Code") shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by SourceForge.net as applicable to such Source Code.

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as message boards and bug trackers ("SourceForge.net Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge.net Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display project activity, such content is owned by SourceForge.net. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge.net the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable approved license.

With respect to Content posted to private areas of SourceForge.net, i.e., private SourceForge.net development tools or SourceForge.net Mail, the submitting user may grant to SourceForge.net or other users such rights and licenses as the submitting user deems appropriate.

Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by SourceForge.net as applicable to such Content.

Re:C# vs Java

[GiorgioG]

I stopped reading this last post at "Agreed, but the openness of the language"

Where do you see Java being open? It's not even a standardized language. C# has been accepted as a standard by the ECMA and has been submitted to ISO. here.

Re:Passport Account?

[Anonymous Coward]

My humble /. wish: for a -1 Not Funny moderation option.