Slashdot Mirror
The Credibility Issues of MS's CodePlex Foundation
alphadogg writes 'Microsoft's new CodePlex Foundation has serious flaws to correct if it wants to become a credible force in the open source industry, and attract a diverse collection of developers and participants, according to an expert in forming consortia and foundations. Andy Updegrove, a lawyer and founder of ConsortiumInfo.org, says Microsoft has created with CodePlex a rigid foundation that has almost no wiggle room and a poorly crafted governance structure that concentrates authority at the top and leaves little power to others who might join the foundation.' Here is Andy's detailed analysis of CodePlex's structure: "Over the past 22 years, I've helped structure scores of open, consensus based consortia and foundations, and represented over 100 in all... In this blog entry, I'll show where I think the legal and governance structure of CodePlex has wandered off the open path, and offer specific recommendations for how the structure could be changed to give people (other than Microsoft business partners) confidence that CodePlex will be an organization worth joining."
Needs more lawyer.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
"...a poorly crafted governance structure that concentrates authority at the top and leaves little power to others who might join the foundation." Doesn't look like it captures the OSS development spirit, to me...
With phrases such as "rigid foundation that has almost no wiggle room"
Because I'm sure my Linux on [insert device here] port will look just fine on CodePlex.
This looks like a poor attempt at Google Code, but with a lot more politics, beaurocracy and legal problems involved.
Not only that, but why put what appears to be a boardroom discussion on your blog unless Microsoft's made it clear they won't play ball. Sounds like "It's a Trap!" which now has a big glowing neon sign over the top of it.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Why, the article might lead one to think that Codeplex was set up as an entirely self-serving initiative under Microsoft's firm control! Who could imagine such a thing?!
From FTA:
Q: Is that good or bad?
A: In my view, itâ(TM)s bad, because it means that the Board of Directors not only has complete control, but the Board is also self-perpetuating (i.e., the directors elect their own successors). Moreover, there are no term limits on how long a Board member can serve. In this kind of organization, the Board is not answerable to the participants, and the participants have no say or control at all over how the organization is managed or evolves.
The author of the article points out that Microsoft has created a self-controlling organization without industry partners and given it complete control of itself. The implication is that CodePlex will fail because participants will be backed into a corner if they want to do anything that the Board of Directors opposes. It seems like the term "Microsoft Open Source" is still an oxymoron.
"...a poorly crafted governance structure that concentrates authority at the top and leaves little power to others who might join the foundation." Doesn't look like it captures the OSS development spirit, to me...
The article is well-thought and well written. Though Andy uses longer, politer phrases to beat around the bush, M$ Code Pox, is a scam and misrepresentation. Even though we're not surprised by that behavior from M$ and its minions, we shouldn't put up with it. After all, ten years ago tech people laughed at M$, M$ products, M$ users and M$ boosters. however, they did nothing to stop the spread and now look at the big cleanup job before us.
There are just too many barriers to it ever becoming credible. Look at any of the required changes Andy mentions. This one in particular stands out:
No way that one can be overcome. M$ has long been using it's tactic of panel stacking to carry out its jihad. M$ representatives include those by proxy, such as those from sock-puppets and political action groups like Black Dork Software, Novell and others.
Then you have all the activists M$ has placed inside other companies. Juniper Networks, NComputing, Yahoo (especially via the board), Xensource are now saddled with M$ moles. That is just a sample, and each of those companies turned and started to toe the M$ party line after taking on one or more moles.
Now, you may ask, how is all this getting financed and who is underwriting it? The answer: each and every bastard who in any way is helping build or maintain M$ marketshare, that's who.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It should just give the Mono group carte blanche to reimplement all of their .NET APIs under any OSS license. A full, iron clad legal agreement with them would do more than enough.
Sounds to me like they're fixing the number one problem in FOSS. Lack of direction and management is what leaves open source software so unpolished compared to it's corporate "competition". "governance structure that concentrates authority at the top"
You know, I really wonder why MS even bothers getting into open source.
If Microsoft tries to get into open source, it's seen as a move to stranglehold OSS Development and software.
If Microsoft closes the door and goes completely proprietary, it's seen as a move to stranglehold OSS Development and software.
Ballmer should say screw it and just go back to the 90's and steamroll all over the competition. If the government gets involved, split all the divisions into separate companies, get them all to join some consortium group, and keep on steamrolling away.
At least the M$ moniker would have meaning again.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
First, keep in mind, the provisional board of the CodePlex Foundation is only half Microsoft, and they have a mandate to setup a new board within a certain time frame. Second, they've also said the default license will actually be the Modified BSD license, so none of that untrusted MS-PL stuff going on. Thirdly, I've caught word from the inside that one of the effects this could have will be Microsoft employees being allowed to use open-source software internally, along with the ability to contribute to said projects under this CodePlex Foundation. With current issues like Microsoft programmers not being allowed to use superior open-source tools over inferior Microsoft ones (for example, Entity Framework versus NHibernate) - this will definitely result in Microsoft's own position changing for the better.
Embrace, extend and ...
Who needs MS when you have open office - it takes only 25 seconds to load on my ubuntu box. With exceptional flash support and no working sound drivers it shows that Linux has reached a point that nobody needs MS stuff at all!
Awwww, isn't that cute. Someone left the coasts and discovered what America really is.
The blog listing is really about "Dear Microsoft: Hire me to organize codeplex for you. Keep me on retainer forever to advise you on this"
Just think about it. The only difference is the MS klan get stickin' RICH and the Linux crowd (you know who they are) gets stinkin' FAT, and grow those grey-black beards, and long fingernails, and can't go out in sunlight. Yay!! Team Linux, go Go GO !!
"concentrates authority at the top and leaves little power to others "
It's microsoft. Is there any need to read any further? After all, open source is a cancer.....
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
...or rather it sounds like someone has never stepped outside of NYC or LA.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Since when is the Apple app store about open source? It's not, therefore it's irrelevant. The "crime" here isn't that authoritarian software vendors exist. Apple has zero to do with this, except your desire to bash people. Bash all you want, I really don't care, but at least try to have a logical basis for your attack, or else you look frikkin' stupid.
... remember that?), a true blue, died-in-the-wool authoritarian software vendor is posing as a "look-at-me-I'm-hip-now" open source software vendor, likely while trying to find yet another way to screw the real open source community. Judging by the way they structured their "open source" (to use the term veeeerrryy loosely) initiative, they seem to think that open source means "will do what we tell them for free", proving that they still don't get it.
The "crime", if you want to call it that, is that after years of scuzzball tactics, FUD, lawsuits, smears, and namecalling ("linux is a cancer"
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
The whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundation is that it isn't the Free Software Foundation or the Open Inventions Network. Microsoft could have just have easily one of these or similar organizations. But then again they wouldn't be so easy to control - which is the whole point of the exercise. Pollute, extend and embrace Microsoft control of 'open source', and by extension Open Standards. And here's what one of the current members of the board of TCF has to say about his time at the FSF.
..
.. "There's an old game in politics. If some group is giving you trouble, launch a competing group under your control"
... :)
"I hope that I can last more on this foundation than I lasted at the FSF, where I was removed by RMS after refusing to be an active part of the campaign to rename Linux as GNU/Linux", Miguel de Icaza
Lets see who else is on the 'open source' CodePlex board: Sam Ramji (Microsoft), Bill Staples (Microsoft), Stephanie Davies Boesch (Microsoft), Miguel de Icaza (Novell), D. Britton Johnston (Microsoft), Shaun Bruce Walker (DotNetNuke)
This blog sure has it figured out already
So there you have it, what could be more 'open' than that
Microsoft has announced Microsoft CodePlex, its new Open Source foundation.
"We want to be more responsive to your needs," said Sam Ramji of Microsoft during a Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit panel this week as he wiped rotten tomatoes off his suit.
"We want all open source innovation to happen on Windows. In practice, Windows is too slow, and just putting Linux underneath the same software stack triples performance. So we're running the Windows versions of the software on Linux using Wine. We'll also be funding the Wine on Windows initiative."
The new Microsoft Amazingly Open And Genuine Public License allows you complete freedom to use, modify and redistribute the software provided that every copy comes with a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate, you acknowledge that Microsoft's FAT patent protects a remarkable and valuable innovation in computer science and all accompanying documentation is in OOXML. Also, all your data belongs to Microsoft.
The overwhelming dominance of Microsoft was assured, he said, pointing to their success in paying netbook manufacturers to use Windows XP and paying US retailers not to stock the Linux versions of the computers. "We're also enforcing our patent on right-clicking. And on the number seven." Ramji reassured journalists of his absolute faith in the power of Microsoft's vision, just before quitting to work somewhere -- anywhere -- else.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
It is fair to argue that "Linux" is the defacto name of the whole OS, but Icaza shouldn't be claiming that GNU/Linux is an attempt to rename Linux... It is just an attempt to give credit to GNU for the tools that make the kernel actually usable. People calling the OS GNU/Linux, have not changed the kernel's name. I would have no qualms if Icaza simply said that it was an attempt to give GNU more credit than it deserved, I guess it is arguable. But to call it an attempt to rename Linux is simply misleading, and that's the problem . Icaza lately has been playing too much for the other side, so I am not even sure anymore if he is being intentionally misleading or if it was just a honest mistake from his part.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The "crime", if you want to call it that, is that after years of scuzzball tactics, FUD, lawsuits, smears, and namecalling ("linux is a cancer" ... remember that?), a true blue, died-in-the-wool authoritarian software vendor is posing as a "look-at-me-I'm-hip-now" open source software vendor, likely while trying to find yet another way to screw the real open source community. Judging by the way they structured their "open source" (to use the term veeeerrryy loosely) initiative, they seem to think that open source means "will do what we tell them for free", proving that they still don't get it.
RICO should cover most of M$ business models, past and present.
While you're at it, add up the total damage from the Windows malware per quarter. It's got the late Osama Bin Laden beat, hands down. There may well be a business case for air strikes against Redmond. Obviously that would be preceded by naval bombardment and followed by after-action mop up by ground units.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Meh , you would wonder if Icaza is intentionally misleading or just clueless. He is a capable developer so I'll pick the former. There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
It is fair to argue that "Linux" is the defacto name of the whole OS, but Icaza shouldn't be claiming that GNU/Linux is an attempt to rename Linux... It is just an attempt to give credit to GNU for the tools that make the kernel actually usable. People calling the OS GNU/Linux, have not changed the kernel's name. I would have no qualms if Icaza simply said that it was an attempt to give GNU more credit than it deserved, I guess it is arguable. But to call it an attempt to rename Linux is simply misleading, and that's the problem . Icaza lately has been playing too much for the other side, so I am not even sure anymore if he is being intentionally misleading or if it was just a honest mistake from his part.
You know the biggest problem RMS has is either his ego or his faith in humanity. Anybody who gives a shit already knows that Linux is accompanied generally by a GNU environment. Why complicate things even more for the dimwhits? It wouldn't make a difference other than cause confusion for that majority of people who wouldn't care in the end, just to gain recognition or for the sole principle of it. RMS does a lot of good for the FOSS community, no doubt, and his function remains to be the extremist whom pushes the machinery slightly to the other direction. But recognition has nothing to do with FOSS. I guess it's about pride. One of the worst reasons to do anything.
I am the lawn!
The CodePlex Foundation = Phase One Embrace and Extend Attempt, in terms of the whole FOSS foundation model.
With this, I suspect Microsoft are making one final, last ditch effort to kill FOSS. I'm not sure how exactly, yet; but past experience says they first try and exactly mimic whatever they want to destroy, then get everyone addicted to their mimicry, then "extend" said mimicry to generate lock-in, and then finally destroy said mimicry after the original is also dead.
I'm not entirely sure how that would work with the Foundation meme itself, however, or what MS' point really is in attacking it. They'd probably have better real luck with continuing their patent trolling efforts, if they want something that is likely to actually work.
If they're trying to create a scenario where the law no longer allows people to make non-profits, I'm not sure how they're likely to succeed.
They're up to something, but exactly what it is, is anyone's guess at this point.
It's crafted exactly like Microsoft wants it to look and behave.
There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
Please stop representing Stallmanite mind control as logic.
Just because you believe whatever divisive, deliberately attention-seeking and controversial canard your Leader has generated this month, that doesn't mean that the rest of us consider it sane.
Stallman wants two things.
a) Narcissistic supply, to be worshipped as God, and to be the centre of attention on a continual basis.
b) Control of as many other people as humanly possible, which basically follows on from a).
The entire "GNU/Linux," flap is a direct attempt at further obtaining both of the above objectives, by ensuring that he gets mentioned wherever Linux does.
The man has become a source of nothing other than semantically driven conflict, distraction due to such, and pointless noise, and you don't do anyone any favours (including yourself) by validating his crap.
Stop doing it.
A little hint: Don't use M$ in our posts or no one will take you seriously, even if you make a good point.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
GNU is just a toolchain. An IMPORTANT toolchain, but a tollchain nonetheless. You don't name your OS or your system distribution after the toolchain, no matter how badly RMS tries to rationalize it.
The operating system layer itself is Linux. Period. Unless there's actual GNU modules or drivers alongside the Linux kernel in kernel-space I don't know about.
And the name of the system distribution is whatever the fuck the maker wants to call it: Ubuntu, RHEL, SuSE, since it's THEIR creation by way of assembling the parts themselves into a distribution.
Stallman wants us to think that by having the GNU toolchain the entire system magically becomes GNU.
It's Linux. It is not GNU/Linux.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
FYI, it's "raison d'être" and not "reason d'atre".
AC
A little hint: Don't complain about use M$ in our posts or no one will take you seriously, especially when you fail to make a good point.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
GNU is not just a toolchain, it's a lot more than just gcc and binutils.
Glibc, bash, coreutils, GTK+ and GNOME are all part of GNU. You can build an operating system without those components, ie. a minimal busybox / dietlibc distribution. But Ubuntu is very much a GNU-derived operating system.
They're not what defines the operating system. They're not drivers, they're not modules, and they're not the kernel. Ubuntu's not an OS, it's a system distribution, and it's not "derived" from GNU since there was never a GNU distribution. They're important, yes, but not important enough to call a Linux distribution a GNU distribution. It's Stallman taking credit where credit isn't due.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
It's not GNU, it's Linux, for three simple reasons:
1. There's no GNU kernel/modules/drivers.
2. The distribution was created by someone who is not the GNU project.
3. There needs to be a lot more than just userspace tools and shells for something to automagically become GNU, no matter how "important" they are. There's lots of BSD tools in Linux, too, ans we're not calling it GNU/BSD/Linux. Then there's a shitton of Xorg tools, too. It's no more important than any other "important" part of a distribution.
Call me when the RMS bullshit stops bubbling out of your keyboard. For the record, I use KDE and zsh, neither of which can lay claim to be GNU.
The Linux kernel is just that, a kernel. There's more lines of GNU code in Ubuntu than Linux code. They're very important, I just listed software that goes through all levels of the stack, from the basic operating system API, through basic commandline utilities, through a user interface toolkit, to the operating system's graphical shell, packing many essential applications.
I don't see why you're so bent on calling a mere kernel an operating system. There's a whole lot more that goes in an operating system besides drivers.
And Ubuntu is an operating system as well as a GNU/Linux distribution, even derived from "Debian GNU/Linux".
There's no GNU code in the operating system layer. ITS ALL USERSPACE. You didn't name a single fucking thing that runs in kernel mode. It's all Linux drivers and modules and the kernel itself. The operating system layer is ONLY that which runs in kernel mode that manages or helps manage processes, hardware, and resources. NO GNU SOFTWARE USED IN A LINUX DISTRIBUTION FITS THIS CRITERIA! The operating system inherits the name of the kernel, not the userspace tools that sit in the operating environment layer on top of it. It's Linux, not GNU.
And the name of the distribution itself is whatever the hell the person or group who actually assembled the distribution wants it to be called. It's Ubuntu, not GNU.
GNU is just userspace tools in Linux. And you can say it runs the ENTIRE userspace all you want it's still "Linux" or "Ubuntu" just as it is "NT" or "Windows Vista."
And you're going off the obsolete definition of operating system RMS loves to go by when he calls it GNU/Linux.
Having the most lines of code does not an operating system make. Because I could name things that take even more lines of code in a Linux distro than GNU (Xorg, for example.). This was one of RMS' most broken metrics of how "critical" something is to Linux.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
I disagree.
No reason for me to go and repeat what I already said. It's obviously a difference of opinions.
What is rather disturbing is that someone modded this post Insightful, complete with its bad grammar.
http://sf.codeplex.com/
So that's why nobody considers basic in any inception as a serious language, point taken.
GNU is not essential and can and has been in the past replaced by BSD and Plan 9 by individual efforts. It's not an OS. I can get any shell I want, I know of at least 4 libc, 5 compilers and 4 userland utilities sets I could swap for GNU - besides, the original tools in Linux were not GNU but GNU forks made because they couldn't give a fuck about micros.
Tell that to embedded devs.
(Yggdrasil was the first distro to do that - they called the whole OS LGX - Linux/GNU/X - I guess that flattered Stallman's ego enough to keep the first two letters and swap them so the core of the OS suddenly became less important than a bunch of utilities - let's face it, Apple and the *BSDs use gcc, so it,s most certainly what deserves GNU in the name)
Who needs Ubuntu when you have Linux?
Anyone who has read Animal Farm and remembers the gradual transformation of the pigs will understand D'Icaza's gradual coming out as a Microsoftie (though there was the minor early glitch when he applied for a job with them. That was probably a bit of a give away.)
He has done more to divide and undermine the Linux project than anyone else and he is being justly rewarded by Microsoft - via it's associates.
Two requests for Codeplex to support GPLv3 are here and here.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com