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!
But it almost perfectly captures Microsoft's view on the software market.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Doesn't look like it captures the OSS development spirit, to me...
That's probably because it isn't supposed to. It's supposed to allow Microsoft and any other companies who sign on to support it the ability to say "We like open source. We're spending eleventy-billion dollars on supporting an independent open source foundation." By calling it "open source" even if it's not, it succeeds at its PR purpose.
Remember the Halloween Documents? I don't think we have any reason to think that Microsoft has suddenly decided that they should become the next Red Hat.
I am officially gone from
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.
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!
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
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.
Actually, my project's under GPLv3 so they won't host it. I guess MS doesn't like the extra patent protections.
I doubt it, since Ms-PL itself includes a patent clause:
Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
And a patent nuke clause:
If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.