Slashdot Mirror
Sam Ramji Answers Your Questions
A couple weeks back you asked some questions of new CodePlex Foundation President Sam Ramji. He has responded and expressed interest in participating in the discussion at some point. If you have follow up questions feel free to drop them in the discussion so he can address them as he has time.
Conspiracy Theories and Where are you Guys Headed?
bydedazo (737510)
Do you see Microsoft headed in the same general direction as Google and IBM where the core products and IP are held close to the chest while some of the more peripheral stuff (not key to revenue) is released under open licenses? Recent news like the open sourcing of one of the versions of the .NET framework make it seem that way. And what do you say to the inevitable flood of "advocates" who claim Microsoft is doing this sort of thing to subvert FOSS?
Sam: On the first part of the question: I think it’s not just IBM and Google that are executing within the model of “protect the core, open source the complements”, but SAP, HP, and other large corporations in the IT industry. Generally speaking you want to make your complements as inexpensive and adaptable as possible to drive the adoption and value of your core product. There are further motivations for opening complements, which include altruistic (“let’s share the cost of developing these components – it will be better for all of us and our customers”) to bare-knuckled (“let’s drive down the profitability of our competitor’s product”). While I was at Microsoft I focused on helping the company understand the range of options with open source strategies. I expect them to proceed in this direction and predict that there will be a lot more open source contribution from Microsoft with each passing quarter, much as IBM crossed the threshold early in this decade.
The challenge for all of them with that approach is not that it’s predictable, which it is, but that it tends to harden attitudes internally and externally on how to protect the core. One of the things that the Directors of the CodePlex Foundation believe is that we can provide a way to make the core/complement boundary more permeable. Corporations become increasingly concerned the closer that an open source contribution is to their core offering. We’re crafting a licensing and contribution process which should let them contribute to these areas, for their business benefit and everyone else’s, with less risk. It’s partly a function of how the contribution is managed, and partly a function of having the CodePlex Foundation become the owner of the code.
On the second part of the question: there will always be detractors who have knee-jerk reactions wherever Microsoft and open source are concerned. I have little to say about these claims. What I will say is that those of us involved in the Foundation see it as our personal calling to make a positive impact on the industry through the success of the foundation; that we are an open source and not a free software foundation; and that to any organization that shares our goals to expand the contribution from corporations to community open source projects, we are excited to collaborate. On a personal note, my new company's software (seen at http://www.apigee.com) is based on Fedora Linux and uses Xen, Eclipse and Apache software, so why would I be interested in weakening FOSS? I think the world would be better off if Microsoft and other large software companies contributed more to open source, and I think most people agree.
Why Start Codeplex?
What advantages do you see CodePlex offering that you couldn't accomplish by participating within (or contributing to) one of the many other open repositories already in play like SourceForge.net or Google Code?
Sam: This is an apples and oranges comparison. The CodePlex Foundation is not a repository/forge. It's a non-profit legal entity that works with corporate sponsors to help them adapt their processes to release software as open source; with corporations who want to contribute to projects but don't know how; and with community open source projects that need a contribution and governance model and seek corporate contribution. The aim is to increase responsible participation of corporations in community open source projects.
That's a completely different mission from forges like SourceForge.net, Google Code and Codeplex.com, which are providing very different services from what the Foundation offers.
I realize that we’ve successfully confused people (yes, this is a sardonic comment) by using the same name as Microsoft’s forge (codeplex.com). I regret the confusion because it has made it a bit harder to explain the Foundation to those who are already aware of the forge. We may revisit the name in future generations of the Board of Directors.
"IP Needs?"
bySanityInAnarchy (655584)
From your FAQ: "We wanted a foundation that addresses a full spectrum of software projects, and does so with the licensing and intellectual property needs of commercial software companies in mind." This seems to imply that there are existing foundations that do so without those licensing and IP needs. Regardless, what do you see as the role of a foundation like yours in addressing the needs of commercial software companies?
Sam: To answer the first part of the question - the implicit part - there are two aspects to the vacuum around contribution licensing. First, there are projects and communities which don't have any licenses at all. Second, as those who have started open source and open standards foundations are aware, the lack of an industry-wide standard set of agreements has meant that each foundation has had to build these from scratch. So existing foundations have typically worked out solutions that are effective for their community – good examples are the Eclipse Foundation and the Mozilla Foundation. But if you believe that open source will continue to grow, you have to also believe that there will be more foundations in the future that support those successful new open source technologies.
In our view, the agreements we've designed are generic and could be used by any other foundation just by changing the name of the contribution recipient. We are thinking about putting our contribution licenses under Creative Commons' "Attribution Share Alike" to reinforce this aspect of our mission. To answer the second part of the question, we have three things to offer software companies - a safe harbor for their code, mentoring on how to build a sustainable open source project, and a system of code provenance and security escalation that solves for the most common concerns they have when considering inbound or outbound open source usage.
How Will Projects be Organized?
byTravisHein (981987)
How will the Codeplex foundation organize and align its [future] projects ? For example, in other foundation sites, over time there are typically several projects created by different groups, and while each is different, there is a good bit of overlap in the features and the main goals of the purpose of the project, and this can lead to confusion for people that would want to use the project, not sure which one is the better one to use. Sam: We looked at the way other foundations organize projects and decided to use a different model, based on museums, to help us structure how we organize and align projects. Like a museum, we have galleries, which are related groups of projects, and projects, which to follow the analogy are like art on display in a gallery. Projects must be accepted into a gallery, which means a project will align well with the gallery’s technical focus. Each gallery has a manager who oversees which projects are in the gallery.
What I would like to see is that the Gallery Managers take a strong leadership position on the structure of projects in their gallery and manage new contributions in a way that limits the type of redundant efforts you described in the question. As a practical engineer, I realize that some amount of duplication is inevitable but where projects have strong overlaps I’d hope that they can be resolved through thoughtful architecture and teamwork.
Gallery vs. Repository?
Several readers have asked about the difference between a "gallery" and a "repository" with respect to CodePlex and why that distinction is necessary or helpful?
Sam: People usually equate "repository" with "forge", meaning a site that provides source code hosting, source version control, source downloading, and other related tools. That market is well covered by others, and so the CodePlex Foundation does not offer repository services. Foundation projects are free to use any repository they want. By contrast - and this is where the distinction is helpful - a gallery is both a showcase for, and a community of projects. The gallery shows related projects that are in the Foundation, and provides clear information on licensing, code provenance, project team members, and the security escalation path. It is a community in that project committers, the gallery manager, a Foundation appointed mentor, and the Foundation's technical director will all work together to help projects out, follow common best practices, and help educate sponsors about the place those projects play in the open source eco-system.
Move to Non-Profit?
What things would need to happen before CodePlex could evolve into a charitable non-profit?
Sam: Currently the Foundation is set up as a non-profit 501(c)(6) corporation, which is a governance structure, not a financial structure. To move to a charitable non-profit – a 501(c)(3) – we would have to agree on a way to accept tax-exempt contributions. Currently contributions are classed as “business expenses” to the donors. We can’t move in that direction until we finalize the permanent board of directors, which is one of our first-100-day tasks. So the first thing we need to do is select a permanent board, and then let that board decide if it wants to take on the work of evolving the foundation into a charitable non-profit.
This current structure is the same as the Eclipse Foundation uses (legally a “trade association”). It’s worked well for them and their corporate sponsors as well as their member projects. We’ll see what works best for our sponsors and member projects as the CodePlex Foundation evolves.
Microsoft?
What level of engagement do you see Microsoft having with the projects or participants using CodePlex? Can we expect to see development help? Sponsorship? Recruitment? Sam: I expect to see continued sponsorship; Microsoft has already sponsored the ASP.NET gallery and has proposed another. Where Microsoft is a gallery sponsor or a project contributor, it will need to have a high level of engagement with the gallery and projects it sponsors. This also will hold true for other sponsors who join the foundation. Each project accepted into the Foundation must have three committers; for the Microsoft-sponsored projects, some of these will be Microsoft developers. I don’t know if you would consider this development assistance or simply development. I can’t speak to recruitment as it’s not a topic we’ve discussed nor is it a goal of the CodePlex Foundation.
Why should I care?
Beyond the marketing speak and platitudes what specifics can you give me about why CodePlex is Interesting/Useful. You say things like: "Specifically we aim to work with particular projects that can serve as best practice exemplars of how commercial software companies and open source communities can effectively collaborate." What kinds of things do you foresee doing that will actually facilitate growth or change for the better in the open source community?
Sam: The three specific things that the CodePlex Foundation can do are:
1) Establish a standard process and set of licenses for contribution to open source projects. No such standard currently exists, which results in duplication of effort across projects and new foundations, and increases anxiety for corporate contributors.
2) Provide a legal entity for ownership of copyright for specific projects. Many projects have disorganized copyright ownership, which prevents them from relicensing and commercialization.
3) Popularize a set of best practices established in the industry for sustained corporate contribution to community open source projects. Many corporations are interested in contribution and in open source licensing but lack a codified approach to doing so.
I believe that the combination of these specifics will enable many corporations which are not yet contributing to open source projects to do so, and enable projects lacking a contribution licensing process to adopt one which will enable collaboration with corporations and their individual employees.
bydedazo (737510)
Do you see Microsoft headed in the same general direction as Google and IBM where the core products and IP are held close to the chest while some of the more peripheral stuff (not key to revenue) is released under open licenses? Recent news like the open sourcing of one of the versions of the .NET framework make it seem that way. And what do you say to the inevitable flood of "advocates" who claim Microsoft is doing this sort of thing to subvert FOSS?
Sam: On the first part of the question: I think it’s not just IBM and Google that are executing within the model of “protect the core, open source the complements”, but SAP, HP, and other large corporations in the IT industry. Generally speaking you want to make your complements as inexpensive and adaptable as possible to drive the adoption and value of your core product. There are further motivations for opening complements, which include altruistic (“let’s share the cost of developing these components – it will be better for all of us and our customers”) to bare-knuckled (“let’s drive down the profitability of our competitor’s product”). While I was at Microsoft I focused on helping the company understand the range of options with open source strategies. I expect them to proceed in this direction and predict that there will be a lot more open source contribution from Microsoft with each passing quarter, much as IBM crossed the threshold early in this decade.
The challenge for all of them with that approach is not that it’s predictable, which it is, but that it tends to harden attitudes internally and externally on how to protect the core. One of the things that the Directors of the CodePlex Foundation believe is that we can provide a way to make the core/complement boundary more permeable. Corporations become increasingly concerned the closer that an open source contribution is to their core offering. We’re crafting a licensing and contribution process which should let them contribute to these areas, for their business benefit and everyone else’s, with less risk. It’s partly a function of how the contribution is managed, and partly a function of having the CodePlex Foundation become the owner of the code.
On the second part of the question: there will always be detractors who have knee-jerk reactions wherever Microsoft and open source are concerned. I have little to say about these claims. What I will say is that those of us involved in the Foundation see it as our personal calling to make a positive impact on the industry through the success of the foundation; that we are an open source and not a free software foundation; and that to any organization that shares our goals to expand the contribution from corporations to community open source projects, we are excited to collaborate. On a personal note, my new company's software (seen at http://www.apigee.com) is based on Fedora Linux and uses Xen, Eclipse and Apache software, so why would I be interested in weakening FOSS? I think the world would be better off if Microsoft and other large software companies contributed more to open source, and I think most people agree.
Why Start Codeplex?
What advantages do you see CodePlex offering that you couldn't accomplish by participating within (or contributing to) one of the many other open repositories already in play like SourceForge.net or Google Code?
Sam: This is an apples and oranges comparison. The CodePlex Foundation is not a repository/forge. It's a non-profit legal entity that works with corporate sponsors to help them adapt their processes to release software as open source; with corporations who want to contribute to projects but don't know how; and with community open source projects that need a contribution and governance model and seek corporate contribution. The aim is to increase responsible participation of corporations in community open source projects.
That's a completely different mission from forges like SourceForge.net, Google Code and Codeplex.com, which are providing very different services from what the Foundation offers.
I realize that we’ve successfully confused people (yes, this is a sardonic comment) by using the same name as Microsoft’s forge (codeplex.com). I regret the confusion because it has made it a bit harder to explain the Foundation to those who are already aware of the forge. We may revisit the name in future generations of the Board of Directors.
"IP Needs?"
bySanityInAnarchy (655584)
From your FAQ: "We wanted a foundation that addresses a full spectrum of software projects, and does so with the licensing and intellectual property needs of commercial software companies in mind." This seems to imply that there are existing foundations that do so without those licensing and IP needs. Regardless, what do you see as the role of a foundation like yours in addressing the needs of commercial software companies?
Sam: To answer the first part of the question - the implicit part - there are two aspects to the vacuum around contribution licensing. First, there are projects and communities which don't have any licenses at all. Second, as those who have started open source and open standards foundations are aware, the lack of an industry-wide standard set of agreements has meant that each foundation has had to build these from scratch. So existing foundations have typically worked out solutions that are effective for their community – good examples are the Eclipse Foundation and the Mozilla Foundation. But if you believe that open source will continue to grow, you have to also believe that there will be more foundations in the future that support those successful new open source technologies.
In our view, the agreements we've designed are generic and could be used by any other foundation just by changing the name of the contribution recipient. We are thinking about putting our contribution licenses under Creative Commons' "Attribution Share Alike" to reinforce this aspect of our mission. To answer the second part of the question, we have three things to offer software companies - a safe harbor for their code, mentoring on how to build a sustainable open source project, and a system of code provenance and security escalation that solves for the most common concerns they have when considering inbound or outbound open source usage.
How Will Projects be Organized?
byTravisHein (981987)
How will the Codeplex foundation organize and align its [future] projects ? For example, in other foundation sites, over time there are typically several projects created by different groups, and while each is different, there is a good bit of overlap in the features and the main goals of the purpose of the project, and this can lead to confusion for people that would want to use the project, not sure which one is the better one to use. Sam: We looked at the way other foundations organize projects and decided to use a different model, based on museums, to help us structure how we organize and align projects. Like a museum, we have galleries, which are related groups of projects, and projects, which to follow the analogy are like art on display in a gallery. Projects must be accepted into a gallery, which means a project will align well with the gallery’s technical focus. Each gallery has a manager who oversees which projects are in the gallery.
What I would like to see is that the Gallery Managers take a strong leadership position on the structure of projects in their gallery and manage new contributions in a way that limits the type of redundant efforts you described in the question. As a practical engineer, I realize that some amount of duplication is inevitable but where projects have strong overlaps I’d hope that they can be resolved through thoughtful architecture and teamwork.
Gallery vs. Repository?
Several readers have asked about the difference between a "gallery" and a "repository" with respect to CodePlex and why that distinction is necessary or helpful?
Sam: People usually equate "repository" with "forge", meaning a site that provides source code hosting, source version control, source downloading, and other related tools. That market is well covered by others, and so the CodePlex Foundation does not offer repository services. Foundation projects are free to use any repository they want. By contrast - and this is where the distinction is helpful - a gallery is both a showcase for, and a community of projects. The gallery shows related projects that are in the Foundation, and provides clear information on licensing, code provenance, project team members, and the security escalation path. It is a community in that project committers, the gallery manager, a Foundation appointed mentor, and the Foundation's technical director will all work together to help projects out, follow common best practices, and help educate sponsors about the place those projects play in the open source eco-system.
Move to Non-Profit?
What things would need to happen before CodePlex could evolve into a charitable non-profit?
Sam: Currently the Foundation is set up as a non-profit 501(c)(6) corporation, which is a governance structure, not a financial structure. To move to a charitable non-profit – a 501(c)(3) – we would have to agree on a way to accept tax-exempt contributions. Currently contributions are classed as “business expenses” to the donors. We can’t move in that direction until we finalize the permanent board of directors, which is one of our first-100-day tasks. So the first thing we need to do is select a permanent board, and then let that board decide if it wants to take on the work of evolving the foundation into a charitable non-profit.
This current structure is the same as the Eclipse Foundation uses (legally a “trade association”). It’s worked well for them and their corporate sponsors as well as their member projects. We’ll see what works best for our sponsors and member projects as the CodePlex Foundation evolves.
Microsoft?
What level of engagement do you see Microsoft having with the projects or participants using CodePlex? Can we expect to see development help? Sponsorship? Recruitment? Sam: I expect to see continued sponsorship; Microsoft has already sponsored the ASP.NET gallery and has proposed another. Where Microsoft is a gallery sponsor or a project contributor, it will need to have a high level of engagement with the gallery and projects it sponsors. This also will hold true for other sponsors who join the foundation. Each project accepted into the Foundation must have three committers; for the Microsoft-sponsored projects, some of these will be Microsoft developers. I don’t know if you would consider this development assistance or simply development. I can’t speak to recruitment as it’s not a topic we’ve discussed nor is it a goal of the CodePlex Foundation.
Why should I care?
Beyond the marketing speak and platitudes what specifics can you give me about why CodePlex is Interesting/Useful. You say things like: "Specifically we aim to work with particular projects that can serve as best practice exemplars of how commercial software companies and open source communities can effectively collaborate." What kinds of things do you foresee doing that will actually facilitate growth or change for the better in the open source community?
Sam: The three specific things that the CodePlex Foundation can do are:
1) Establish a standard process and set of licenses for contribution to open source projects. No such standard currently exists, which results in duplication of effort across projects and new foundations, and increases anxiety for corporate contributors.
2) Provide a legal entity for ownership of copyright for specific projects. Many projects have disorganized copyright ownership, which prevents them from relicensing and commercialization.
3) Popularize a set of best practices established in the industry for sustained corporate contribution to community open source projects. Many corporations are interested in contribution and in open source licensing but lack a codified approach to doing so.
I believe that the combination of these specifics will enable many corporations which are not yet contributing to open source projects to do so, and enable projects lacking a contribution licensing process to adopt one which will enable collaboration with corporations and their individual employees.
Why did you make Peter Parker so annoyingly emo in spider-man 3?
broke my heart at the codeplex, yes you did
(panic at the codeplex!)
...and with community open source projects that need a contribution and governance model and seek corporate contribution.
Seriously, do these guys even know WTF they want to do with this thing (aside from using it to shore up .NET and as a cudgel against their competitors)? Because as it stands right now, Why the hell would I (as an individual OR as a corporation) even want to bother? There's too many free and far more popular alternatives out there.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
to muddy the waters and play more havoc with open source.
I believe that's the whole point of the exercise... dilute the term and the real thing loses all power.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Something about the article seemed strange to me since I thought this guy had left Microsoft and that he was one of their internal trainees via Microsoft's Linux Lab. I found articles about his departure from Microsoft in September of this year for a SV startup but this says that he's still with Microsoft. I even found a blog by Hilf, another MS trainee on how to defend against OSS using the MS Linux Lab which talks about Ramji's departure from Microsoft.
So who has more history on this guy? And given Microsoft mantra of Windows everywhere and the fact that they don't write software for anything but Windows, "working with OSS" from this guy or any Microsoft exec is their way of saying 'working to diminish OSS in the marketplace'.
So anything this guy says, as a Microsoft employee, is hogwash and worth less than the electrons used to xmit it. IMO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Why would I have any questions from Sam Gamgee? The books covered the important parts of his life rather thoroughly.
That would have been a LOT more interesting.
The answer is that the whole point of Microsoft championing 'open source' is to take away the open source application projects from Linux and so kill the platform. It's working too!
They would like to have killed all the open source application projects as well but they were too overwhelmed, and for a while they thought that they might sink under the onslaught.
In desperation they put plan B into action and instead of attempting to kill off the all open source, aimed at the heart of the Linux OS instead. Without Linux on the playing field, Microsoft will be in a position to put the squeeze on the application projects. Won't be so easy to bargain when Windows is the only viable platform for your product. All those government departments which negotiated discounts merely by threatening to move to Linux will have to kiss their discounts goodbye. Independent software projects which compete with Microsoft proprietary products will have to go their own way - without an OS to support them.
Faint hearts are easily lured away.
You know it's true.
By contrast - and this is where the distinction is helpful - a gallery is both a showcase for, and a community of projects. The gallery shows related projects that are in the Foundation, and provides clear information on licensing, code provenance, project team members, and the security escalation path.
So CodePlex is more like Freshmeat than Sourceforge. :)
When did Microsoft stop raping its customers?
The three specific things that the CodePlex Foundation can do are:
1) Undermine the FSF.
2) Encourage open source projects to shift from Linux to Microsoft, leaving the former out in the cold.
3) Keep on yapping on about 'open source' and hope that nobody notices that it does not include support for any form of license which does not facilitate the privatisation of all software contributed to the project.
The premise is put forth that the existing legal frameworks surrounding open source projects aren't unified and have been mashed together by individual foundations to serve the needs of their specific projects. The CodePlex claims to be offering a solid legal foundation that can be freely adapted to any open source product. The claimed benefit of that is it makes it easier for projects to attract corporate support, presumably because corporations will have a better understanding of what they are getting into.
My question is, is there really a problem with murky legalesse around open source projects that is scaring off corporations with the inclination to invest resources?
From reading the Q&A I get the sense that CodePlex is little more than a marketing machine for open source projects. They provide a legal framework and a showcase to bring open source developers together with corporations who could presumably fund them. That seems like a good thing.
What's the other side? They are only pushing open source code written in .Net that runs on the Microsoft platform?
This statement doesn't make understanding his organization's relationship to microsoft any less confusing. Can anyone fluent in corporate doublespeak translate?
those of us involved in the Foundation see it as our personal calling to make a positive impact on the industry
A "positive impact" for who? - Oh yeah, MS... unfortunately MS believes that in order for something to have a positive impact for them, it must have a negative impact for everyone else.
We [...] decided to use a different model, based on museums
.. because we're history <zing>
This stuff just writes itself... gotta wonder if he did this intentionally. :)
Ok, wait, this looks suspiciously like Microsoft coming in late to duplicate effort and have things done the One Microsoft Way.
Excuuuse me? Isn't this what the Open Source Initiative does already? Of course, not all of the licenses and processes are standardized, because there will always be someone who doesn't agree and wants to do his/her own thing, but what makes Microsoft think they can come in here and be successful in standardizing everything?
Doesn't the EFF ask you to transfer ownership/copyrights to them so they can take care of copyright issues?
I shudder when Microsoft tries to: a) "standardize" something, and b) "popularize" it.
Incidentally, it's a pity how the CodePlex Foundation just happened to have the same name as Microsoft's forge. I mean, it's not like Microsoft has teams of lawyers just waiting to pounce on a remote name resemblance so they can sue for trademark issues. It's not like there are any corporate resources to do a name search just to see if, you know, "<your organization name>.com" has already been taken, where <your organization name> = "codeplex". I mean, being a small poor non-profit with no big corporate sponsorships from a software giant, they probably used up their meagre funds doing a domain name search for codeplex.org, codeplex.net, codeplex.tv, codeplex.mobi, codeplex.IGotMyOwnTLD, etc. Maybe they used Bing for the search.
So, I do get that CodePlex Foundation is more for corporate than homebrew projects. But I can't help but think that this is more of Microsoft throwing more money at a problem that they are culturally incapable of understanding, hoping that they can grasp and master that market.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
I applaud you for the quick, decisive victory. Clean delivery, concise answers, and overall quality is astounding.
Well done.
Just look at all the Microsoft whores with mod points.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1. How do you plan on "reaching out" or "marketing yourselves" to get more than Microsoft-language-based projects?
2. Isn't a "gallery" like "ASP.Net" a little generic?
I read all that and ...
isn't that already the aim of the FSF ?
Isn't this what the Open Source Initiative [opensource.org] does already?
My understanding is that the OSI tries to declare whether a particular license counts as "open source" or not. They do track redundant licenses.
Doesn't the EFF ask you to transfer ownership/copyrights to them so they can take care of copyright issues?
Indeed, and many projects ask you to transfer copyrights to them to allow them to change license at will. This is a reasonably fair deal -- it means your code gets accepted, and if the license allows it, you can always create your own fork just before they change licenses. But it also means that the community can decide if/when to go GPL3, for example. Setting "any future version" is putting too much faith in the FSF, I think, but if you don't do that and do allow people to contribute while retaining copyright, you end up with a situation like the Linux kernel, which will likely be forever GPLv2.
I shudder when Microsoft tries to: a) "standardize" something, and b) "popularize" it.
This appears to at least be trying to be an independent organization. And you also didn't address that #3 is an important point, though one that I don't think you really need an organization to make:
There should be a standard set of best practices for how corporations should participate in open source. We've seen it done wrong so many times before.
For example -- remember when IBM ported Linux to their mainframe platform? They did so behind closed doors, only releasing the code to the community when it was done. Aside from potentially being a bitch to merge, this was really cruel to the community which had been trying to do the same thing independently. On the other hand, "release early, release often" doesn't really need an organization to tell you to do that.
The one way I can see this really working is if the organization were to provide corporate-y things, like training and seminars, for executives and developers at companies who want to participate in open source, and don't want to look like assholes doing it.
Now, the unfortunate thing is that Steve Ballmer continues to make truly retarded statements about open source (GPL = virus! Linux violates our patents!) on a fairly regular basis. Fortunately, Microsoft doesn't seem to be following his example. For all the paranoia about things like mono -- the fact that it might have submarine patents from Microsoft -- has any ever been justified? Since SCO died, has Microsoft actually done anything directly to undermine open source -- and, in particular, have they ever done so while appearing to support it?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Needlessly obfuscated, content-free even when correct, and answers based on impossible premises.
You are a Microsoft employee.
Q: Sam, in your view, what's the meaning of life?
Oh, that's not how this works? Then what's the point? Stupid technology.
there will always be detractors who have knee-jerk reactions wherever Microsoft and open source are concerned.
I think that an analogy might help you to understand why we foolish idiots question everything that Microsoft does. Say that you've been in prison for 20 years and the whole while there's been this guy named "Bob". From the very start any time someone drops soap in the shower Bob would be there, doing what Bob does best. In the prison yard it is unusual for a day to pass without Bob shanking someone.
Time passed and Bob got older. Shower times weren't as successful as they used to be and the shankings didn't always work out the way that Bob had planned. One day, during shower time, Bob starts dropping bars of "free" soap on the floor, whilst wearing a weird, creepy grin...
The amount of trust I place in a person, thing or corporation is almost completely derived from what I know of their history. I don't extend much trust to people that I have only known a short time, but I don't distrust them either. The people who I do trust are those that have consistently shown themselves to be trustworthy over a period of time. Also, I distrust people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy through their actions. Here's a small tip of the ice burg that is Microsoft's history:
When people call me an idiot for not implicitly trusting Microsoft it causes me to trust both them and Microsoft even less (if that's possible in the later case). It makes me think that the person is either an idiot or is playing an angle.
Instead of resorting to ad-hominem attacks why don't you try explaining to me why I should trust Microsoft.
Forget the double-talk and corporate happy speak. What Microsoft intends for Open Source is not something that will benefit anyone but Microsoft. Remember "embrace, extend, extinguish?" They're talking like they've embraced open source and now they're starting to "extend" it. They're fighting a different sort of enemy than they have before - but they can't do anything other than fight - it's their corporate culture.
Microsoft is a sworn enemy of open source software - and no matter what they or their sock puppets say, this is not going to change. Microsoft sees open source as being the biggest threat to their continued growth and they'll attack with everything they've got - that they can plausibly get away with.
I can see how a character who was probably subjected to a childhood of harassment about having "picked a peck of pickled peppers" and associated pecker jokes might reasonably turn out emotionally scarred.
that we are an open source and not a free software foundation
For me that tells me everything I need to know. I value free software for the freedom. The fact that source is available is only one of the freedoms I would like my software to respect. There are many others. That Mr. Ramji understands the difference between "Open" and "Free," and explicitly adopts the former while rejecting the latter, tells me that he and by extension the CodePlex foundation are interested in freedom only for the incidental benefits it might bring, not for its own sake. Which is fine for Open Source advocates, but not Free Software advocates such as myself.
Nonaggression works!
"you may want to consider that our directors and advisors include Monty Widenius, Miguel de Icaza..."
Nuff said.
I'll trade my ten foot pole in for a half mile force field.
Sorry Sam, I simply don't believe you or trust you. Not after the OOXML thing. Not after... oh, bother, you know the list.
Once MS starts releasing code under the GPL BEFORE they get caught out (AND usable code, at that) then I MAY start to consider you as an honest player. At this stage it's simply smoke and mirrors.... AGAIN.
saturate, diffuse and confuse