Slashdot Mirror
Is the CodePlex Foundation Truly Independent Now?
Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft created its CodePlex, 'an online collaborative software development portal,' four years ago, as the latest in a string of attempts to play nicely with open source. Well, maybe not: Microsoft saw the open source software projects it hosted there as reflecting 'the open community-building spirit of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative.' In September last year, it tried again, launching the CodePlex Foundation, 'a forum in which open source communities and the software development community can come together with the shared goal of increasing participation in open source community projects,' and not to be confused with CodePlex.com, 'a Microsoft owned and staffed forge that encourages the development of open source software based on Microsoft technology.' The only problem is that all the funding for the CodePlex Foundation still comes from Microsoft. But the new Technical Director of the CodePlex Foundation, Stephen Walli, thinks it can become truly independent of Microsoft, open to all companies to create open source software for any platform using only OSI-approved licenses. Will the CodePlex Foundation take its place alongside existing foundations addressing this sector, like Apache and Eclipse, but complementary to them? Or is it forever doomed to be ignored by the open source world because of its origins?"
If you're going to ask a question in the headline, shouldn't it be posted in the Ask Slashdot section?
I wonder why the word "rhetorical" never came up in my studies at school... do you know why?
Will I get modded down?
Codeplex was created to undermine the open source and more particularly the free software movement. Well, they launched their Tet offensive and it was massively funded, but it failed.
They'll have to try something else.
Ignoring open source never doomed anyone.
Codeplex continues to provide useful source to people developing on Microsoft platforms.
Only the religious zealots care.
They could endow a trust fund for SourceForget.net. And if they had ideas for a better forge, they could make code submissions to SourceForge.net.
An organization that wants to make open source products based off Microsoft will only get more Open Source Cred if they separate from Microsoft?
It seems like Microsoft is stuck in a position to make no concession. You don't like Microsoft. You'd like it a bit more if it were friendlier to Open Source. Microsoft starts an Open Source Initiative. It doesn't quite live up to Expectations. Now, the only way this new initiative can redeem itself is to become independent of Microsoft.
Wouldn't then Microsoft NOT have an open source initiative, and put them back at square one? Does becoming independent of Microsoft allow them to better work on Microsoft code?
In other words MS fanboys are ignorant of MS's history of backstabbing any competitor including one they have partnered with. Actually, especially the ones they have partnered with. CodePlex Foundation should be ignored by the open source community until MS has absolutely no possible influence within the organization.
While it's easy to find any number of lazy, greedy jerks who simply want to to profit unjustly off the honest work of open source developers, MS is not in that category. MS wants to kill open source utterly and completely. Do not ever forget that.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
lets get it straight ; open source was created by and developed around open source software. open communities. independent. we were here first, and we are many. we dont like closed or semi closed source stuff. we especially dont like corporations which try to 'close' the 'open' by mimicking 'open', so that they can profit. we wont play along. if we dont play along, it wont succeed. and for us to play along, you need to be really open. cydonia over. * ppkhhhhhhhh *
Read radical news here
Maybe they should start with a proper website that works on non-MSIE browsers.
After a cursory look it seems like an foundation more interested on marketing and policies than in code. I actually had to look hard in order to find the project list.
Am I right to assume that there are only 6 projects?
Seriously, six?
Meh. Call me when they have 600.
(Goes back to github).
Actually it doesn't really matter a bit what MSFT has done in the past, as they like any other company has to obey the license. If all the foundation has is OSI approved licenses, like Apache, BSD, Mozilla, etc then it shouldn't matter to you, I, or anyone else except zealots who pays the bills, as they have to obey the license. Sure in the future they could decide to take any project they own and go closed source with it, but so can the writer/owner of ANY software, and they can't close the previous version, therefor you can always fork.
In the end these projects just show that like Apple MSFT is beginning to see how they can leverage FOSS in certain situations to help themselves as well as anyone else. Nobody expects Apple to give up their proprietary bits, why should MSFT? In the end they have to obey the license or risk being sued (and the resulting bad PR) no different than any other corp.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I have 5 mod points, but when I select a moderation, say, "Insightful", nothing happens. It just sits there.
This has been going on for a couple days, ever since I got this batch of mod points. Can someone explain?
My answer is (B) it forever doomed to be ignored by the open source world because of its origins. And that is my final answer.
If open source is to forest and trees
then MS is to the BP oil leak.
the only interest MS has in open source is to muddy the water.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Codeplex is utterly GPL unfriendly, i would say GPL hostile. Its also nothing more than a way to steer open source towards being something you build with Microsofts closed technologies. Its not even stealthy in that regard.
I say fuck Microsoft until they prove they can cooperate. Why give them free ammo for absolutely nothing?
HTTP/1.1 400
There is too much distrust on both sides. MS has screwed over and back stabbed so many "partners" and viciously attacked Open Source for years. The Open Source community hates them and they know it. There's too much animosity to be bridged by these vague attempts at reaching out to the OSS community. It would take a massive turn around in policy....something like porting Office and Exchange to linux to actually make any real impression.
Why I don't like MS Hosting FOSS Projects ... a few reasons.
1) Microsoft has always looked towards the bottom line first and community second.
2) Microsoft doesn't really want any competition in platforms, so anything written that runs on many different platforms will "never behave as well" (performance, threading, resources, etc) as a 100% native application.
3) When Microsoft does attempt to get onboard with a standard app/tool/protocol, they always extend it in a proprietary way. Sometimes they make it better than it was, but since nobody else is allowed to also get those extensions, it doesn't do any good for the original community. Just look at LDAP/Active Directory.
4) Microsoft has had 30+ years to select, port and deliver a good cross platform scripting language, but they have not done so. I would love to have a native-from-Microsoft pre-installed version of Perl on every MS-Windows platform. Still they release wsh, cmd, bat and other similar crap. Where's the MS-Python or MS-Perl or MS-Php? Oh, because those are true FOSS projects, MS can't bastardize them. It doesn't matter how much more productive scripting would be. We know other commercial vendors that include these tools with the OS. Why won't Microsoft?
If you want a new idea to flourish, you need these things:
- small group of _believers_ that work on it for passion, not money
- complete openness in the results - source code in this case
- competition - another real player to battle against who also has complete openness in their code. It is NOT cheating to look at the competition's work.
Examples include the robot soccer team competition where at the end of every competition, all software for every team is shared so the level of play the following year will be elevated for all teams. Basically, the best software for last year is the starting point for all teams in the next competition.
Just a few thoughts.
Still all is based on Microsoft Technologies. So if you design and "Open" killer application in VB dotNet it is not a threat. VB dotNet only runs on Windows. To properly implement it in Mono, you need the odd bits that Microsoft owns the patents on.
The idea is that you develop cool projects that the community can contribute to, but only the coolest of the cool and the best of the best will be able to run on Windows. That's what they call open source.
I would call it a failure. How long did it take source forge to be successful? 6 months? 12 months? Even after 48 months and Microsoft pouring money into it, it is still a failure.
But why should it not be. If I want to write real open source apps for linux or to be cross platform, I am going to use some "open" technology that makes sourceforge a better home than CodePlex. If I wanted to write something that was going to be Windows only, why not make it shareware, or a real paid for product? Which again would negate CodePlex.
vi +
Again, look at the history of MS's dealing with their partners with which they have had contracts with. How many times have they been in court and lost. Of course you need deep pockets to take MS to court even if you are right. MS is no friend to open-source and if they can screw a software developer they will, based on past history. They are not happy with a slice of the pie if they can take the whole pie. They still have not come close to changing their spots . . .
The point of codeflex is to get people to develop open source software that runs on Microsoft's Platforms - desktop applications using WPF.NET, web applications using ASP.NET, windows mobile 7 applications using Silverlight, rich web environments using Silverlight. For desktop/phone applications this make sense - free high-quality applications improve the appeal of the operating system. For web applications, the only reason they want this is to increase market share of their proprietary technology. In both cases they still control the platform.
Developers whose sole intention is to write for Microsoft's platforms alone, probably shouldn't have any problems, because MS would be shooting themselves by hindering them. However for developers that write applications in .NET/Silverlight thinking that the existence of Mono/Moonlight means that it is a great cross-platform tool, could easily be backstabbed by Microsoft if they ever change their stance on patents.
then it shouldn't matter to you, I, or anyone else except zealots who pays the bills
Based on MS's historical disdain for open source with the current CEO Steve Ballmer even going so far as to refer to Linux as a cancer, I think it extremely naive and presumptuous to refer to people suspicious of their motives as just zealots implying that their caution is without merit. Contrarily, I think anything other than an attitude of extreme skepticism is foolhardiness approaching absurdity.
Furthermore, any license which by its very nature being a legal document is open to ambiguity and interpretation by a court and can very well be used in unpredictable ways to damage open source and to completely downplay this possibility in general and in the case of MS in particular especially in light of their very direct statements against open source is extremely arrogant and misinformed on your part.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
I like how you specifically chose the CLR language that doesn't work on Mono, and then said implied it's part of Microsoft's grand plan.
Hint: The vast majority of code on Codeplex, the code sharing site, is in C#. And Codeplex Foundation is an open source outreach program that will do work behind the scenes like invest in projects, form partnerships, whatever, but not write code.
I remember back when the Shared Source Initiative was announced, I looked into in, and found that actually seeing any of the source code required signing an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). I closed those windows and forgot about it.
So are there NDAs required by any of the various CodePlex things? Or are there other equivalent "agreements" that have other euphemistic names? That would tell us a lot about their actual intentions.
I've written a lot of software that's secret, proprietary, whatever. The companies that hired me paid me pretty well for the software. But if I'm to get involved in something that I think is going to be shared publicly among a crowd of developers, and then discover that it's actually owned and controlled by the web site's owners, I'm going to feel rather double-crossed. I'd rather know beforehand, so I can avoid wasting my time just to donate code to such organizations.
Another variant of this problem existed on AT&T's Sys/V. I did some development in which some of the machines that I tested the code on ran Sys/V. I found that the binaries always contained an AT&T copyright notice. This was obviously because the binaries linked in the AT&T libc and other libraries. So I refused to distribute binaries for Sys/V, on the grounds that doing so might legally constitute signing my copyright to AT&T. I know of a number of companies that abandoned Sys/V after I pointed this out to them (and their lawyers agreed).
There a lot of tricky ways to lose control of your code to big corporations, and Microsoft has a bit of a rep for tricks like this. So it'd be nice to know up front whether a new repository holds such threats.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Ok, call me paranoid. I just picked one of the major languages on the CLR. The same holds true of the other. In real life VB and C# run on the CLR. And not every facet of C#, VB or the CLR is free enough that I can be sure anything I write in it to be cross platform today does not violate some MS patent which MS will at some point later choose to enforce.
It is there right to enforce those patents. It is my right to choose a language and platform that will not land me in patent enforcement hell someday.
It's all "open" at CodePlex, except for the patent issues, NDA's, ownership of the code, what I can do with code I find there, etc. Microsoft means something different than what I mean when I think "I want to contribute to an 'Open' source project"
Which is why CodePlex is spurned. After 4 years they have 16,000 projects listed, not all active. Just sourceforge alone has over 230,000 with at least 80,000 projects active, or with beta code you can look at and use.
Are there any real success stories at CodePlex? I have not heard of any. Maybe next time I need a program I will do a CodePlex search for something. Which should be interesting, 80% of what I need will have to run in a Linux Environment.
vi +
about open source? Really. Its the HIPPIE bullshit of software development and it smells like shit.
what MSFT has done in the past
So now breaking contracts as part of a business strategy is no predictor of how they'll behave?
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
There are a lot of great libraries at CodePlex, which of course you would be unlikely to hear about in "success stories". Of SourceForge projects, I can probably think of 10 off the top of my head, and maybe, with some serious thought, come up with a list of 25 SourceForge projects that I've had contact with and are still active.
I also think the SourceForge list of "active" projects is misleading and inflated.