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?"
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!"
Maybe they should start with a proper website that works on non-MSIE browsers.
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.
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.
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.