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?"
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.
Microsoft eventually wants .NET to be competitive with the Java platform.
They know that Java has a massive, massive advantage in terms of OSS 3rd party library availability. As mentioned in the article, this comes from high profile Java OSS projects like Apache's Jakarta, Eclipse and others.
So Codeplex is their attempt at getting a similar ball rolling for .NET. We'll see if it succeeds, I doubt it will catch on in a similar fashion though, .NET is doomed to niche Microsoft operating systems.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
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!"
I'm not saying there should only be one public forge. I'm just saying that would be one way for MS to get away from people's distrust in anything they back. Because I think most people would trust SF.net to not be corrupted the kind of thing I proposed.
No. But as a project contributor, maybe. If this was the MS of the 1990's, I wouldn't trust a forge they owned one tiny bit - there would almost certainly be a trap hidden in the legalese. Nowadays, I'm not sure.
But here's another way to look at it: aside from branding, what might MS's motives be for setting this thing up? Based on their past actions, it's pretty clear that they're not angels.
Maybe they should start with a proper website that works on non-MSIE browsers.
Microsoft's unfriendliness to Open Source has very little to do with them releasing any, or hosting code repositories.
The unfriendliness is expressed in terms of vague threats using software patents, attempts to derail implementation in various places, suspicious licensing deals like with Novell and so on.
All that has to go for me to start changing my mind. Until that happens, I'm not touching CodePlex with a 10 foot pole, and consider it completely irrelevant at best, and some sort of trap at worst.
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.