5949671
story
Comments: 137 +- News: The Credibility Issues of MS's CodePlex Foundation on Friday September 18, @07:10AM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday September 18, @07:10AM
from the it's-my-football dept.
from the it's-my-football dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgnu.gif); width:50px; height:76px;
gnu
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
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."
Related Stories
De Icaza Responds To Stallman 747 comments
Codeplex 100 Day Deadline Passes Unremarked 106 comments
Because I don't need to worry about finances I can ignore Microsoft
and take over the (computing) world from the grassroots.
-- Linus Torvalds
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Hrmm (Score:4, Funny)
Needs more lawyer.
Re:Hrmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it needs less Microsoft or better, none at all. It blatantly obvious this is a mere publicity stunt. The bylaws arent accidentally about giving all control to Microsoft.
The only good thing at all is that it puts Miguel de Icaza on Microsofts side so that people easier understand where his loyalty really lies. The discussions about Mono and abolishing it from distributions should get easier now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is the little matter of potential patent time bombs. I won't use Mono for that reason alone. I have absolutely no faith in Microsoft's largesse, or in the moles like Icaza who seem hell bent on selling everyone up the river.
Re:Hrmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen. I always like to say when someone defends Mono for being an ECMA standard: "Standardization does not mean indemnification." The worst a standards organization could do to Microsoft for patent trolling
As for de Icaza, it should have been blatantly obvious that he was a traitor when he:
- Applied for a job at Microsoft. I don't know how he responded to being rejected, assuming he actually was rejected.
- Actually wanted to bring
- I think a real red flag should have been raised when he started calling OOXML "superb" and blindly thinking it was being "FUD'd." I doubt he ever actually read the standard.
To me, CodePlex is just abother ploy on MS's part to try to control code. That's also why I think they were so unusually interested in proliferating Mono with de Icaza.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft's promise not to sue: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
The promise covers several specifications, most importantly this:
C# Language Specification - Ecma-334, 4th Edition and ISO/IEC 23270:2006
Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) - Ecma-335, 4th Edition and ISO/IEC 23271:2006
I won't use Mono for that reason alone.
Guess what? You can use Mono now. yay!
I personally, don't care who wrote what and why. It works and it's available for use. To not use code because you think the programm
Re:Hrmm (Score:4, Insightful)
It's nothing to do with moral or immoral, but with not trusting Microsoft (and is there any reason to trust Microsoft) and not wanting to become beholden anywhere along the development to them directly or indirectly. There are enough other ways to achieve platform independence that Mono does not need to enter the equation.
If you have faith in Microsoft's promises, then go to it. But until Microsoft releases the .Net technologies fully through legitimate open source licenses so that there is neither potential encumbrance and the technology truly becomes platform-independent, count me out. Microsoft has enough leverage in the development business without my silly little projects adding to it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a good attitude though. MS isn't known for telling the whole truth. ECMA has a code of conduct for Standards they approve. It mostly covers Patents. Bottom line is a standard with patents cannot be approved if it can't be licensed on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis.
I don't think MS should have to release any of their .Net stuff with an open source license. Not yet anyways. Remember how it happened with Java [wikipedia.org]? What started as closed ended up open.
and attract a diverse collection of developers (Score:3, Funny)
Because I'm sure my Linux on [insert device here] port will look just fine on CodePlex.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because I'm sure my Linux on [insert device here] port will look just fine on CodePlex.
Hmm. MS's recommended migration path from Visual FoxPro is to .NET and SQL Server. I wrote a tool [sourceforge.net] to simplify migration of VFP databases to PostgreSQL instead. Wonder if they'd like to host it for me?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm. MS's recommended migration path from Visual FoxPro is to .NET and SQL Server. I wrote a tool to simplify migration of VFP databases to PostgreSQL instead. Wonder if they'd like to host it for me?
Sure, why not? They host a RedHat-based Linux distro [codeplex.com] on CodePlex, I don't know how you could possibly go beyond that.
In general, all you need to know is written in EULA (and this specific sentence is also quoted on CodePlex front page):
"Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute third-party Submissions. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community."
And regarding the licenses, from the FAQ:
"Project coordinators can select f
Re: (Score:2)
Re:and attract a diverse collection of developers (Score:4, Informative)
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 [opensource.org] 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but look at the term "Microsoft Reciprocal License" and think:
Under the MSRL, Microsoft screws you, and you, in turn, are screwed by Microsoft.
What a shock! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?!
Control, Control, Control, and Chairs (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
If Microsoft wants to get more respect (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wether these views are unfounded or not is a different matter
Why bother? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Ballmer should say screw it and just go back to the 90's and steamroll all over the competition."
Hi there, where have you been since the 90's ? Rest assured you have missed much much steamrolling while you were gone. The whole OOXML debacle is something you really should catch up on, with all the bribes, stacking of panels and other fun stuff. Also take a look at how Microsofts totally dumped the price on Windows for netbooks to kill off any continued linux adoption. Why not look into how an ASUS represent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shockingly, if you time and time again fuck people over, they stop putting so much trust in you.
Microsoft releases a driver for Linux under the GPL and spins it as them working towards accepting open source more. Except it doesn't really help anyone but them. And later it turns out that they were only doing so because they were breaking the GPL. And then later that the code was shit and has taken a bunch of effort to get into decent shape and they've been completely ignoring emails on the subject.
Microsoft puts C# and the CLI under the "Microsoft Community Promise" and trumpets as it being a win for interoperability and open source. Except it only covers the core standardized parts. All the libraries specific to Microsoft's implementation that are widely used aren't included. As a result it basically only makes it easier to move from other implementations to theirs, and not the other way around, and the only one who wins is Microsoft.
Microsoft works towards standardizing the new format for the new version of Office, and yet again plays up the interoperability aspects. Except the standard is a bloated mess, poorly defines things, in many cases says "just do it like that other program did" and doesn't specify what that means, and is in general just shit. It's nigh-impossible for anyone but them to properly implement. It replicates an existing standard, a better one, for no purpose beyond continued lock-in. Even Office doesn't properly support it and won't until the next version. It has myriad serious problems [wikipedia.org] with its standardization process.
Is it really a surprise that people don't trust them when they're constantly doing things like that? If they made a serious effort, they could win most people over, but they so far haven't. And even if they do eventually do so, it'll be entirely reasonable for people to be cautious at first, because they have an extensive and still growing history of being deceptive with this sort of thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Except it doesn't really help anyone but them. And later it turns out that they were only doing so because they were breaking the GPL. And then later that the code was shit and has taken a bunch of effort to get into decent shape and they've been completely ignoring emails on the subject.
Just like most other companies contributing drivers to the kernel through Greg K-H's Linux Driver Project [linuxdriverproject.org], as Greg points out himself [kroah.com]
Microsoft puts C# and the CLI under the "Microsoft Community Promise" and trumpets as it being a win for interoperability and open source. Except it only covers the core standardized parts. All the libraries specific to Microsoft's implementation that are widely used aren't included. As a result it basically only makes it easier to move from other implementations to theirs, and not the other way around, and the only one who wins is Microsoft.
It's still better than some other industry-standard languages such as, I dunno, C and C++. Show me their standardized network, threading, GUI libraries please? When did an open-source Java become useable: before or after Microsoft came with open-source C#?
Now I hate Microsoft as much as the next slashdotter, but let's be pragmatic please. Microsoft isn't Bill Gates, it's a th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a published standard and a half-hearted covenant not to sue isn't really equivalent in my book to releasing the source code under an OSI approved licence, which I don't believe they've done as yet. And Mono doesn't really count, not being Microsoft's code to release. Unless you know something about Miguel that the rest of us don't.
So, I guess that would make it "after". If at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, it says this:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean seriously, what the hell is this? It looks like some attempt to make OS more patent friendly. Honestly, patents and open source mix just as well as a clown and the pope.
Re: (Score:2)
most of the good Windows versions came out when Bill was the head.
That's because Bill was in charge of the company longer and presided over most of its history and that of Windows. While Ballmer has been CEO, all MS have released OS wise is XP, the various Windows Server OSes and Vista.
More Than It Appears (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Thirdly, I've caught word from the inside that one of the effects this could have will be Microsoft employees being allowed to use open-source software internally"
What rule is that ?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps when Microsoft publicly apologizes for the OOXML affair, fires the staff and partners involved in it, then I'll believe anything Redmond or its shills have to say.
Until then, fuck Microsoft.
the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundation (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Meh , you would wonder if Icaza is intentionally misleading or just clueless. He is a capable developer so I'll pick the former. There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
It is fair to argue that "Linux" is the defacto name of the whole OS, but Icaza shouldn't be claiming that GNU/Linux is an attempt to rename Linux... It is just an attempt to give credit to GNU for the tools that make the kernel actually usable. People calling the OS GNU/Linux, have not changed the kernel's name. I would have no qualms if Icaza simply said that it was an attempt to give GNU more credit than it deserved, I guess it is arguable. But to call it an attempt to rename Linux is simply misleading, and that's the problem . Icaza lately has been playing too much for the other side, so I am not even sure anymore if he is being intentionally misleading or if it was just a honest mistake from his part.
You know the biggest problem RMS has is either his ego or his faith in humanity. Anybody who gives a shit already knows that Linux is accompanied generally by a GNU environment. Why complicate things even more for the dimwhits? It wouldn't make a difference other than cause confusion for that majority of people who wouldn't care in the end, just to gain recognition or for the sole principle of it. RMS does a lot of good for the FOSS community, no doubt, and his function remains to be the extremist whom push
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
Please stop representing Stallmanite mind control as logic.
Just because you believe whatever divisive, deliberately attention-seeking and controversial canard your Leader has generated this month, that doesn't mean that the rest of us consider it sane.
Stallman wants two things.
a) Narcissistic supply, to be worshipped as God, and to be the centre of attention on a continual basis.
b) Control of as many other people as humanly possible, which basically follows on from a).
The entire "GNU/Linux," flap is a dir
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 asse
I don't usually advocate MS paranoia, but... (Score:2)
The CodePlex Foundation = Phase One Embrace and Extend Attempt, in terms of the whole FOSS foundation model.
With this, I suspect Microsoft are making one final, last ditch effort to kill FOSS. I'm not sure how exactly, yet; but past experience says they first try and exactly mimic whatever they want to destroy, then get everyone addicted to their mimicry, then "extend" said mimicry to generate lock-in, and then finally destroy said mimicry after the original is also dead.
I'm not entirely sure how that woul
It's not poorly crafted... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's crafted exactly like Microsoft wants it to look and behave.
Re:Really Open Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it almost perfectly captures Microsoft's view on the software market.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It reads more as a consortium of Software companies.... .except software companies do not give each other their source code, so the only contributor will only ever be Microsoft ...
It's entire system appears to be that it is OpenSource for people who do not want, like, or understand OpenSource .... and it appears they want to achieve this by not being OpenSource.... however this already exists and does not need a foundation ....
Re:Really Open Source? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [catb.org]? I don't think we have any reason to think that Microsoft has suddenly decided that they should become the next Red Hat.
Parent
Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
"...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.
Re: (Score:2)
I christen it "Rockoon's Law".
Re: (Score:2)
The reason people buy MS products has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. MS makes good products. You have to admit that Office is a pretty amazing application, and I know first hand that SharePoint has been a godsend to many organizations.
No I would never admit to such nonsense. You can't just throw it out there as if it was some sort of de facto. Some people buy MS products because they consider it good, but most people buy it because they don't have (or know that they have) a choice (except joining the third reich of Apple) which tend to cost much more than PCs with Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
You're aboslutely right-- I shouldn't just throw it out as if it's de facto. Let me back it up with some fancy numbers.
All the rest of your post was wasted. You were wrong as soon as you implied that quality is proportional to popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I looked, there were something like 230 million paid users of MS Office, and another 200 million illegal copies of MS Office floating around peoples desktops. Globally there have been (approximately) 135 million downloads of OpenOffice. You can't say that OO is totally unknown if it's got a fanbase exceed the 100M mark. Still that's just HALF of the number of pirated copies of MS Office. If MS Office was garbage then why would so many people be going out of their way to steal it when free or other alternatives exist?
You're completely ignoring that Office is an industry standard with proprietary formats leaving any company wanting to migrate in some form of trouble when exchanging documents with others. I happen to work within such a company (20k employees worldwide) and we use OOo as much as possible, and by as much as possible I mean for users that exchange documents internally only.
Now some anecdotale stuff, which you'll just have to take my word for. I've personally seen businesses running Novell and Domino (not at the same time, obviously) backends AND MS SharePoint. Novell makes a SharePoint connector for petes sake! So, if it's all about borging the masses, why has SharePoint become the most popular document management system on the planet? Are we all borged, or is there something that the market likes about SharePoint?
Look, I don't intend to flamebait here, but your word, not to mention as an AC, is worth as much as molded horse shit. You want to change
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This looks like a poor attempt at Google Code, but with a lot more politics, beaurocracy and legal problems involved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"concentrates authority at the top and leaves little power to others "
It's microsoft. Is there any need to read any further? After all, open source is a cancer.....
Re: (Score:2)
The software world, particularly MS customers, owes a debt of thanks to open source software for
Re: (Score:2)
...or rather it sounds like someone has never stepped outside of NYC or LA.
Re: (Score:2)
The "crime", if you want to call it that, is that after years of scuzzball tactics, FUD, lawsuits, smears, and namecalling ("linux is a cancer"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The "crime", if you want to call it that, is that after years of scuzzball tactics, FUD, lawsuits, smears, and namecalling ("linux is a cancer" ... remember that?), a true blue, died-in-the-wool authoritarian software vendor is posing as a "look-at-me-I'm-hip-now" open source software vendor, likely while trying to find yet another way to screw the real open source community. Judging by the way they structured their "open source" (to use the term veeeerrryy loosely) initiative, they seem to think that open source means "will do what we tell them for free", proving that they still don't get it.
RICO [usdoj.gov] should cover most of M$ business models, past and present.
While you're at it, add up the total damage from the Windows malware per quarter. It's got the late Osama Bin Laden beat, hands down. There may well be a business case for air strikes against Redmond. Obviously that would be preceded by naval bombardment and followed by after-action mop up by ground units.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)