Is the CodePlex Foundation Truly Independent Now? 123
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?"
No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, "in a string of attempts to play nicely with open source" sounds like "in a string of attempts to nicely play open source" but it's not really the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
what part of embrace extend extinguish does "attempts to play nicely with open source" fit in again?
oh yes, clearly, we must be ignorant and have forgotten? Surely the leopard has changed their spots, huh?
Has anyone seen MS ever do something pro open source/pro free software? The answer is no, and it never will happen either. All they do is try to cover their tail when they screw up, as is common.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone seen MS ever do something pro open source/pro free software?
Off the top of my head:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/06/10/jquery-globalization-plugin-from-microsoft.aspx [asp.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, isn't this to benefit .net, specifically ASP and involves creep via Mono?
how is that a gain for open source?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would this benefit .net? .net is (mostly) a serverside technology,and it already knows all about cultures.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro free tools:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/windows/ [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I had actually forgotten that codeplex even existed until seeing it mentioned here on Slashdot today. Basically, codeplex is a home for Windows zealots who kind of like the idea of open source and want to dabble in it but refuse to leave the comforting confines of their OS of choice. So now, they have somewhere to hang out. It serves MS's purposes as it gives them something to hopefully take a little of the wind out of the sails of cross-platform real open source development. Personally, I think it a bit
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of Microsoft's open source projects, including projects like MEF, build on Mono and were subtly patched but not announced to be fixed as such. So they aren't "announcing to the world" that it works on Mono, but their developers are making sure it's compatible.
Besides, what does it matter which platform your software layer resides on? If you think it's absurd to build OSS on proprietary software, then I suppose you only write software and packages for the most free distro, depending on your definition
Re: (Score:2)
Of which, your only valid example is VB6, which had a syntax that they broke to allow it to interface with .NET.
Did you ever write anything in Cobol? Any other "dead" language? That's natural. The problem companies have is that they think that once their software is written, their responsibility to do anything with it is over. But owning software is sort of like owning a car, eventually compared to all the other cars, it's going to look rusty and antiquated, eventually the shops will run out of parts for it
Re: (Score:1)
I had actually forgotten that SourceForge even existed until seeing it mentioned here on Slashdot today. Basically, SourceForge is a home for Open Source/*nix/FS zealots who kind of like the idea of open source and want to dabble in it but refuse to leave the comforting confines of their OS of choice. So now, they have somewhere to hang out. It serves the zealot's purposes as it gives them something to hopefully take a little of the wind out of the sails of the Windows stack of software. Personally, I think
Re: (Score:2)
Err? I didn't recall seeing anything even close to what you describe.
As far as I can tell, they're just trying to foster open source development on Windows because it's a developer issue. Some developers prefer and only engage in open source development, causing them to gravitate to Linux, BSD, etc. Microsoft hates losing developers, because users, slowly but surely, follow them and where the good applications are.
It's not a grand "Tet offensive". And it was anything but massively funded.
If MS was really serious... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why can there only be one open source code repository?
Further, ultimately, as a developer, do you even care what repository the code comes from? I just google what I need, and wherever I land, I land.
Re:If MS was really serious... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sourceforge's engine is closed source.
I asked.
You can't make "code submissions" to it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing with Microsoft is that nothing you create based on their 'technologies' can truly be open. The Shared Source license is likewise not a very 'open' or 'free' (both in speech and in beer) license. The problem with Microsoft is that they have used their financial and patent weight against open source in the past and will probably continue doing so. If Microsoft really want, they can revoke all their permissions and promises at any point in time and all projects based on the Shared Source License woul
Re: (Score:2)
The specs are published here:
SMB: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc246231(PROT.13).aspx [microsoft.com]
SMB2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc246482(PROT.13).aspx [microsoft.com]
You say "We have reverse engineered it for a while"... Who's "we"? Do you speak for the Samba team? The Samba team not only has access to the above specs, but t
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could simply forget SourceForge.net
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could simply forget SourceForge.net
Why would that be?
Re: (Score:2)
SourceForget.net
What a splendid idea. A source revision control system hooked up straight to /dev/null, with a webinterface. FUND IT!
Re: (Score:2)
They did this ~ 10 years ago. The result was windows ME.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So could Google - but no one seems to be bitching about Google Code.
Google [google.com] has been a [android.com] great [chromium.org] friend [google.com] of open source. They have earned and continue to earn a great deal of trust and respect from the open source and free software community.
Compare [theregister.co.uk] to the current CEO of Microsoft and I think it will be clearer why Microsoft needs to do more.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, just about every non-Google project I've seen initially on Google Code has moved off of it to GitHub or someplace else in a fairly short time, usually after some complaints about it.
Though the complaints have been about Google reinventing the wheel and not doing it particularly well from the perspective of the projects involved, rather than about any presumed nefarious motives, most likely because Google, unlike MS, doesn't have a
Re: (Score:2)
SourceForget?
Is that a typo or a commentary on the quality of SourceForge?
Re: (Score:2)
And if they had ideas for a better forge, they could make code submissions to SourceForge.net.
CodePlex uses TFS for source control. It makes sense for projects that are already centered around MS tech in other ways, and especially if developers use VS, but I somehow doubt that SourceForge would appreciate that.
By the way, it's interesting how the article is about CodePlex Foundation, while most comments are about CodePlex - which is a different thing (yeah, I know, the naming is confusing as hell).
Let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft eventually wants .NET to be competitive with the Java platform.
I'm curious by what standard you think it isn't. Certainly each has its advantages and disadvantages, and there's a lot of work for both out there.
But that being said, as someone who's spent years developing professionally with each, I'd say the list in your .sig is largely slanted/inaccurate/dubious, so, maybe you're just a guy who really likes Java.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I'm biased as fuck.
But I don't think that takes away from the fact that .NET adoption is 1/10 that of Java or less nor from the fact that .NET OSS adoption is probably less than 1/10th the size of Java's.
Nor the fact that it's in Microsoft's interest to do so, nor the fact that this is probably an attempt to change that.
Nors for everybody!
Re: (Score:2)
I have had good exposure to two fairly large UK web design/development and bespoke software markets in the UK (South West/West/Bristol and South East/East/London/Anglia) and I have to say its all either PHP, Python or Perl, or its
I think the statistics being used by people like yourselve
Re: (Score:2)
... you know that there's a lot more to .NET than web development, just as there's a lot more to Java than web development, right?
I only have my own anecdotal experience to go on, but damn near all of my profressional Java projects have involved web development, whereas less than half of my .NET projects have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm biased as fuck.
Fair enough. I respect you for not having any illusions about that.
I don't know that I'd say .NET adoption is 1/10 of Java's -- in some markets (e.g. phones), definitely, and in the open source world, probably, but in general that doesn't jive with what I've seen in the market. But then, the work I mostly do is of the "writing custom apps (sometimes web, sometimes console, sometimes services, etc.) for business" and I don't have great knowledge of adoption outside of that space.
If nothi
Re: (Score:1)
101 Reasons why Java is better than .NET - http://helpdesk-software.ws/it/29-04-2004.htm [helpdesk-software.ws]
This article is completely outdated. A signature like this makes it hard to take you seriously.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
It's still quite accurate.
Re: (Score:1)
More importantly, what do you have to say about this: http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/default.aspx?page=1&sortby=6&orderby=0&q=&id=900&lid=2618 [itjobswatch.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not. I've spotted at least 5 of those items that are outright wrong.
Java is generally better than c#, but you don't need to make shit up to show that.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job fuck mook, there are over a hundred total.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Show me the .Net for Solaris, Linux or Mac.
Re: (Score:1)
Not .NET, but close enough and open source for Solaris, Linux and Mac downloads is available here:
http://www.go-mono.com/mono-downloads/download.html [go-mono.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you must be one of the codeplex people.
Good luck and GG! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
More people code in .NET than even use Linux at all.
First and foremost, he never mentions Linux. He mentions Open Source, but surprisingly, open source is not limited to Linux. *GASP* I know.
And if you are going to compare, at least pick something comparable. Like .NET to Java like he does. I've met a lot more people who know Java than .NET - Though on top of that, I've seen even more C#. But that's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
I've met a lot more people who know Java than .NET - Though on top of that, I've seen even more C#.
I'm confused by this. You do know that C# is .NET, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. C# is a language like any other - it's just the best known implementation is for .NET. If you wanted to, you could write a C# compiler that uses precisely zero .NET, and it'd still be a compiler for C#.
Plus C# is used for Mono and GTK#, neither of which are .NET. Mono implements the same stuff true, but it's not .NET.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, at this point what you're saying is technically true but in any practical sense... not really.
Kind of like saying that people don't need to breathe to live -- technically, they could get their blood oxygenated any number of ways.
Probably, 99.9%+ of people writing C# code today are using .NET. For any practical purpose it's not unreasonable to assume that if someone knows more C# devs than Java devs, they also know more .NET devs than Java devs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and you could write an Erlang compiler for the JVM. But, in the real world today, usable C# compilers exist only for the .NET (and Mono, which is a .NET clone), and Erlang only for the the BEAM virtual machine (well, older versions exist for a previous, equally-specific, VM.)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP mentions "niche Microsoft operating systems", which places him/her firmly into the linux loony camp. There's nothing wrong with Linux, but believing that the company that still has 60% of the server market and has an even higher percentage of the desktop is "niche" either means the he/she has never left the server room of a bank, or is a loony.
I've coded in .NET and I've coded in JEE, there are pluses and minuses to both.
That said, the biggest benefit that Java has isn't so much the open source libra
Re: (Score:2)
60% of the server market, are you high or is this a study from ages ago?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Linux = Opensource, Opensource != Linux
Now that we got that out of the way... He means that .Net is just not very suitable for open source en cross platform development. In Java, I can use swing, hibernate and other stuff and just assume it will work on other platforms. Usually this doesn't cause any issues if your application is coded decently. However in C# en .NET a lot of useful and sometimes essential functionality is only available in Windows.* namespaces and libraries. These are not available in othe
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CodePlex may or may not be bad, but Microsoft's history of attacks on open source over the last fifteen years means I'd never use anything they offered. Sorry, maybe that's biased, but I tend to think of it as being cautious and rational.
Re: (Score:2)
Profile of a OSS Zealot:
Thinks M$ is bad because M$ is big huh company lots of money, eats little children;
Linux rocks, every OS steals code from linux, you to xBSD, that network stack is ours;
GPL is the one and only opensource license, everything else must be compatible;
Anything thats not copyleft is not free;
Freedom is a word created by the FSF, and no one has the right to redefine it;
Profile of an OSS Realist:
Think Microsoft has a track record of looking out for its stockholders and has done so by abusively using its position as a monopoly.
Linux is a good OS, which I actually prefer over Windows. Every OS wants to borrow code and concepts from others. You can "borrow" concepts from Linux and not be sued. The same does not hold true for MS or MacOS X.
GPL is a very useful open source license. If you want to come to the biggest open source party out there, you need to be able to dance with
It's A Trap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
wont float. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, apostraphes aren't just for quoting words for no apparent reason, they're also used in contractions.
Re: (Score:2)
*You* "can" 'emphasise' a $comment$ any ^way^ you like ......
But speaking in "airquotes" can be annoying ....
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know I will probably get flamed for this, but as someone who just developed some .NET projects (it was the right tool for the job), I did so using Firefox almost exclusively for testing. Note that every component used was a straight .NET component, no third party anything. One day I fired up IE 8 just to see what it looked like. There were things broke all over IE that "just worked" in Firefox (w/ the .net plugin).
On top of all the broken things in IE...the most annoying thing about IE is that links are t
Like github, but worse (Score:2, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no 16021 projects. And this was with one click from the homepage - "Project Directory" - funny about how obvious links make sense.
>more interested on marketing and policies than in code
Really? From your 1 second glance at the homepage? Unless you have 99% vision loss, you are a troll - or illiterate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
"... Not to be confused with Codeplex.com"
I think we both have been looking to different sites. Sure, codeplex.com has lots of projects. But this article is not about it.
Also, FYI: I happen to have suffered eye surgery. As a result, my vision is better than average.
OT: Why are my moderations not registering? (Score:1, Offtopic)
This has been going on for a couple days, ever since I got this batch of mod points. Can someone explain?
Re: (Score:1)
Javascript deactivated? Overzealous firewall?
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100402 Firefox/3.6.3
Re: (Score:2)
Good Question...here is my answer (Score:1)
Not exactly any license. (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From http://www.codeplex.org/About2/FAQ/Mission.aspx [codeplex.org] (emphasis mine):
The Foundation has no pre-suppositions about particular projects, platforms, or open source licenses.
Doesn't sound hostile to the GPL to me.
Re: (Score:2)
CodePlex (http://codeplex.com) hosts over 4500 projects [codeplex.com] licensed under GPLv2 or LGPL (the majority of which are under GPL). Ironically, one of those projects is a Linux distro [codeplex.com].
CodePlex Foundation - a different thing (http://codeplex.org) - doesn't mention GPL at all [google.com] on the website - which, admittedly, raises a brow for an OSS-centric organization - but I still don't see how it makes it "GPL hostile". It looks more like an awkward silence to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It does mention BSD several times in project listings (i.e. there are projects released under it there), but that's it.
By the way, since I posted the comment, the website does mention GPL now, in a new post to the CodePlex Foundation blog [codeplex.org]:
The CodePlex Foundation is completely free and open source software license agnostic. The Foundation is also technology agnostic. If you want to use AGPL or GPLv3 or BSD or EPL, the Foundation has no opinion and will happily support your project or gallery. If you want to
It can't work (Score:3, Interesting)
Why I don't like MS Hosting FOSS Projects (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
NDA? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 wouldn't be able to say anything about CodePlex Foundation, but then I don't know what you would do there in the first place.
As for CodePlex - no, you don't need any NDAs. It's really just your typical project hosting website, except that it's targeted at the audience that uses MS development technologies (though doesn't exclude other stuff [codeplex.com]).
Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 for
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 . . .
They still have leverage (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [theregister.co.uk], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
then MS is to the BP oil leak.
the only interest MS has in open source is to muddy the water.
Re: (Score:2)
Another fine example of Microsoft "Technology Evangelist" dollars at work.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Leading question, rhetorical question, whatever, the fact is that everyone knows what Codeplex really is, so at the end of the day, only Microsoft shills seem particularly interesting in pushing it, or using it. The open source community really has no need for yet another trojan horse from Redmond.