×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Credibility Issues of MS's CodePlex Foundation

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the it's-my-football dept.

GNU is Not Unix 137

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

137 comments

Isn't there enough OPEN SOURCE already? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29464805)

Do we NEED MS stuff at all? Are you fucking crazy?

Re:Isn't there enough OPEN SOURCE already? (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29464961)

This looks like a poor attempt at Google Code, but with a lot more politics, beaurocracy and legal problems involved.

Re:Isn't there enough OPEN SOURCE already? (2, Insightful)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465065)

Not only that, but why put what appears to be a boardroom discussion on your blog unless Microsoft's made it clear they won't play ball. Sounds like "It's a Trap!" which now has a big glowing neon sign over the top of it.

Re:Isn't there enough OPEN SOURCE already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465405)

Who needs MS when you have open office - it takes only 25 seconds to load on my ubuntu box. With exceptional flash support and no working sound drivers it shows that Linux has reached a point that nobody needs MS stuff at all!

Re:Isn't there enough OPEN SOURCE already? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465733)

"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.....

Hrmm (3, Funny)

acehole (174372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29464813)

Needs more lawyer.

Re:Hrmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29464845)

I prefer cowbell.

Re:Hrmm (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29464893)

... and more photo's of said lawyers smiling happily in meetings with their head photoshopped over.
It's all about PR.

Re:Hrmm (5, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465183)

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.

Re:Hrmm (0)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467423)

What's wrong with Mono? Microsoft racism aside, Mono seems to work very well to me. Deciding to include a package should be based on how useful and usable it is, not who wrote it.

Re:Hrmm (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467551)

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 (5, Insightful)

HitoGuy (1324613) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467679)

"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."

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 .NET through Mono would be to abolish the standard, something I imagine wouldn't even remotely bother Microsoft at that point.

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 .NET to Linux despite the fact that very few developers saw real value in it. Notice how few big projects outside of his umbrella actually use Mono or even want to use Mono. Note also that the only Mono-using apps I've seen on Linux are aimed directly at GNOME, de Icaza's little "love child."

- 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.

Re:Hrmm (1)

HitoGuy (1324613) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467567)

Yes, finally we get to see what a traitor de Icaza actually is. And I never trusted Mono from the start.

I don't see CodePlex getting much attention except from developers who happen to be Micropologists. That or incredibly gullible.

Re:Hrmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465519)

Needs less unfunny
Needs less seppos

Do we have any Texas Tech fans here? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29464883)

Just wanted you to know that Lubbock is a shithole, and a poor attempt at a city. It's laughable, really. To anyone with common sense, it's just a gas station and Subway sandwich shop layover on the way to Colorado. Lubbock is flat, dry, smelly, totally devoid of any living plant matter, and totally devoid of any native sentient beings. It has the cultural experiences and career opportunities of a 3rd-world country. The only joy in your pointless lives is to trample each other and visiting teams in a mad dash to destroy your own stadium when you win games that you shouldn't - which is most games. The fact that you dismantle your stadium several times a year is proof that you will always be small-time. Oh, and your football mascot looks like the Hamburglar. Please try not to rape Bevo during what is sure to be a humiliating trip to a real city for you this weekend. I know that there's not much to do in Lubbock besides rape cattle, but please consider visiting some of our fine museums and restaurants instead. And thanks for your money in advance, you toothless, bumpkin faggots!

Re:Do we have any Texas Tech fans here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465579)

Awwww, isn't that cute. Someone left the coasts and discovered what America really is.

Re:Do we have any Texas Tech fans here? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465857)

...or rather it sounds like someone has never stepped outside of NYC or LA.

Really Open Source? (1)

Wizard052 (1003511) | more than 4 years ago | (#29464901)

"...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...

Re:Really Open Source? (4, Insightful)

MathFox (686808) | more than 4 years ago | (#29464935)

Doesn't look like it captures the OSS development spirit, to me...

But it almost perfectly captures Microsoft's view on the software market.

Re:Really Open Source? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465095)

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? (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465057)

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.

Re:Really Open Source? (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465227)

For all its inherent Redmond-flavoured lameness, Codeplex is at least an open source site. From their FAQ [codeplex.com]:

What licenses does CodePlex support?

Project coordinators can select from a list of the following OSI licenses: Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License. If your project requires a license that is not on the list, you can request a custom license using the contact us form.

All of these are open source licences (the two Microsoft ones are approved by the OSI here [opensource.org] and here [opensource.org]; the FSF also acknowledges them here [gnu.org] as free licences, though not recommended).

A pity that GPLv3 isn't allowed, but maybe they'll add it if asked.

Re:Really Open Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465771)

No one has ever asked for GPL v3. It's FSF's vista. Well, that and hurd.

Re:Really Open Source? (0, Redundant)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466809)

No one has ever asked for GPL v3. It's FSF's vista. Well, that and hurd.

Yeah you seem to know a lot about GPL. How is that slashdot summary reading as your only source of information going for you? And in contrast to your shitty Vista example, GPLv2 code will never be forced to migrate to GPLv3. Different licenses for different purposes.

Re:Really Open Source? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29466155)

Codeplex is at least an open source site

That's _even more_ troubling. They're creating a software ecosystem that satisfies the definition of open source, but at same time is completely separate and incompatible with the existing open source ecosystem, because it's based on proprietary Microsoft technologies. Just check how many projects on Codeplex depend on WPF, MS Office, or other MS software.

Re:Really Open Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29467163)

So what? Maybe some people like WPF, Office, etc.

It's often obvious which commenters support open source for freedom and which want to be in a cool movement.

Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (3, Insightful)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465143)

"...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. Look at any of the required changes Andy mentions. This one in particular stands out:

"Provide that no company and its affiliates (including Microsoft) can have more than one representative on the Board of Directors or Board of Advisors."

No way that one can be overcome. M$ has long been using it's tactic of panel stacking to carry out its jihad [groklaw.net]. M$ representatives include those by proxy, such as those from sock-puppets and political action groups like Black Dork Software, Novell and others.

Then you have all the activists M$ has placed inside other companies. Juniper Networks [gawker.com], NComputing [reuters.com], Yahoo (especially via the board), Xensource [cnet.com] are now saddled with M$ moles. That is just a sample, and each of those companies turned and started to toe the M$ party line after taking on one or more moles.

Now, you may ask, how is all this getting financed and who is underwriting it? The answer: each and every bastard who in any way is helping build or maintain M$ marketshare, that's who.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465633)

"...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. Look at any of the required changes Andy mentions. This one in particular stands out:

"Provide that no company and its affiliates (including Microsoft) can have more than one representative on the Board of Directors or Board of Advisors."

No way that one can be overcome. M$ has long been using it's tactic of panel stacking to carry out its jihad [groklaw.net].

M$ representatives include those by proxy, such as those from sock-puppets and political action groups like Black Dork Software, Novell and others.

Then you have all the activists M$ has placed inside other companies. Juniper Networks [gawker.com], NComputing [reuters.com], Yahoo (especially via the board), Xensource [cnet.com] are now saddled with M$ moles.
That is just a sample, and each of those companies turned and started to toe the M$ party line after taking on one or more moles.

Now, you may ask, how is all this getting financed and who is underwriting it? The answer: each and every bastard who in any way is helping build or maintain M$ marketshare, that's who.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you or anything, but the sock-puppet argument could be easily made for Google and 'sort of' Apple.

"Then you have all the activists Open Source has placed inside other companies. Google, Apple, yadda yadda are now saddled with Open Source moles. That is just a sample, and each of the those companes turned and started to toe the Open Source party line after taking on one or more moles."

Your next argument could just has easily have been:
"Now, you may ask, how is all this getting finaced and who is underwriting it? The answer: each and every bastard who buys a Microsoft product, or a product that runs on a Microsoft platform, that's who."

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.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29466359)

The actual office file format though is horrible.

A real struggle for other office applications, making it harder for them to implement actual decent apps since they have to interoperate. And the XML format is a joke.

SharePoint. Meh. "Godsend" only 'cause they didn't bother looking for decent alternatives.
I know firsthand that SharePoint has been a fucking nightmare for us.

http://cmsmatrix.org

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466891)

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:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29467335)

I agree completely.

And as far as...

...and I know first hand that SharePoint has been a godsend to many organizations.

Apparently US Bank didn't feel that way [theregister.co.uk] because they just dumped SharePoint.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29467855)

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.

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?

SharePoint is seeing an annual growth rate of approximately 35% (with close to 150,000,000 users already)-- Gartner estimates an 80% adoption in the US by 2011. Both Novell and IBM have competing products but neither is enjoying the same level of success as MS.

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?

Start looking at plugins for these different platforms, respectively, and I suspect you will see a similar trend. There are more people writing more plugins / modifications to the MS products than for the others. The MS APIs are generally very good, and it's relatively inexpensive to build code targeting an MS backend.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468465)

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:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468895)

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 minds? Provide proof, this isn't the Church of Scientology.

You talk a lot of statistics but provide no data along with your claim. This feels like arguing with a teen and I really have no interest in it.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29467529)

Listen up, shill bastard. When Microsoft stacks a board it is for the singular purposes of further locking in customers, reducing choice and restricting interoperability (i.e. OOXML debacle) with the ultimate goal of destroying all competition. When boards are stacked with open source people, it is to further the goal of actually increasing competition and interoperability. I don't see any open source convicted monopolists. I don't see any open source companies with closed data formats so closed that only a laborious copy and paste will succeed in allowing you to move to another vendor.

I guess Windows users really are the Charlie Brown's of software. Hey, maybe Microsoft won't pull the football away this time. Ha ha.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465871)

What a fucking fag you are with the dollar sign in M$. Fucking faggoty eight year old shitbag.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0, Flamebait)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466013)

I have discovered a new law.

A persons mental age is equal to the average life expectancy multiplied by the reciprocal of the largest number of times they have used the 'M$' pejoratively in a slashdot post.

In this case, the posters mental age is 65 * (1 / 13) = 5

He thinks like a typical 5 year old.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29466567)

And from your eloquent choice of adjectives and admonishments I deduce you are obviously an exceptionally mature and educated adult.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29466817)

M$ Code Pox [...] M$ and its minions [...] M$, M$ products, M$ users and M$ boosters [...] carry out its jihad

Really? You're going to write like that? Do you really want to be that guy? Regardless of whether you make valid or thoughtful points in your writing, you give plenty of reasons for people not to take you seriously.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29467933)

Microsoft Code Pox [...] Microsoft and its minions [...] Microsoft, Microsoft products, Microsoft users and Microsoft boosters [...] carry out its jihad

Really? You're going to write like that? Do you really want to be that guy? Regardle$$ of whether you make valid or thoughtful point$ in your writing, you give plenty of rea$on$ for people not to take you $eriou$ly.

Fixed it for you.

Re:Stacked board, stacked panel -- same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29468069)

You gotta love Slashdot. A conspiracy theory post that consistently spells Microsoft with "$", and comes up with "Code Pox", is modded all the way up to +5, Interesting.

I can tell this article is technical... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29464909)

With phrases such as "rigid foundation that has almost no wiggle room"

Re:I can tell this article is technical... (-1, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465867)

That's taken out of context. As written:

Eric unzipped his pants to reveal his fully erect manhood. His 6 purple-headed warrior assaulted Richard's willing asshole. He was shocked (and pleased) to discover Richard's colon was virgin-tight, a rigid foundation that has almost no wiggle room. Within a matter of seconds, Eric shot his load deep into Richard's ass-pussy and was ready to swap positions.

and attract a diverse collection of developers (2, Funny)

miknix (1047580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29464929)

Because I'm sure my Linux on [insert device here] port will look just fine on CodePlex.

Re:and attract a diverse collection of developers (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466373)

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:and attract a diverse collection of developers (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468177)

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 from a list of the following OSI licenses: Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License."

So long as your project is under one of those, it doesn't matter what it does - you can host it.

Re:and attract a diverse collection of developers (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468395)

Actually, my project's under GPLv3 so they won't host it. I guess MS doesn't like the extra patent protections.

Re:and attract a diverse collection of developers (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468839)

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.

Re:and attract a diverse collection of developers (2, Interesting)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468499)

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! (4, Insightful)

SirLoadALot (991302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465083)

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 (5, Insightful)

rwv (1636355) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465097)

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.

But frankly, it does sound an AWFUL lot like Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465613)

Just think about it. The only difference is the MS klan get stickin' RICH and the Linux crowd (you know who they are) gets stinkin' FAT, and grow those grey-black beards, and long fingernails, and can't go out in sunlight. Yay!! Team Linux, go Go GO !!

If Microsoft wants to get more respect (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465159)

It should just give the Mono group carte blanche to reimplement all of their .NET APIs under any OSS license. A full, iron clad legal agreement with them would do more than enough.

Re:If Microsoft wants to get more respect (2, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465325)

People will look for loopholes and ways that Microsoft are trying to rip them off. Most will refuse to believe that Microsoft is doing *anything* to benefit the common good.

Wether these views are unfounded or not is a different matter ...

Re:If Microsoft wants to get more respect (0)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465601)

They are entirely founded. Microsoft is a public corporation which is required to make money for its shareholders. It doesn't say anything about doing anything to benefit the common good, though it is allowed if the shareholders also benefit financially.

Re:If Microsoft wants to get more respect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465693)

If they did that, then Mono on a different platform would be competitive. By not helping nor impeding the Mono project, those who advocate using Mono can spend all their time writing an application only to encounter a problem that can only be solved by moving to a Windows platform.

Incidentally, that's why MS doesn't stop Mono. An incompetent implementation on a non-MS platform will make the platform, aka. Linux, look bad to non-tech management types, not .NET (cause it runs okay on Windows). This only re-enforces their view that MS is the best platform upon which to run applications.

Mono is the death of Linux.

Re:If Microsoft wants to get more respect (1)

HitoGuy (1324613) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467847)

"Mono is the death of Linux."

Mono WOULD be the death of Linux if serious amounts of serious developers actually uses it. So far the biggest app I've seen Mono implemented on in Linux is Banshee. Hardly a boon to the intended purpose of Mono to kill Linux through wrecking its reputation or bring it down with patent traps.

I trust that, in general, the Linux development community isnt trusting Mono, or at least simply sees no point in using it.

I read a few years ago de Icaza tried and failed to convince the rest of the GNOME club to hook GNOME up to Mono.

so, there's actual management? (1)

Overunderrated (1518503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465163)

Sounds to me like they're fixing the number one problem in FOSS. Lack of direction and management is what leaves open source software so unpolished compared to it's corporate "competition". "governance structure that concentrates authority at the top"

Re:so, there's actual management? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465435)

actually the lack of polish has more to do with not having better graphic designers... all a governance structure does is spend hours meeting on whether a button would look better with a bold font or an italic font.

Re:so, there's actual management? (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465455)

There's a big difference between guidance/oversight/direction and domination. Freedom to innovate and design is part of the power and attraction of open source software. As far as polish is concerned, MS and other corporate software vendors have proved over and over that you can put a high polish on a turd (MS Bob, Clippy, Win ME, Vista, etc.) and at the end you still have nothing but a finely polished turd.

The software world, particularly MS customers, owes a debt of thanks to open source software for driving change that MS was reluctant or unwilling to do themselves. For instance, for years MS corporate governance paid nothing but lip service to ideas like security. Now they are finally starting to catch up to where open source "competition" (to use your sarcastic bendy-finger quotation marks) was years ago.

Great. Now let's compare this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465231)

vis-a-vis the Apple app store. Of course the apple fan bois won't see the hypocrisy of condemning MS of the same "crimes" that Apple commits.

Re:Great. Now let's compare this (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465993)

Since when is the Apple app store about open source? It's not, therefore it's irrelevant. The "crime" here isn't that authoritarian software vendors exist. Apple has zero to do with this, except your desire to bash people. Bash all you want, I really don't care, but at least try to have a logical basis for your attack, or else you look frikkin' stupid.

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.

Re:Great. Now let's compare this (2, Funny)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466735)

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:Great. Now let's compare this (1)

HitoGuy (1324613) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467991)

A little hint: Don't use M$ in our posts or no one will take you seriously, even if you make a good point.

Re:Great. Now let's compare this (2, Insightful)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468481)

A little hint: Don't complain about use M$ in our posts or no one will take you seriously, especially when you fail to make a good point.

Why bother? (3, Interesting)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465235)

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:Why bother? (2, Informative)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465463)

"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 representive excused himself for having the balls to show an own product with *gasp* Linux on it? The gall! And just recently when they tried to sell off OpenGL patents from SGI to patent trolls under the premise that they would be excellent for going after Linux companies (Hey Novell, looking at you and your patent indemnification, not that useful ey?).

"At least the M$ moniker would have meaning again."

When didnt it have a meaning? They are getting better att hiding their activities but they never stopped.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29466191)

But Bill was the head honcho of M$ during the 90's. He's the reason Microsoft is where it is today. All Steve does is go on stage and make an ass of himself. Hell, most of the good Windows versions came out when Bill was the head.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467985)

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.

Re:Why bother? (4, Insightful)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466405)

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.

Re:Why bother? (1)

AceJohnny (253840) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467621)

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 thousand-headed hydra. Some heads may still be stuck in the old ways, but things are slowly improving.

In the old days, C# would never have been standardized, it would've been bundled with all their applications, and dev kits would cost thousands. They would've counter-sued to oblivion anybody complaining about their linux drivers. Yeah, OOXML is one of their myriad fuckups, but please don't single out the driver issue or C#, which are actually signs that things are improving at Microsoft, even if they're not perfect yet.

Re:Why bother? (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468411)

When did an open-source Java become useable: before or after Microsoft came with open-source C#?

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:Why bother? (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468681)

Just like most other companies contributing drivers to the kernel through Greg K-H's Linux Driver Project, as Greg points out himself

Specifically, it says this:

Now, on one hand this is no different from any other company that I have worked with through the driver project. We are averaging about 2 new companies a month right now, working with them to get their code cleaned up and merged into the Linux kernel tree. Stuff like this happens all the time with new companies becoming part of the Linux kernel community every day.

This hardly seems like he's saying "most companies who contribute drivers only due it because they were infringing the GPL". But even ignoring that, that alone isn't the problem. The problem is them doing that and then trying to pass it off as an act of pure altruism, like they're some kind of code Santa here to bring love and joy to the open source community. It has a section on "What motivated Microsoft to do this?" but not only does it not mention the GPL violation, the whole thing is basically just a bunch of marketing speak that simply hurts to read. If they just came out up front and said "hey guys we were violating the GPL so we released this code", I'd have some respect for them, but instead they just gave a bunch of lies and half-truths to make themselves look better.

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?

C and C++ are rather low-level. Such things are largely beyond their scope, though we already have standards that include such things, such as POSIX. Nevertheless, C++0x is planning to include threading support. Also, the Boost C++ libraries, which are popular, work on many implementations of C++ as opposed to just one, and are under a permissive open source license, some of which are planned to be included in C++, have networking support among many other things. And lastly, the GUI library is one of the Windows-only Microsoft-only parts of C#.

When did an open-source Java become useable: before or after Microsoft came with open-source C#?

Microsoft never "came with open-source C#". They just standardized some of it. And their assistance for the Mono project has been lacking anyway, and as such it continues to lag behind Microsoft's own implementation. And even if they did, that sentence seems a bit of a non sequitur anyway.

In the old days, C# would never have been standardized,

I'll give you this, though again, only parts of it were standardized.

it would've been bundled with all their applications,

No it wouldn't, because there wouldn't be any point to adding a couple dozen MB to every single download. And I'm pretty sure all their programs that use .NET can download the runtime from the installer. And it's also included with Windows itself since Vista. And I don't really see why you're acting like this is a bad thing anyway.

and dev kits would cost thousands

Microsoft doesn't make just C# stuff, and the price of their non-C# stuff has dropped significantly too. Unless you're saying them dropping the price of their C++ compiler is them being nicer to open source, this isn't really related.

They would've counter-sued to oblivion anybody complaining about their linux drivers.

Yes, because in the old days the GPL didn't have multiple cases in both the US and other countries firmly establishing legal force behind it, and Linux didn't have large companies with deep pockets (and IBM even has deeper pockets than them) and a vested interest in defending it.

A lot has changed since the old days that's not the result of Microsoft being nicer to open source. While Microsoft has certainly improved on their relations with open source a bit, I don't think they've improved nearly enough to show a serious effort behind it, and not even as much as you make them out to have done. I'd certainly like if they'd stop constantly working to harm open source and open standards and openness in general, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29468307)

And you didn't even mention all the crap from last century!

Re:Why bother? (2, Informative)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466423)

I think a better question than 'Why bother' would be 'could they at least bother?' .Your theory that FOSS developers may not like MS trying to get more open source with confidence may be true or not, who knows? But we may never know... Since so far MS has not even tried to do so...

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.

More Than It Appears (3, Informative)

illuminus86 (1070462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465239)

First, keep in mind, the provisional board of the CodePlex Foundation is only half Microsoft, and they have a mandate to setup a new board within a certain time frame. Second, they've also said the default license will actually be the Modified BSD license, so none of that untrusted MS-PL stuff going on. 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, along with the ability to contribute to said projects under this CodePlex Foundation. With current issues like Microsoft programmers not being allowed to use superior open-source tools over inferior Microsoft ones (for example, Entity Framework versus NHibernate) - this will definitely result in Microsoft's own position changing for the better.

Re:More Than It Appears (1)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465971)

Sad that comments like these are modded down by the slashgoats, it contains more insightful information than all the MS IS EVIL comments I've read so far.

Re:More Than It Appears (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467577)

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.

Re:More Than It Appears (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29466113)

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, along with the ability to contribute to said projects under this CodePlex Foundation.

Sorry for being sceptical, but how does a new forge relate to MS employees being allowed to use and improve existing open source programs -- ones that have zero incentive to move to codeplex? And even if it did, why should that affect how the OS community looks at codeplex?

Re:More Than It Appears (1)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466197)

"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 ?

Kinda familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465279)

Embrace, extend and ...

Re:Kinda familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29466377)

... redefine open source as Windows applications with public source code.

Self serving (1)

uneek (107167) | more than 4 years ago | (#29465591)

The blog listing is really about "Dear Microsoft: Hire me to organize codeplex for you. Keep me on retainer forever to advise you on this"

Re:Self serving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29465879)

Possibly. That doesn't mean he isn't right, though.

the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundation (4, Insightful)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466151)

The whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundation is that it isn't the Free Software Foundation or the Open Inventions Network. Microsoft could have just have easily one of these or similar organizations. But then again they wouldn't be so easy to control - which is the whole point of the exercise. Pollute, extend and embrace Microsoft control of 'open source', and by extension Open Standards. And here's what one of the current members of the board of TCF has to say about his time at the FSF.

"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 .. "There's an old game in politics. If some group is giving you trouble, launch a competing group under your control [zdnet.com]"

So there you have it, what could be more 'open' than that ... :)

Re:the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundat (0)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466355)

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.

Re:the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundat (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467109)

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 pushes the machinery slightly to the other direction. But recognition has nothing to do with FOSS. I guess it's about pride. One of the worst reasons to do anything.

Re:the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundat (1, Flamebait)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467971)

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 direct attempt at further obtaining both of the above objectives, by ensuring that he gets mentioned wherever Linux does.

The man has become a source of nothing other than semantically driven conflict, distraction due to such, and pointless noise, and you don't do anyone any favours (including yourself) by validating his crap.

Stop doing it.

Re:the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundat (3, Insightful)

HitoGuy (1324613) | more than 4 years ago | (#29468153)

GNU is just a toolchain. An IMPORTANT toolchain, but a tollchain nonetheless. You don't name your OS or your system distribution after the toolchain, no matter how badly RMS tries to rationalize it.

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 assembling the parts themselves into a distribution.

Stallman wants us to think that by having the GNU toolchain the entire system magically becomes GNU.

It's Linux. It is not GNU/Linux.

Re:the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29468903)

GNU is not just a toolchain, it's a lot more than just gcc and binutils.
Glibc, bash, coreutils, GTK+ and GNOME are all part of GNU. You can build an operating system without those components, ie. a minimal busybox / dietlibc distribution. But Ubuntu is very much a GNU-derived operating system.

Re:the whole reason d'atre of The CodePlex Foundat (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29468451)

FYI, it's "raison d'être" and not "reason d'atre".

AC

Microsoft loves you and wants to be your friend (0)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29466285)

Microsoft has announced Microsoft CodePlex [today.com], its new Open Source foundation.

"We want to be more responsive to your needs," said Sam Ramji of Microsoft during a Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit panel this week as he wiped rotten tomatoes off his suit.

"We want all open source innovation to happen on Windows. In practice, Windows is too slow, and just putting Linux underneath the same software stack triples performance. So we're running the Windows versions of the software on Linux using Wine. We'll also be funding the Wine on Windows initiative."

The new Microsoft Amazingly Open And Genuine Public License allows you complete freedom to use, modify and redistribute the software provided that every copy comes with a DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate, you acknowledge that Microsoft's FAT patent protects a remarkable and valuable innovation in computer science and all accompanying documentation is in OOXML. Also, all your data belongs to Microsoft.

The overwhelming dominance of Microsoft was assured, he said, pointing to their success in paying netbook manufacturers to use Windows XP and paying US retailers not to stock the Linux versions of the computers. "We're also enforcing our patent on right-clicking. And on the number seven." Ramji reassured journalists of his absolute faith in the power of Microsoft's vision, just before quitting to work somewhere -- anywhere -- else.

Self Interest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29467309)

Corporations exist for a sole purpose: To make a profit for their shareholders.
Microsoft is a corporation.

Microsoft created CodePlex to further its mission of making a profit for its shareholders.

Are you paying money into CodePlex?
Is anybody paying money into CodePlex?

If nobody is paying money into CodePlex, then it exists to help Microsoft in an intangible ("good will of software developers") way.
Microsoft has calculated that the value of this intangible is more than the cost of supporting it.

I don't usually advocate MS paranoia, but... (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467827)

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 would work with the Foundation meme itself, however, or what MS' point really is in attacking it. They'd probably have better real luck with continuing their patent trolling efforts, if they want something that is likely to actually work.

If they're trying to create a scenario where the law no longer allows people to make non-profits, I'm not sure how they're likely to succeed.

They're up to something, but exactly what it is, is anyone's guess at this point.

Re:I don't usually advocate MS paranoia, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29467895)

Codeplex already generates lock-in. Most of the stuff there are not portable apps, but software built upon Microsoft's proprietary technologies.

It's not poorly crafted... (2, Insightful)

jfb3 (25523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29467859)

It's crafted exactly like Microsoft wants it to look and behave.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...