A few further thoughts on Microsoft’s <cough>Open Source foundation</cough>.
Naturally, I’ve been thinking about this CodePlex Foundation a bit since it was announced and I finally hit upon one of the things that was really nagging me.
Microsoft having an Open Source Foundation is like me having a NFL Training Camp. Sure, I could open one if I wanted, but who the hell would want me training them for the NFL?
That’s why this thing reeks of fraud: Microsoft is not in the Open Source business, so why would they sponsor an Open Source Foundation?
Shaping the discussion
It is very important to shape the discussion, to determine what words people use to discuss things. This is one reason why the FSF is keen to raise the issue of vocabulary.
You can be sure this concept is not lost on Microsoft, who desperately want to shape the discussion around Open Source. Take for example this bit from the CodePlex Foundation FAQ:
Specifically we aim to work with particular projects that can serve as best practice exemplars of how commercial software companies and open source communities can effectively collaborate.
So, right off the bat, we can see that only Microsoft-approved projects that fit into the mindset that collaboration with Microsoft is an important end goal.
The problem with this is that Microsoft has contributed and collaborated very little with the Open Source community. In fact, having spent the last couple of decades trying to kill it they now find themselves in the awkward position of being told by their customer base to stop being jerks about things.
The Ebenezer Scrooge Charitable Foundation
Where was Microsoft 15 years ago on Open Source? Trying to kill it. 10 years ago? Trying to kill it. 5 years ago? Trying to kill it.
In the most naive and accepting terms, Microsoft is a johnny-come-lately to the Open Source community. In the most generous light, Microsoft is a reformed felon.
Those aren’t the people that start foundations and take on leading roles in a community, yet that is what some people think Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is welcome to participate in the FLOSS community – on the community’s terms. If they can’t do that – 100% and without one inch of accommodation or compromise from the community – they can go back to the dead end of proprietary software. Free and Open Source software has done nothing but evolve without Microsoft – despite Microsoft – and it will continue to do so whether Microsoft sits at the table or not.
True Motives Revealed
Again, we turn to the FAQ:
We saw a great opportunity to drive change, and Microsoft was willing to fund a nonprofit foundation to make the change happen.
Microsoft doesn’t need to be “driving” anything. They need to be getting their own house in order.
Even if you assume Microsoft has good intentions – one heck of an assumption – it is inarguable that Microsoft lacks the credibility, expertise, integrity and experience to “drive change” in a direction that is positive for Free and Open Source Software.
From “Relationships”
We wanted a foundation that addresses a full spectrum of software projects, and does so with the licensing and intellectual property needs of commercial software companies in mind.
You can see here where Microsoft’s priorities lie: good old “intellectual property”. As if they haven’t been convicted in court after court of violating their very own partner’s “intellectual property”. They are in a court battle at this very moment over violating a former close partner’s patents.
We’ve sought a Board of Directors and Advisory Board that includes people known and respected in the open source community.
I’ve already addressed this. Without making personal attacks on the Boards, the bald fact that it is 72% current or former Microsoft employees makes this assertion absolutely laughable.
While the Codeplex Foundation is not currently structured as a membership organization, there are a number of ways for individuals, companies and projects to participate in the Foundation. One way is to sponsor, and another way is to become a member of the board, or board of advisors.
So basically, you must be Microsoft-approved to participate. Which is fine, but I already see people pretending like this is some independent entity from Microsoft. It is not.
This is a business organization, not a non-profit organization
Just in case you might have thought otherwise. I’m sure there is absolutely no intent to decieve by calling it a “Foundation” and having “.org” in the domain name.
Here is the explanation on the website:
While the Codeplex Foundation may eventually evolve into a charitable non-profit, the requirements for a charitable non-profit are more stringent. The set-up time for such an organization would have been longer, and the planning process considerably more complex.
I bet the requirements are “more stringent”. That’s exactly what we need, and Microsoft doesn’t want. Stringent requirements.
And I love how “set-up time” is an excuse, like non-profits aren’t started everyday by two dudes trying to help the world, and Microsoft with its army of lawyers and billions of dollars just can’t quite get a handle on the process.
This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.
#1 by Lex on September 14th, 2009
I was recently shown the error of my ways. I was reformed. And so, I am going ahead with embracing all that which is good and true. For this reason I should no longer listen to your lies. I shall expose your deceptions instead.
And I the first thing I am going to ask you is: Stop vilifying Microsoft!
It’s like a disease: people keep calling Microsoft evil when it does bad things, but when Microsoft does good things, people still call it evil.
Microsoft has been trying very hard to be open, but it’s a big company you know. Some people at Microsoft are evil, and some are not.
Take a look at these recent examples:
- Microsoft trying to sell anti-linux patents to trolls, that’s the evil part of the company.
- Microsoft spreading lies using BestBuy sales staff, that’s the evil part
- Microsoft stealing stealing i4i customers, also evil part
- Microsoft suing TomTom, evil..
- Microsoft pushing off the market the super mobile laptops… i mean netbooks… evil.
On the other had:
- Microsoft donating code to Linux kernel under GPL, these are good guys.
- Microsoft not bothering to maintain the code donated to Linux kernel, that’s good guys dominated by evil guys (that’s why the good guys at Microsoft need your support).
- Microsoft founding CodePlex so that commercial software companies have acceptable licensing and their intellectual property needs are addressed… clearly, good guys.
Of course Microsoft is a commercial company and they will make sure that they look after their needs first (Can you blame them?). That is why they need a better, cleaner licensing for the CodePlex projects.
You may say that there are other companies, like Google, and Sun to name a few who have supported the free and open source community and were not shy of GPL. But hey! This is Microsoft we are talking about. They have been evil for so long, it’s difficult for them to make the first step.
You cannot use stereotyping and call the whole company evil. That’s just wrong! I does not matter that the Microsoft founder repeatedly stated that Free and Open Source is their number one enemy. It does not matter that the higher ups at Microsoft have publicly and repeatedly stated that they will kill Linux and FOSS with it. What matters is that there are some good people at the company. You should focus on that fact instead. You know, keep a positive mindset. And if you really have a problem with the evil part of the Microsoft, trying doing something useful, like lobbying or starting a facebook group.
All you are doing is creating more anti-Microsoft sentiments when they are doing something truly good and beneficial to the community. Maybe one day you will understand what you are talking about. Today is not that day.
You should give them a break and give them a chance. Clearly Microsoft deserves an acceptance in Free Software Community.
#2 by Richard on September 14th, 2009
Hello,
Not quite. For their most popular projects, I can see … the Apache license, the MS-PL, the GPLv2, MIT, MS-RL, LGPL, and Custom licensing. And there’s no cost, and no pro-Microsoft agreement you need to make to register your project there. I think the facts are against you.
15 years ago, they were ignoring it (Netscape and antitrust were their concerns). 10 years ago, they were trying to kill it. 5 years ago, they were getting a fair bit of clue.
The open-source “community” that you describe sounds like a bunch of jerks. All of the people that I respect in it aren’t such no-compromise punks. If they were, we’d never have something as cool as KDE, because “QT is evil! License properly or bugger off! No compromise!”. Aren’t you glad that the KDE folks politely shut the door on such bigots?
I wouldn’t call it “inarguable”. After all, they’ve been very free with their .Net platform, which has been used to build some nice Free software. Of course, people do say that their intention behind this is evil, and other people don’t say that. I understand there is something of a debate around the matter.
As for the rest: come on, Jason, read things charitably. Assume good faith. You have absolutely no evidence that CodePlex has done anything wrong — none whatsoever –, and your argument can be summed up as follows:
Premise: Microsoft has evil intentions.
Premise: Microsoft does X, which is apparently good.
Conclusion: X must, in reality, be evil.
If you start with those premises, you can happily prove that Microsoft giving away 80% of its capital to feed underprivileged kids in sub-Saharan Africa is an Evil Plot.
#3 by Jason on September 15th, 2009
Richard,
I’m not sure that the current composition of CodePlex-the-site is a reliable indicator of anything about the CodePlex Foundation.
I think language on the CodePlex Foundation site hints that they intend on seeking out projects that are favorable in some sense to Microsoft, and perhaps shape the discussion on such projects as being a “preferred” or “acceptable” flavor of Open Source.
15 years is pretty close (if you’ll allow me some rhetorical license) – we have Bill Gates’ emails discussing attacking UNIX at least as early as 1997, and Linux specifically in 1999. Suffice it to say that the day Open Source came on their radar, they started plans to kill it.
“No compromise” means not allowing Microsoft to shape discussion, define terms, or play cute games. It means that Free and Open Source already has a working set of mores and standards which Microsoft needs to meet. We do not change to accommodate them: they change, or they stay outside.
I’ve said before that I do not “read things charitably” when they come from Microsoft. This is because Microsoft long ago lost that benefit of the doubt. It’s not that I think they can not do anything “good”, it’s just that they have to prove it first. Because they have so very many actions over many years doing “bad”.
So, it’s more like this:
Premise: Odds are Microsoft’s actions are bad, rather than good. Upheld by even the most casual examination of Microsoft’s history.
Conclusion: Until proven otherwise, treat with extreme skepticism.
Microsoft has only themselves to blame for this. The stigma is directly and justifiably the result of their own actions.
#4 by Richard on September 15th, 2009
Hello,
Well, I think we’ve arrived at an impasse.
To put it bluntly, you have no evidence for this, yet you’ve written an entire post about the alleged badness of it all. Furthermore, you refuse to read the language used by the Foundation in anything but the most negative and offensive light, creating mountains where not even molehills exist. The site has been around since 2006 — that’s 3 years — without any untoward action, but you nevertheless feel that there’s a dastardly Plot behind it all. This verges on paranoia, not reasonable skepticism.
Let me simply ask: after how many years of totally innocuous operation do you think you’ll change your mind? If the answer is “Never!” or “No, they’ve got to fill these n more requirements first…”, you should understand that the problem lies with yourself. If the answer is some reasonable span of years, then get a calendar and mark the date on it — and on that date, change your opinion.
Let’s casually examine that recent history, then. Microsoft has released IE8, which is the most standards-compliant browser we’ve had from them as yet. They’re officially supporting jQuery, an open-source JS framework, in VS2010. They’ve been running a site that hosts open-source code for the past 3 years. They’ve standardised the core of their .Net technology, and actively helped developers to ensure cross-platform compatibility. Some of their language implementations (IronPython and F# come to mind) have open-source licensing attached. I could go on, but should I even bother?
For all of these, I’m sure that there’s some rebuttal:
- They saw the way the wind was going and they did it as a PR stunt
- They were legally forced into it
- They did it to deceive the world into thinking they’d changed
- They did it to be parasitic users of open-source
- They did it as part of a long-term evil plan
- They did it to destroy something from within
- They did it to make more money
- They did it to get free work done on their systems
- They did it to steal OSS ideas / subvert the OSS community
- They did it to benefit themselves
… and none of these reasons change the simple fact that all of these actions have been beneficial to open-source. (If I save a kid from drowning because I want to be a hero, rather than wanting to save the kid’s life, is the action still good? Utilitarianism and consequentialism would say “yes”.) Pick an action from 10 years ago that was good for open-source; you probably won’t find many. Pick some actions from 5 years ago, and you can find some. Pick some actions from the past year, and you’ll find plenty. That’s change (or maybe it’s a Dastardly Plan! A
Frankly, no. The stigma is directly and justifiably the result of your own ability to attribute evil intentions where there is no evidence of any, your inability to give credit where it’s due, and your conflation of actions (“They sponsor Best Buy FUD, so CodePlex must be evil!”) that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
In summary
I don’t really expect this to change your mind, I think. I’m mostly writing it to get it off my chest, and to get you to see that the rest of the world isn’t “naive” and blind — we’ve just moved on. Now, I don’t particularly mind or care if you continue on for now with your rather radical distrust of anything from Microsoft, but you should understand that in time, you’ll need to move on too — or you’re going to be seen more and more as the war vet with the 6 shotguns in a trailer, waiting for the day that the world finally realises that Russia is still the Red Menace.
#5 by Jason on September 15th, 2009
Richard,
Actually I do have evidence for the language on the CodePlex Foundation website. I’m was posting about it as you commented – it should be up now. I am not the only person that thinks there are “gotchas” in the language used on the CodePlex site.
Well to be fair it’s not really evidence per se, more like perfectly rational reasons to think the language and structure of the CodePlex Foundation is troubling.
You continue to conflate CodePlex-the-site with the CodePlex Foundation. CodePlex-the-site I am not critiquing here; I don’t think I have ever critiqued it?
I have already addressed several things that would change my mind about Microsoft in a blog post entitled just so. In fact I specifically open that post by saying in a discussion if someone will not at least acknowledge the possibilty of changing their mind to walk away!
I agree that Microsoft has done some things that have benefited Open Source – although I ascribe the motives mainly to things in your “rebuttals” listing. One of my key points is that Open Source benefits despite Microsoft’s motives, because of the mores and standards that the larger community subscribes to. If we compromise those – then Microsoft’s motives become very important indeed. If we do not compromise, then their motives matter little, because we do not allow them to become important.
Perhaps I have not explained that bit as clearly as possible, so I hope you will give it a favorable interpretation.
#6 by Richard on September 15th, 2009
Jason,
Ah, you’re correct! The one is independent of the other (I stopped reading before I got to the FAQ, which is why I made silly assumptions). Sorry about that!
I’ve read the Standards Blog’s take on the issue, and I agree with them on many things. Still, there’s no canonical way to set up such an organization, and the CodePlex Foundation wants to appeal to a very distinct market segment, so perhaps there’s a method to their madness; let’s give them 6 months, or a year, and see what happens.
(Perhaps you could write a post about your second-last paragraph? I’m not sure that I see how one statement leads on to the next, or how the importance of motive affects actual software development. And would the same logic be applicable if one replaced “Microsoft” with “Google” or “IBM” or “Internet Widgets Pty Ltd”? Just idly curious…)
#7 by Goblin on September 15th, 2009
Ok…now those two have got that piece off their chests, I’ll make mine shorter than normal since I’ve already typed my opinion in far more detail more times than I care to remember over many different blogs/ng’s.
Microsoft survives by profit. There is no profit in FOSS for Microsoft. Unless the posters above are trying to suggest that Microsoft would want to contribute to an ethos that is effectively drying up revenue streams of theirs, then there is something else at play here.
Codeplex: Look at the staff members and where they work. With the exception of the interim pres I think its not unfair to raise a few eyebrows.
Want to know where mistrust of Microsoft is from?
Comes V Microsoft or the recent issue of Linux bashing training slides to name but two…there are many more.
The “bigot” comment is absolute rubbish and to me its more a case of “once bitten twice shy”
Just because Microsoft thinks FOSS needs it’s contribution doesn’t mean it really does….and Ive yet to see any independent positive praise from anyone in FOSS community about Microsoft’s “contribution”
Microsoft is NOT evil. If anything’s “evil” (and thats such a silly word when talking about IT) then I’d say its the proprietary model itself. Times up. Microsoft are trying to rake in something..anything from it…(IMO)
To end, please someone, anyone tell me how Microsoft encouraging/contributing to FOSS and in turn loosing more of its revenue to FOSS can in anyway be good for Microsoft…are Microsoft now going to encourage the use of Openoffice over their own offering? (I jest, but the point remains)
#8 by souskel on September 15th, 2009
“This is a business organization, not a non-profit organization”
You might want to investigate this further and reevaluate your opinion of non-profit corporations.
Establishing a non-profit organization has a lot of serious accounting challenges. The Mozilla Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, and the Apache Software Foundation are all registered as non-profit corporations just like the CodePlex Foundation. This is extremely common.