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 mono-nono.com
Recent Comments