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 it’s army of lawyers and billions of dollars just can’t quite get a handle on the process.
Whenever I write about Microsoft here I usually get a few comments asking me, with varying degrees of politeness, why I am wasting electrons on this subject on a site devoted to GNU/Linux. The reason I do this – and why I am about to do it again – is that whether we like it or not, Microsoft remains probably the single most important external factor in the free software world. It's useful, therefore, to try to understand what exactly the company's open source strategy is, in order to head off some of its worst aspects, and to build on any positive elements. The trouble is, I don't think Microsoft has an open source strategy any more.
[...]
Rather, it seems to me that the centrifugal forces within the company have finally overcome that lone centripetal force of Sam Ramji, with all those “engineering and business leaders across the company” adopting widely differing, and at times contradictory, attitudes and actions with regard to open source. Without Ramji, I think the situation is going to get even worse; what about you?
Andrew Updegrove, co-creator of the MIT licence and an expert in creating consortiums, has examined the founding documents of CodePlex Foundation and believes its creation is flawed. Updegrove, in an extensive article on Consortiuminfo.org, points to the lack of initial co-sponsors, the small size of the board, which in 100 days time is scheduled to shrink from 5 to only 6 members and to the fact that the majority of its members are Microsoft employed. He also notes that the foundation has not been set up as a membership organisation which he says is "very unusual for an organisation operating in an area that usually relies on consensus".
"It's time for Microsoft to stop secretly attacking Linux while publicly claiming to want interoperability," Zemlin wrote. "Let's hope that Microsoft decides going forward to actually try to win in the marketplace, rather than continuing to distract and annoy us with their tricky patent schemes."
Comments
Yuhong Bao
2009-09-15 02:03:05
David Gerard
2009-09-15 17:51:22
But Cutler's basic ideas behind NT are very good and interesting; It would be nice to see ReactOS implement them in a manner that isn't a security nightmare.
Yuhong Bao
2009-09-15 18:55:41
Roy Schestowitz
2009-09-15 06:21:18
No, I meant "C". It's sarcasm.