summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html192
1 files changed, 192 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..972f29d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html
@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Lest CodePlex perplex
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/microsoft-codeplex-foundation" />
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/lest-codeplex-perplex.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Lest CodePlex perplex</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+<p>Many in our community are suspicious of the CodePlex Foundation. With
+its board of directors dominated by Microsoft employees and
+ex-employees, plus apologist Miguel de Icaza, there is plenty of
+reason to be wary of the organization. But that doesn't prove its
+actions will be bad.</p>
+
+<p>Someday we will be able to judge the organization by its actions
+(including its public relations). Today we can only try to anticipate
+what it will do, based on its statements and Microsoft's statements.</p>
+
+<p>The first thing we see is that the organization ducks the issue of
+users' freedom; it uses the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; and does
+not speak of &ldquo;free software&rdquo;. These two terms stand for
+different philosophies which are based on different values: free
+software's values are freedom and social solidarity, whereas open
+source cites only practical convenience values such as powerful,
+reliable software.
+See <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a>
+for more explanation.</p>
+
+<p>Evidently Microsoft would rather confront the practical competition
+of open source than the free software movement's ethical criticism.
+Its long standing practice of criticizing only &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; does double duty: attacking one opponent while
+distracting attention from the other.</p>
+
+<p>CodePlex follows the same practice. Its stated goal is to convince
+&ldquo;commercial software companies&rdquo; to contribute more to
+&ldquo;open source&rdquo;. Since nearly all open source programs are
+also free software, these programs will probably be free, but the
+&ldquo;open source&rdquo; philosophy doesn't teach developers to
+defend their freedom. If they don't understand the importance of this
+freedom, developers may succumb to Microsoft's ploys encouraging them
+to use weaker licenses that are vulnerable to &ldquo;embrace and
+extend&rdquo; or patent co-optation, and to make free software
+dependent on proprietary platforms.</p>
+
+<p>This foundation is not the first Microsoft project to bear the name
+&ldquo;CodePlex&rdquo;. There is also codeplex.com, a project hosting
+site, whose list of allowed licenses excludes GNU GPL version 3.
+Perhaps this reflects the fact that GPL version 3 is designed to
+protect a program's free software status from being subverted by
+Microsoft's patents through deals like the Novell-Microsoft pact. We
+don't know that the CodePlex Foundation will try to discourage GPL
+version 3, but it would fit Microsoft's pattern.</p>
+
+<p>The term &ldquo;commercial software companies&rdquo; embodies a
+peculiar confusion. Every business is by definition commercial, so
+all software developed by a business&mdash;whether free or
+proprietary&mdash;is automatically commercial software. But there is
+a widespread public confusion between &ldquo;commercial
+software&rdquo; and &ldquo;proprietary software&rdquo;. (See
+<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html</a>.)</p>
+
+<p>This confusion is a serious problem because it falsely claims free
+software business to be impossible. Many software companies already
+contribute to free software, and these commercial contributions are
+quite useful. Perhaps Microsoft would like people to assume these
+facts are impossible.</p>
+
+<p>Based on these facts, we can see that CodePlex will encourage
+developers not to think about freedom. It will subtly spread the idea
+that free software business is impossible without the support of a
+proprietary software company like Microsoft. However, it may convince
+some proprietary software companies to release additional free
+software. Will that be a contribution to computer users' freedom?</p>
+
+<p>It will be, if the software thus contributed works well on free
+platforms, in free environments. But that is just the opposite of
+what Microsoft has said it seeks to achieve.</p>
+
+<p>Sam Ramji, now president of CodePlex, said a few months ago that
+Microsoft (then his employer) wanted to promote development of free
+applications that encourage use of Microsoft Windows
+(<a href="http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3811941">
+http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3811941</a>).
+Perhaps the aim of CodePlex is to suborn free software application
+developers into making Windows their main platform. Many of the
+projects hosted now on codeplex.com are add-ons for proprietary
+software. These programs are caught in a trap similar to the former
+Java Trap (see <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html</a>).</p>
+
+<p>That would be harmful if it succeeds, because a program that
+doesn't run (or doesn't run well) in the Free World does not
+contribute to our freedom. A nonfree program takes away its users'
+freedom. To avoid being harmed in that way, we need to reject
+proprietary system platforms as well as proprietary applications.
+CodePlex free add-ons to a proprietary base increase society's
+dependence on that base&mdash;the opposite of what we need.</p>
+
+<p>Will free software application developers resist this attempt to
+undermine our progress towards freedom? Here is where their values
+become crucial. Developers that adhere to the &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; philosophy, which does not value freedom, may not care
+whether their software's users run it on a free operating system or a
+proprietary one. But developers who demand freedom, for themselves
+and for others, can recognize the trap and keep out of it. To remain
+free, we must make freedom our goal.</p>
+
+<p>If the CodePlex Foundation wishes to be a real contributor to the
+free software community, it must not aim at free add-ons to nonfree
+packages. It needs to encourage development of portable software
+capable of running on free platforms based on GNU/Linux and other free
+operating systems. If it tries to seduce us into going in the
+opposite direction, we must make sure to refuse.</p>
+
+<p>However good or bad the CodePlex Foundation's actions, we must not
+accept them as an excuse for Microsoft's acts of aggression against
+our community. From its recent attempt to sell patents to proxy
+trolls who could then do dirty work against GNU/Linux to its
+longstanding promotion of Digital Restrictions Management, Microsoft
+continues to act to harm us. We would be fools indeed to let anything
+distract us from that.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2009 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:12 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>