diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html | 192 |
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 “open source” and does +not speak of “free software”. 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 “open +source” 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 +“commercial software companies” to contribute more to +“open source”. Since nearly all open source programs are +also free software, these programs will probably be free, but the +“open source” 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 “embrace and +extend” 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 +“CodePlex”. 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 “commercial software companies” embodies a +peculiar confusion. Every business is by definition commercial, so +all software developed by a business—whether free or +proprietary—is automatically commercial software. But there is +a widespread public confusion between “commercial +software” and “proprietary software”. (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—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 “open +source” 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 & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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"><webmasters@gnu.org></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"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></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 © 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> |