lest-codeplex-perplex.html (9848B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays upholding action" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>Lest CodePlex perplex 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/microsoft-codeplex-foundation" /> 9 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/lest-codeplex-perplex.translist" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 11 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 12 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 13 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 14 <div class="article reduced-width"> 15 <h2>Lest CodePlex perplex</h2> 16 17 <address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address> 18 19 <p>Many in our community are suspicious of the CodePlex Foundation. With 20 its board of directors dominated by Microsoft employees and 21 ex-employees, plus apologist Miguel de Icaza, there is plenty of 22 reason to be wary of the organization. But that doesn't prove its 23 actions will be bad.</p> 24 25 <p>Someday we will be able to judge the organization by its actions 26 (including its public relations). Today we can only try to anticipate 27 what it will do, based on its statements and Microsoft's statements.</p> 28 29 <p>The first thing we see is that the organization ducks the issue of 30 users' freedom; it uses the term “open source” and does 31 not speak of “free software.” These two terms stand for 32 different philosophies which are based on different values: free 33 software's values are freedom and social solidarity, whereas open 34 source cites only practical convenience values such as powerful, 35 reliable software. 36 See <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> 37 Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</a> 38 for more explanation.</p> 39 40 <p>Evidently Microsoft would rather confront the practical competition 41 of open source than the free software movement's ethical criticism. 42 Its long standing practice of criticizing only “open 43 source” does double duty: attacking one opponent while 44 distracting attention from the other.</p> 45 46 <p>CodePlex follows the same practice. Its stated goal is to convince 47 “commercial software companies” to contribute more to 48 “open source.” Since nearly all open source programs are 49 also free software, these programs will probably be free, but the 50 “open source” philosophy doesn't teach developers to 51 defend their freedom. If they don't understand the importance of this 52 freedom, developers may succumb to Microsoft's ploys encouraging them 53 to use weaker licenses that are vulnerable to “embrace and 54 extend” or patent co-optation, and to make free software 55 dependent on proprietary platforms.</p> 56 57 <p>This foundation is not the first Microsoft project to bear the name 58 “CodePlex.” There is also codeplex.com, a project hosting 59 site, whose list of allowed licenses excludes GNU GPL version 3. 60 Perhaps this reflects the fact that GPL version 3 is designed to 61 protect a program's free software status from being subverted by 62 Microsoft's patents through deals like the Novell-Microsoft pact. We 63 don't know that the CodePlex Foundation will try to discourage GPL 64 version 3, but it would fit Microsoft's pattern.</p> 65 66 <p>The term “commercial software companies” embodies a 67 peculiar confusion. Every business is by definition commercial, so 68 all software developed by a business—whether free or 69 proprietary—is automatically commercial software. But there is 70 a widespread public confusion between “commercial 71 software” and “proprietary software.” (See 72 <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html"> 73 Words to Avoid or Use with Care</a>.)</p> 74 75 <p>This confusion is a serious problem because it falsely claims free 76 software business to be impossible. Many software companies already 77 contribute to free software, and these commercial contributions are 78 quite useful. Perhaps Microsoft would like people to assume these 79 facts are impossible.</p> 80 81 <p>Based on these facts, we can see that CodePlex will encourage 82 developers not to think about freedom. It will subtly spread the idea 83 that free software business is impossible without the support of a 84 proprietary software company like Microsoft. However, it may convince 85 some proprietary software companies to release additional free 86 software. Will that be a contribution to computer users' freedom?</p> 87 88 <p>It will be, if the software thus contributed works well on free 89 platforms, in free environments. But that is just the opposite of 90 what Microsoft has said it seeks to achieve.</p> 91 92 <p>Sam Ramji, now president of CodePlex, said a few months ago that 93 Microsoft (then his employer) wanted to promote development of <a 94 href="https://www.internetnews.com/developer/microsoft-wooing-open-source-on-windows/"> 95 free applications that encourage use of Microsoft Windows</a>. 96 Perhaps the aim of CodePlex is to suborn free software application 97 developers into making Windows their main platform. Many of the 98 projects hosted now on codeplex.com are add-ons for proprietary 99 software. These programs are caught in a trap similar to <a 100 href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">the former Java Trap</a>.</p> 101 102 <p>That would be harmful if it succeeds, because a program that 103 doesn't run (or doesn't run well) in the Free World does not 104 contribute to our freedom. A nonfree program takes away its users' 105 freedom. To avoid being harmed in that way, we need to reject 106 proprietary system platforms as well as proprietary applications. 107 CodePlex free add-ons to a proprietary base increase society's 108 dependence on that base—the opposite of what we need.</p> 109 110 <p>Will free software application developers resist this attempt to 111 undermine our progress towards freedom? Here is where their values 112 become crucial. Developers that adhere to the “open 113 source” philosophy, which does not value freedom, may not care 114 whether their software's users run it on a free operating system or a 115 proprietary one. But developers who demand freedom, for themselves 116 and for others, can recognize the trap and keep out of it. To remain 117 free, we must make freedom our goal.</p> 118 119 <p>If the CodePlex Foundation wishes to be a real contributor to the 120 free software community, it must not aim at free add-ons to nonfree 121 packages. It needs to encourage development of portable software 122 capable of running on free platforms based on GNU/Linux and other free 123 operating systems. If it tries to seduce us into going in the 124 opposite direction, we must make sure to refuse.</p> 125 126 <p>However good or bad the CodePlex Foundation's actions, we must not 127 accept them as an excuse for Microsoft's acts of aggression against 128 our community. From its recent attempt to sell patents to proxy 129 trolls who could then do dirty work against GNU/Linux to its 130 longstanding promotion of Digital Restrictions Management, Microsoft 131 continues to act to harm us. We would be fools indeed to let anything 132 distract us from that.</p> 133 </div> 134 135 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 136 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 137 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 138 <div class="unprintable"> 139 140 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 141 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 142 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 143 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 144 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 145 146 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 147 replace it with the translation of these two: 148 149 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 150 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 151 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 152 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 153 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 154 155 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 156 our web pages, see <a 157 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 158 README</a>. --> 159 Please see the <a 160 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 161 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 162 of this article.</p> 163 </div> 164 165 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 166 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 167 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 168 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 169 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 170 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 171 document was modified, or published. 172 173 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 174 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 175 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 176 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 177 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 178 179 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 180 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 181 182 <p>Copyright © 2009, 2021 Richard Stallman</p> 183 184 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 185 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 186 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 187 188 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 189 190 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 191 <!-- timestamp start --> 192 $Date: 2021/09/12 08:14:17 $ 193 <!-- timestamp end --> 194 </p> 195 </div> 196 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 197 </body> 198 </html>