Sandcastle Redux - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
Sandcastle Redux by Sam Ramji on July 02, 2008 10:00AM

I am very pleased to announce that the Microsoft SandCastle project team has reconfirmed its strong support for the Ms-PL  and is preparing to release all source code for the Sandcastle project immediately.  This was a non-trivial effort and I applaud them for it.  I think these actions demonstrate Microsoft’s desire to abide by the OSI’s Open Source Definition with regard to source code when releasing open source projects on CodePlex.  The project itself is a valuable one, and I received many comments and emails about this. 

Some people felt it was draconian to pull the project from CodePlex, others thought that didn’t go far enough; some were upset because they loved the project and couldn’t find it; some thought we were holding ourselves to a higher standard than necessary.  I believe that as we continue to build our practices across the company to participate in open source development, we must strive to achieve the highest possible standards.

This has also called our attention to our governance and processes on Open Source.  Scott Stein (Director of Open Source Programs) led an exhaustive effort across our code hosting properties, with great support from Jim Newkirk, Jonathan Wanagel, and Sara Ford of the Codeplex team as well as Steven Wilssens of Code Gallery, and found other cases where Microsoft-led projects had been licensed under the Ms-PL but hadn’t shared the source.  These have also been unpublished and will go through the same review process.  What we’re finding is that the positive intent and excitement underneath sharing source code is something that exists in teams across Microsoft, and that we have a great opportunity to help more teams build their skills in following Open Source best practices.

So congratulations to Anand Raman and the SandCastle team for responding gracefully to the situation and coming through with flying colors!

Cheers,
Sam

Comments RSS
  1. jkew said:

    Matt's article from June 7th says it best:

    Matt Asay:

    "In Sam's defense, this sort of thing is not uncommon in open source, including on Sourceforge. Open source is a (mostly) self-policing community, and Microsoft, to the extent that it continues to participate, has become a member of that community, with all the benefits and bile that come with it (mostly benefits :-)."

    -- news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9962666-16.html

    In the same article Matt also defends the ExtJS decision to go from LGPL+weirdness to a dual license (Commercial + GPL) -- The ExtJS people burned bridges by clarifying out potential support customers who never considered client-side javascript "close-binding"; especially when mentioned in conjunction with the LGPL. They did this in a point release. Businesses were forced to shift quickly to another library or ponder a fork.

    It's nice to see that MS chose to go less-restrictive, than more restrictive in this Sandcastle issue, for those at least who were *planning* on making modifications.

    All of this stuff would be much better off if developers were more knowledgeable about these licenses in the first place. Sometimes that just doesn't happen.

    posted at 04:01PM 07/02/2008
  2. It's a TRAP !

    Those of us who understand how open source works know that the Ms-PL is a trojan horse full of lawyers and intended to pollute the GPL. The tiniest bit of Ms-PL code will render any project subject to future litigation and FUD. It is a transparent attempt to co-opt naive open source developers to destroy FOSS, and only a fool would consider using the Ms-PL in a serious attempt at interoperability.

    Kudos on delivering this load of poison with a straight face.

    posted at 07:50AM 07/03/2008
  3. Aunque ustedes no lo crean, Microsoft publica software OpenSource. De hecho hay 2 licencias de Microsoft aprobadas oficialmente por la OSI, la Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), y la Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). Pero les cuesta, y es claro que

    posted at 11:26PM 07/03/2008
  4. Kjartan Þór said:

    This is great news, I like that you hold Microsoft projects to such a high standard for being published on Codeplex, I recently found a project there I was going to check out if it worked for me but couldn't since the source did not include everything needed. The project in question is the EvNet community platform, and there are some binaries referenced there that are not provided along with the project, so as it stands its just a useless pile of bits :-(

    posted at 07:18PM 07/05/2008
  5. Sam Ramji said:

    @jkew - thanks for the support.  

    @David J Patrick - either you're joking or you have a specific set of issues to discuss (or else you are simply trolling).  Do you care to elaborate?

    posted at 11:11PM 07/06/2008
  6. Bill C said:

    Sam, David is serious. I don't know where you've been, but anyone who follows MS FUD and propoganda feels much the same way. MS does NOT have a good rep amongst the Open Source Community for many good reasons. When I removed my 'blinders' I left MSDN, and started dev on linux systems. That was over 5 years ago and I've not looked back. Good luck with your projects, but I can't say that I have any faith in MS Products.

    posted at 08:02PM 07/07/2008
  7. falde said:

    There is a lot of people that says stuff like David, but its mostly trolling. I suspect that this has to do with Microsoft behavior in the past rather then issues with the Ms-PL license. Or it is a sarcastic remark on Ms:s view on the GPL, where Ms uses the same arguments.

    I see the same arguments when it comes to C# in Linux. Some have a strong aversion against it and argue that Java is better because its "not microsoft", tottaly missing the fact that Mono is a novell project and has nothing to do with microsoft.

    Strangely this arguments are not raised against wine. If any project is a legal minefield it should be wine.

    Also the license SUN has on most of it projects seam to be far more restrictive then Ms-PL but i don't see much people *** about that. SUN may have been a lot smarter then MS about using the open source community to their own advantage, but i see no reason to trust them. For example, what stops sun from terminating OpenJava once its popular on the desktop and start charging for a closed source product? This is the problem i see with the GPL license. The code owner can do that, and the license allows them to terminate the open version and any fork of it. This was used by some GPL:ed projects to punish SCO.

    What happens if Novell does this to Mono? Yeah, DotGNU is what happens. Currently that project lives in the shadow of Mono but it provides us with a failsafe.

    Thats probably enough ranting for today. :)

    posted at 04:58PM 07/09/2008
  8. It's a Trap!

    LOL. Sorry, I couldn't resist starting my comment with that. :-)

    Yawn...there are plenty of non-OSI approved projects at SourceForge. MS policing this at Codeplex is more than SourceForge does. I know this from personal experience. I'm not criticizing SourceForge. They are a media company. They do, generally, represent open source quite well.

    posted at 07:55PM 07/16/2008
  9. On July 21 I will have the honor and pleasure of being the sponsor, host, and an active participant in

    posted at 10:13AM 07/18/2008
  10. AC said:

    Great now you've stopped publishing comments at all it seems. Great "conversation"!

    posted at 01:23AM 07/23/2008
Post a Comment
*
*