Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Ywutaemn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:24:17 GMT

nice site,

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Bart — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:17:00 GMT

Don't you find this strange?

First they state that the software is "open source". Next you mention "If the team chooses to publish the source code and follow Microsoft policy, then the project may be re-published in the future.".

So, I really wonder why you would think about it to first publish the program and call it "open source", and next start to think about whether you would like to release the source code.

Personally I see this as Microsoft not enforcing that open source software creators should also publish source code. What MS should do is preventing a user from publishing software when he or she did not publish any source code where the program is based upon.

Seriously, this just is a wrong phylosophy.

Open Source en Microsoft, el tropiezo de SandCastle

La Naturaleza del Software — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:26:51 GMT

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

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

fluke — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:00:36 GMT

Mr. Sam Ramji, why is Microsoft making an example of one specific project? While method of providing Sandcastle may not be compliant with the OSI's Open Source Definition, it shares this status with such Codeplex projects as MSCompBio. In the case of Sandcastle it is removed in less than 24 hours. But in the case of MSCompBio, Microsoft has spent over 8-months claiming it to be part of an "Open Source case study." To publish such a claim makes it much less clear what Microsoft's policy regarding the use of the term Open Source. Instead of such a simplistic policy as the claim that "Open Source refers to project using OSI-approved licenses," only sometimes Microsoft references to Open Source actually honour the OSI and other times appear to be part of some new Microsoft "spin" to promote an alternative definition for FOSS. Instead of a site-wide enforcement of the stated policy, Microsoft is simply making a demonstration against one project. If the policy is clear and Codeplex projects that fail to be compliant with the OSI Open Source Definition can be addressed in 24 hours per project then Microsoft should be able to meet the following challage--I claim that Microsoft will NOT get the following 19 Codeplex non-OSI licensed project under an OSI approved license or removed by August 1st, 2008: Bocholt, CXPArchiveTranscoder, CXPWebViewer, ConferenceXP, FAZ, GoTraxx, KenthallCC, MSCompBio, Tarion, XgameInput, Xngine, cslainfra, csss, silverlight, singularity, spread, tanksgame, tesvn and xnammo.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Ruben Zevallos Jr. — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:46:17 GMT

Well... I think when you agree with somenthing, like the Codeplex police, you have to do as it said... so... if the Sandcastle did not... so... the Codeplex managers have the right to do what they did... I hope they manage to deploy the sources, so that it can be avaliable again.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Simon — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:05:34 GMT

I work with both proprietary and open-source code and the one big question that springs to mind is: What's the big deal? Either release the source code (it was on CodePlex...) OR change the license. Seems like a logical step to me... What am I missing?

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Gerrit — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:25:12 GMT

The only clause in the MS-PL license mentioning source code is 3D:

"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license ..."

I don't see where it says that using MS-PL requires you to release the source code. The copyright grant (2A) could be read as just giving you the right to modify and redistribute binaries. I know OSI accepted MS-PL as an open source license, but I don't see how it can be called open source if it doesn't explicitly grant people access to the source code.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Sam Ramji — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:48:42 GMT

We're sorry for the interruption for Sandcastle users. You're welcome to use versions of this stored on mirror sites or local hard drives. We are working on a plan to make Sandcastle available as soon as possible in a way that complies with Microsoft open source policy.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Robert — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:22:29 GMT

I don't understand why any is upset over the project being removed. It clearly broke the rules regarding being hosted at that place, therefore, as it didn't comply, it was removed.

Simple really, don't like the license/rules don't use it or host there.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Ronin8317 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:45:41 GMT

I don't think anyone who uses SandCastle cares whether it's open sourced or not. It is a good program which does the job. I don't understand why it's not included in Visual Studio as part of the package.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Sam Listopad — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:57:12 GMT

I don't think its about the fact that SandCastle is useful or not, but If they were touting to be MSPL and weren't that is fraud in a legal sense. I don't think MS wants to deal with that.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

rferj — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:56:35 GMT

I use Sandcastle and some other projects hosted on CodePlex and I really don't care if they have source included or not. CodePlex has a plethora of dead projects with no releases and no code. Why not to clean the site and leave the functional projects continue their tracks? I think an arbitrary action like that can influence negatively all the already problematic nature of open source projects.

Regards,

rferj

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Paul Selormey — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:29:47 GMT

@JohnC: This whole thing smacks of silly politics and some sort of internal dispute at the expense of the end users;...

Well said - thank you.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Jamal Mavadat — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:55:41 GMT

MS declares CodePlex as Microsoft's open-source project hosting, and adding projects to CodePlex implies they're "open-source" based on one of the designated licenses.

CodePlex shouldn't be used as a distributed development plaform and that's not a good excuse for hosting close source projects in open-source hosting sites.

re: Sandcastle Removed from Codeplex

Andre Uchoa — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:01:54 GMT

Talking about what is or not acceptable, is it acceptable that a company publishes a tool like Sandcastle, that somehow creates a big level of dependency on it, and the same company unpublishes it with no previous advice? Wasn't it the case of considering the users before deciding the actions to take? I'm with JohnC on this issue.