[Office-commits] r9982 - trunk/campaigns

[sysadmin]

Author: johns
Date: Mon Oct  5 14:32:42 2009
New Revision: 9982

Log:
CodePlex article from rms to be posted.

Added:
   trunk/campaigns/rms-codeplex.mdwn

Added: trunk/campaigns/rms-codeplex.mdwn
==============================================================================
--- /dev/null   00:00:00 1970   (empty, because file is newly added)
+++ trunk/campaigns/rms-codeplex.mdwn   Mon Oct  5 14:32:42 2009        (r9982)
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+## Lest CodePlex Perplex
+
+**by Richard M. Stallman  
+President**
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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
+<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html> for
+more explanation.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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
+<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html>.)
+
+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.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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
+(<http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3811941>). 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
+<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html>).
+
+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 non-free 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.
+
+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.
+
+If the CodePlex Foundation wishes to be a real contributor to the free
+software community, it must not aim at free add-ons to non-free
+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.
+
+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.
+
+
+Copyright 2009 Richard Stallman
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
+worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.