• On ZDNet: Free Internet: Gone in 5 years
June 7, 2008 3:23 AM PDT

Microsoft dumps Sandcastle, does right by open source

by Matt Asay

When I texted Sam Ramji to let him know about Sandcastle, and he quickly texted back that he would look into it, I figured that a) it hadn't yet hit anyone's radar at Microsoft and b) that he'd fix it.

Fix it, he did. As Mary Jo Foley notes, it was "doubtful [that] Microsoft was willing to risk the wrath of the OSI over a documentation compiler." I'd go one step further. Once alerted to Sandcastle's violation and to the importance thereof, it was doubtful that Microsoft's Sam Ramji and Co. would be interested in the code, however important/non-important it might be.

Sam gets open source. He's not always supported in this understanding by the larger Microsoft entity, but Sam gets it. His apology to the OSI is direct, concise, and appropriate:

This is unacceptable and represents a violation of Microsoft's Open Source policy. I take it extremely seriously.

I have directed the project to be unpublished from Codeplex immediately, including removal of the project's use of the Ms-PL. If the team chooses to publish the source code and follow Microsoft policy, then the project may be re-published in the future. If not, we will remove all references to Sandcastle from Codeplex.

I apologize to the OSI on behalf of Microsoft for this mistake.

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 :-).

ExtJS is a recent example of a project that went through some gyrations on licensing, took some heat for it, and ultimately settled on a coherent, open-source friendly result. I doubt Jack Slocum, its founder, liked the process, but I think he managed it exceptionally well. ExtJS, like Microsoft and all of those (including myself) who have undergone processes like this will be the better for it.

So, well done to Sam and team. I appreciate your integrity and your respect for the OSI and open-source principles. Now please share that with the rest of your company. :-)

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Recent posts from The Open Road
What soccer team would your company be?
Open-source licensing: Your mileage may vary
Open source to shape cloud computing, but not dominate it
Off-topic: Why can't I have this job?
Legalized drugs, now open source. Those crazy Dutch!
Will 'good enough' virtualization topple VMware?
Linux community codes around Microsoft's FAT patents
As Mozilla 'upgrades the Web,' Microsoft must upgrade its pace
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (3 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by jimmyed2000 June 7, 2008 5:58 PM PDT
I am not familiar with the Sandcastle case so I'm not going to comment on it.


After reading the requirements for projects on CodePlex my opinion is that they are too vague and simplified.

For the licenses they should specifically list on the requirements page which licenses are ok. At the moment they point to a wikipedia page on open source license but don't allow GPL V3 (if my reading of the situation is correct).

They should explain what they mean by an 'ongoing' project their wording is very vague.


Their rule on source code needs to encompass projects that are in the design/specification phase.


My post on this: http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/microsofts-codeplex-requirements/

Reply to this comment
by JCPayne June 10, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
I wouldn't "Open Source" under Microsoft.... They act too unilaterally.

One day they could just up and tell you that firstly your code belongs to them and then that they are shutting down the "project" which you were working on- infavour of one that doesn't follow standards and then just import all of your code to their proprietary offerings... Meaning they benefit from the sweat off your back and make billions... No thanks. I'll still to the usual Open Source backers.
Reply to this comment
by JCPayne June 10, 2008 6:35 AM PDT
Better headline.... Big wave knocks down Microsoft's Sandcastle project.
Reply to this comment
(3 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Making sense of Windows 7 upgrades

faq The basics and the fine print on Microsoft's options for those eyeing the next operating system from Redmond.
• Full Windows 7 coverage

Road Trip 2009: Big Sky Country

CNET News reporter Daniel Terdiman takes his car full of gadgets to the Rockies and the Great Plains in search of tech, science, nature, and more.
• America's Fortress: Cheyenne Mountain

About The Open Road

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to the Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is general manager of the Americas division and vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Open Road topics

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right