All posts by Bradley M. Kuhn

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

Open Source as Last Resort

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/04/03/last-resort.html

“Open Source as Last Resort” appears to be popular this
week.
First, Canonical,
Ltd. will finally liberate UbuntuOne server-side code, but only after
abandoning it entirely.
Second, Microsoft
announced a plan to release its .NET compiler platform, Roslyn, under the
Apache License spinning it
into an (apparent, based on
description) 501(c)(6) organization called the Dot Net Foundation.

This strategy is pretty bad for software freedom. It gives fodder to the
idea that “open source doesn’t work”, because these projects
are likely to fail (or have already failed) when they’re released. (I
suspect, although I don’t know of any studies on this, that) most software
projects, like most start-up organizations, fail in the first five years.
That’s true if they’re proprietary software projects or not.

But, using code liberation as a last straw attempt to gain interest in a
failing codebase only gives a bad name to the licensing and
community-oriented governance that creates software freedom. I therefore
think we should not laud these sorts of releases, even though they liberate
more code. We should call them for what they are: too little, too late.
(I said
as much in
the five
year old bug ticket where community members have been complaining that
UbuntuOne server-side is proprietary.)

Finally, a note on using a foundation to attempt to bolster a project
community in these cases:

I must again point out that the type of organization matters greatly.
Those who are interested in the liberated .NET codebase should be
asking Microsoft if they’re going to form a 501(c)(6) or a 501(c)(3) (and I
suspect it’s the former, which bodes badly).

I know some in our
community glibly dismiss this distinction as some esoteric IRS issue,
but it really matters with regard to how the organization treats the
community. 501(c)(6) organizations are trade associations who serve
for-profit businesses. 501(c)(3)’s serve the public at large. There’s a
huge difference in their behavior and activities. While it’s possible for
a 501(c)(3) to fail to serve all the public’s interest, it’s corruption
when they so fail. When 501(c)(6)’s serve only their corporate members’
interest, possibly at the detriment to the public, those 501(c)(6)
organizations are just doing the job they are supposed to do —
however distasteful it is.

Note: I said “open source” on purpose in this post in various
places. I’m specifically saying that term because it’s clear these
companies actions are not in the spirit of software freedom, nor even
inspired therefrom, but are pure and simple strategy decisions.

The Change in My Role at Conservancy

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/03/31/karen-conservancy.html

Today, Conservancy
announced the addition of Karen Sandler to our management team. This
addition to Conservancy’s staff will greatly improve Conservancy’s
ability to help Conservancy’s many member projects.

This outcome is one I’ve been working towards for a long time. I’ve
focused for at least a year on
fundraising for
Conservancy in hopes that we could hire a third full-time staffer.
For the last few years, I’ve been doing basically two full-time jobs,
since I’ve needed to give my personal attention to virtually everything
Conservancy does. This obviously doesn’t scale, so my focus has been on
increasing capacity at Conservancy to serve more projects better.

I (and the entire Board of Directors of Conservancy) have often worried if
I were to disappear, leave Conservancy (or otherwise just drop dead),
Conservancy might not survive without me. Such heavy reliance on one
person is a bug, not a feature, in an organization. That’s why I worked so
hard to recruit Karen Sandler as Conservancy’s new Executive Director.
Admittedly, she helped create Conservancy and has been involved since its
inception. But, having her full-time on staff is a great step forward:
there’s no single point of failure anymore.

It’s somewhat difficult for me to relinquish some of my personal control
over Conservancy. I have been mostly responsible for building Conservancy
from a small unstaffed “thin” fiscal sponsor into a
“full-service” fiscal sponsor that provides virtually any work
that a Free Software project requests. Much of that has been thanks to my
work, and it’s tough to let someone else take that over.

However, handing off the Executive Director position to Karen specifically
made this transition easy. Put simply, I trust Karen, and I recruited her
personally to take over (one of) my job(s). She really believes in
software freedom in the way that I do, and she’s taught me at
least half the things I know about non-profit organizational management.
We’ve collaborated on so many projects and have been friends and colleagues
— through both rough and easy times — for nearly a decade.
While I think I’m justified in saying I did a pretty good job as
Conservancy’s Executive Director, Karen will do an even better job than I
did.

I’m not stepping aside completely from Conservancy management, though.
I’m continuing in the role of President and I remain on the Board of
Directors. I’ll be involved with all strategic decisions for the
organization, and I’ll be the primary manager for a few of Conservancy’s
program activities: including at least
the non-profit accounting
project
and Conservancy’s
license enforcement activities. My primary staff role, however, will
now be under the title “Distinguished Technologist” — a
title we borrowed from HP. The basic idea behind this job at
Conservancy is that my day-to-day work helps the organization understand
the technology of Free Software and how it relates to Conservancy’s work.
As an initial matter, I suspect that my focus for the next few years is
going to be the
non-profit accounting
project, since that’s the most urgent place where Free Software is
inadequately providing technological solutions for Conservancy’s work.
(Now, more than ever, I urge you
to donate to that
campaign, since it will become a major component of funding my
day-to-day work. 🙂

I’m somewhat surprised that, even in the six hours since this
announcement, I’ve already received emails from Conservancy member project
representatives worded as if they expect they won’t hear from me anymore.
While, indeed, I’ll cease to be the front-line contact person for issues
related to Conservancy’s work, Conservancy and its operations will remain
my focus. Karen and I plan a collaborative management style for the
organization, so I suspect for many things, Karen will brief me about
what’s going on and will seek my input. That said, I’m looking forward to
a time very soon when most Conservancy management decisions won’t primarily
be mine anymore. I’m grateful for Karen, as I know that the two of us
running Conservancy together will make a great working environment for both
of us, and I really believe that she and I as a management team are greater
than the sum of our parts.

Related Links

The Change in My Role at Conservancy

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/03/31/karen-conservancy.html

Today, Conservancy
announced the addition of Karen Sandler to our management team. This
addition to Conservancy’s staff will greatly improve Conservancy’s
ability to help Conservancy’s many member projects.

This outcome is one I’ve been working towards for a long time. I’ve
focused for at least a year on
fundraising for
Conservancy in hopes that we could hire a third full-time staffer.
For the last few years, I’ve been doing basically two full-time jobs,
since I’ve needed to give my personal attention to virtually everything
Conservancy does. This obviously doesn’t scale, so my focus has been on
increasing capacity at Conservancy to serve more projects better.

I (and the entire Board of Directors of Conservancy) have often worried if
I were to disappear, leave Conservancy (or otherwise just drop dead),
Conservancy might not survive without me. Such heavy reliance on one
person is a bug, not a feature, in an organization. That’s why I worked so
hard to recruit Karen Sandler as Conservancy’s new Executive Director.
Admittedly, she helped create Conservancy and has been involved since its
inception. But, having her full-time on staff is a great step forward:
there’s no single point of failure anymore.

It’s somewhat difficult for me to relinquish some of my personal control
over Conservancy. I have been mostly responsible for building Conservancy
from a small unstaffed “thin” fiscal sponsor into a
“full-service” fiscal sponsor that provides virtually any work
that a Free Software project requests. Much of that has been thanks to my
work, and it’s tough to let someone else take that over.

However, handing off the Executive Director position to Karen specifically
made this transition easy. Put simply, I trust Karen, and I recruited her
personally to take over (one of) my job(s). She really believes in
software freedom in the way that I do, and she’s taught me at
least half the things I know about non-profit organizational management.
We’ve collaborated on so many projects and have been friends and colleagues
— through both rough and easy times — for nearly a decade.
While I think I’m justified in saying I did a pretty good job as
Conservancy’s Executive Director, Karen will do an even better job than I
did.

I’m not stepping aside completely from Conservancy management, though.
I’m continuing in the role of President and I remain on the Board of
Directors. I’ll be involved with all strategic decisions for the
organization, and I’ll be the primary manager for a few of Conservancy’s
program activities: including at least
the non-profit accounting
project
and Conservancy’s
license enforcement activities. My primary staff role, however, will
now be under the title “Distinguished Technologist” — a
title we borrowed from HP. The basic idea behind this job at
Conservancy is that my day-to-day work helps the organization understand
the technology of Free Software and how it relates to Conservancy’s work.
As an initial matter, I suspect that my focus for the next few years is
going to be the
non-profit accounting
project, since that’s the most urgent place where Free Software is
inadequately providing technological solutions for Conservancy’s work.
(Now, more than ever, I urge you
to donate to that
campaign, since it will become a major component of funding my
day-to-day work. 🙂

I’m somewhat surprised that, even in the six hours since this
announcement, I’ve already received emails from Conservancy member project
representatives worded as if they expect they won’t hear from me anymore.
While, indeed, I’ll cease to be the front-line contact person for issues
related to Conservancy’s work, Conservancy and its operations will remain
my focus. Karen and I plan a collaborative management style for the
organization, so I suspect for many things, Karen will brief me about
what’s going on and will seek my input. That said, I’m looking forward to
a time very soon when most Conservancy management decisions won’t primarily
be mine anymore. I’m grateful for Karen, as I know that the two of us
running Conservancy together will make a great working environment for both
of us, and I really believe that she and I as a management team are greater
than the sum of our parts.

Related Links