It was brought to my attention that the FSF has re-posted its CodePlex Foundation commentary from last Fall on the day it was announced that I took the position as technical director at the Foundation. I'm not sure that anything has been added to the new commentary. Re-reading the FSF re-post, I can't but point back to my original response. I will add a couple of clarifications:
- CodePlex.com is a Microsoft owned and staffed forge that encourages the development of open source software based on Microsoft technology. The CodePlex Foundation is a separate not-for-profit software foundation to enable and encourage the development of open source software in the commercial world. Microsoft is the founding sponsor of the Foundation. There will be other sponsors. I work for the Foundation, not Microsoft.
- The naming confusion was not the most inspired move, but reflected an earlier idea for the Foundation. It will be resolved over time, and hopefully the confusion with it.
- The CodePlex Foundation is completely free and open source software license agnostic. The Foundation is also technology agnostic. If you want to use AGPL or GPLv3 or BSD or EPL, the Foundation has no opinion and will happily support your project or gallery. If you want to run on Mac OSX, Linux, Windows or all three, the Foundation likewise doesn't have an opinion.
The CodePlex Foundation has taken a while to get going, but there are already six projects across two galleries, some of them non-Microsoft. Paula Hunter joined as executive director last March, and I arrived a few short weeks ago. It's early days yet. Rome was not built in a day.
Pax.
Hey, first of all, congrats to the new role. At least for people that know you, you working for CodePlex (the foundation) will give lots of open source credibility.
Since you bring it up, is the list of licenses acceptable to the CodePlex Foundation identical to those approved by the OSI (or anchored in the Open Source Definition, or anything similar)? What you write above can be read as: "any license whatsoever, including but not limited to any open source license".
Posted by: Henrik Ingo | 23 June 2010 at 14:05
Henrik: Thanks for the kind words. I meant any license that meets the open source definition as set out by the OSI.
Posted by: Stephen Walli | 24 June 2010 at 06:38
Congratulations!
Posted by: Amy Jiang | 23 August 2010 at 07:25