« 10 Business Models leveraging Open Source | Main | 1 Million dollars for a T-shirt »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Why should they? It is not as if everyone would agree on GPLv3.

Personally I see no key need to make a political stance within a license. A license such as GPLv2 was long enough to sustain growth.

If RMS wants to make political changes, he should do so by pushing against corruption, and for enabling us all to vote whenever and wherever and however we see fit to express out views in a binding way.

It is laudable to fight the power of corruption the way how RMS does, but it is still the totally wrong approach to try doing so via a license.


Actually many parties did agree to the GPLv3. It was a collective effort involving users, developers, non-profit and commercial organizations.

Many developers also implicitly agreed to it when they licensed their code with the mention "GPL v2 or ABOVE"

As to Microsoft, they cannot keep having such a "double" language; on the one hand they acknowledge open source when it suits their goals (by getting their licenses approved by OSI for instance) and on the other hand and they sneakily back stab the community by not allowing developers to use the GPLv3 even so it is the natural continuation of the most used open source license, the GPL v2...

And of course we know the reason. GPLv3 provides for some patenting protection and the strategy of Microsoft is clearly geared towards substituting the patent to the license as a means to control (and yes also to get money from) open source developments.


"Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community."

This is what appears on codeplex front page. Given this why should they care what license I use.

GPL is a software license; is not a political statement. It's as political as an EULA, which with other things forbids reverse engineering.

Nobody is forcing anyone to use the GPLv3.

If anyone is making a political statement, that one is Microsoft. By discriminating against the GPLv3 in their hosting site, they are making a very loud political statement. Which is hilarious taking into account what they say in the above statement. Yeah, they don't "control", right!


More proof that Codeplex is not a real FOSS repository but a FOSS deathtrap by Microsoft.

Like Mono, except even more scummy.

The comments to this entry are closed.