I suspect the author is lead astray by his comparison of codeplex to google code or sourceforge. The better comparison is the Apache Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation, the FSF or perhaps MySQL. The latter two also request copyright assignment.
While I think that Microsoft should have erred on the side of more freedom, things are not nearly as bad as the author makes them out to be.
The author is confusing the codeplex hosting site with the CodePlex foundation. On the hosting site you can use a number of different licenses and no copyright assignment is required.
CodePlex (codeplex.com) is a site launched by Microsoft to host open-source projects under a variety of licenses.
CodePlex Foundation (codeplex.org) is a foundation launched by Microsoft. The specifics are somewhat woolly, but I think the core idea is to provide an independent body for companies and contributors to assign their copyright to open-source works to, allowing the largely independent CodePlex Foundation to own it and protect it. I suspect in practice it's going to be the platform for Microsoft to release open-source code while trying to avoid much of the stigma and scaremongering associated with Microsoft doing it themselves.
I'll just make my point using a quote from Linus Torvalds:
"I'm a big believer in "technology over politics". I don't care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don't have to worry about licensing etc issues. I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out. There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred."
"By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through SourceForge.net, you grant COMPANY a worldwide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, fully sublicensable, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, create derivative works from, publish, perform, display, rent, resell and distribute such Content (in whole or part) on SourceForge.net and incorporate Content in other works, in any form, media, or technology developed by COMPANY, though COMPANY is not required to incorporate Feedback into any COMPANY products or services."
This article is pure ignorance, and would have played much better as a Slashdot comment.
Forking is the underlying source of freedom in open source software -- if you don't like something the current managers of a project are doing, fork it.
If your open source code is licensed under a non-copyleft license like Apache or BSD, Microsoft (or any other entity) can fork it and use it commercially regardless of whether you are a member of the CodePlex foundation.
The CodePlex foundation asks that member projects assign the copyright to the foundation to allow them to defend its intellectual property from a legal perspective. Through the right to fork, open source licenses ensure that the code itself is owned by the community-at-large, and whether the CodePlex foundation "owns" the code from a legal perspective is meaningless.
I understand people being skeptical given Microsoft's checkered past with open source, but at least give them a chance to prove that they've changed.
"I understand people being skeptical given Microsoft's checkered past with open source, but at least give them a chance to prove that they've changed."
"My husband is a drunkard and when he drinks he beats me, but he has promised me he will change".
Microsoft hasn't and will not change. It's in the DNA of Microsoft to be the way it is. And some bunnies and a little girl in a Windows 7 ad is not a sign of change.
A couple days ago there was an article of Steve Ballmer harrasing an employee because of an IPhone, if that's the way you treat your employees, what can the customers expect.
So when given clear indications of change occurring (codeplex.com, codeplex.org ), your response is what? Just denial, or is there more to what you are saying?
FWIW, I disagree in general, Some things in Microsoft are clearly changing, particularly the processes of the developer tools division are much more open and community-involving than they were a few years ago. Hence. codeplex.
Other things that people think of as "Microsoft", like Office and Windows releases - not so much change I suppose.
As to if Microsoft actually has changed with regards open-sourcing some things that run on their IIS/.Net technology stack, I don't know enough yet. I do know that my views will be lead by what's happening, not by stale dogma that's counter to evidence.
They're a corporation, a large group of people pursuing profit on behalf of an even larger group of shareholders, with its members constantly being replaced. These associations don't possess philosophical consistency. They only appear to when the illusion aids in profitability.
I also suspect the Ballmer iPhone incident was him simply joking about rather than any actual harassment.
Ugh, now that's just foul. Sometimes I like Microsoft and sometimes I don't... and right now it's definitely the latter. It's effectively stealing another's work legally!
While I think that Microsoft should have erred on the side of more freedom, things are not nearly as bad as the author makes them out to be.