13 ms·
.NET Foundation under fire as resigning board member questions its role
- dustinmoris 5y agoMore context: First when a board member resigned from the .NET Foundation: https://rodneylittlesii.com/posts/topic/foundation-echo-chamber https://rodneylittlesii.com/posts/topic/foundation-echo-cham... Then this: https://www.glennwatson.net/posts/dnf-problems-solutions https://www.glennwatson.net/posts/dnf-problems-solutions Lots of different Twitter threads on this topic since a few days. For example other OSS project maintainers also noticed that their project was moved to a different GitHub org without their knowledge: https://twitter.com/JeremySkinner/status/1445272800185495555?s=20 https://twitter.com/JeremySkinner/status/1445272800185495555... This is even worse given that the rights were NEVER assigned to the .NET Foundation in the first place: https://twitter.com/GeoffreyHuntley/status/1445362229642027014?s=20 https://twitter.com/GeoffreyHuntley/status/14453622296420270... This whole things is EXTREMELY SKETCHY and very very concerning!
- achandlerwhite 5y agoFor my project, which was also on the contribution model, I balked when they asked me to add them to the copyright line on every file. I pushed back and they said I didn't need to do it. I got the feeling it was just another checklist item from them--but attention to detail matters and communication is key.
- Aaronontheweb 5y agoThis also comes on the back of the .NET Foundation now requiring new projects to assign their intellectual property, lock, stock, and barrel, to the foundation itself. You can no longer simply contribute code to the foundation - it has to own it now.
- pjc50 5y agoNot an unusual requirement, it's the same as the "bastion of Free Software", the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- my123 5y ago+ code licensed to the .NET Foundation is released under a MIT license anyway, so that it can be used commercially by anybody.
- hermitdev 5y agoIsn't this very common for large projects? Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago> Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Yeah, by giving the foundation all the power it needs to relicense it however it wants. > Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent? That's the ideal situation. Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Linux kernel does this. It will never be licensed as anything other than GPLv2 because it's virtually impossible to obtain the consent of all developers who ever contributed to it. The more Linux grows, the more people contribute to it, the stronger this protection becomes.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago>Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Also means if the license ever loses a legal case then the project will always be susceptible to that flaw since it cannot be corrected. Think of a license as code. It currently works, but tomorrow you may find a serious bug, or, in the case of law, laws change outside the project, making a serious bug. Now you cannot ever fix it. And, in common cases, it protects the project from contributors wishing to remove their contribution later, breaking the project. Linus could get a brain tumor and decide to revoke his contributions to the Linux kernel. Or his heirs could do it, since by law they get his copyrights, including all the code he ever contributed. Guess what that would do. Or any contributor to Linux can do it. 10,000 legal minefields is not a good way to run a project.
- gortok 5y agoThis is incorrect. > Assignment and Contribution Models. The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. The project also confirms that the project’s submissions to .NET Foundation are its own original work (there are also instructions for any third party materials that might be included). They accept both models (Contribution and Assignment). https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit
- Aaronontheweb 5y agoLooks like you're right - they removed that option and added it back: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb1579bbfe4c1469b0c89cdc8f1ce19ff8610 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb15...
- gortok 5y agoThe PR that removed the Contribution model was only merged for 2 hours before it was reverted: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122
- Aaronontheweb 5y agoAnd it was never discussed nor has it ever really been revisited since, as you point out in your own comments on that issue. This is part of the larger issue of how the DFN interacts (or lack thereof) with its own member projects and usually only lets us know about changes after they're announced
- achandlerwhite 5y agoI don't believe this is currently true. The contribution model is there. I even recently had a PR accepted to clarify the language on the submission page and form.
- philliphaydon 5y agoYou missed this one: https://twitter.com/GlennCoder/status/1443356417742675968 https://twitter.com/GlennCoder/status/1443356417742675968
- styx31 5y agoAnd this once just now :( https://twitter.com/robmen/status/1445521876688654340 https://twitter.com/robmen/status/1445521876688654340
- whoisthemachine 5y agoYikes, this is worrying, especially given the large amount of goodwill Microsoft has tried to garner with the open source community.
- oaiey 5y agoI think the details have to be read there carefully. The foundation has different goals (legal ownership of .NET independent of Microsoft) than most its members (as outlined in the article). It is a failure in the foundation setup. When you want to foster a community, you have to focus on the community. Not (only) be the legal guardianship of some (important) stuff. And all of that I say as a .NET fanboy.
- rvz 5y agoI think I lost count of how many warnings were given about Microsoft suspiciously getting too involved in open source in general which at this point, issues like this are unsurprising.
- Rapzid 5y agoThere are people at Microsoft that "get" FOSS. But there are also people calling shots that simply don't and continually make cringe decisions that poorly balance business interests with their FOSS community. The identity server debacle is great case study.
- dustinmoris 5y ago
- teh_klev 5y agoNon-AMP link: https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/05/microsoft_net_foundation_under_fire/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/05/microsoft_net_foundat...
- ecmascript 5y agoI don't understand why people gets surprised over and over again when a megacorp does it's megacorp thing. Corporations are not people, they will do whatever it takes to play in their best interest. Especially large corporations. They can sell you the dream of x but if they feel like it, they will kill that dream faster than you will be able to wake up.
- ironmagma 5y agoThere’s frequently a difference between outrage and surprise.
- trutannus 5y agoI still don't see why there's outrage. It's a silly think to be outraged over something predictable. This sort of thing is. It's like being outraged over a mosquito biting you.
- danparsonson 5y agoThere is at least some non-zero chance that widespread expressions of outrage can encourage even megacorps to change direction - the same cannot be said of mosquitoes. The latter are expressing their immutable core nature, whereas the core nature of the former is the aggregate effect of the behaviour of a collection of human beings and therefore subject to change.
- bitwize 5y agoMegacorps change their nature about as well as mosquitoes do. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Now what corporations do do (sometimes quite well) is make superficial changes to avoid bad PR. But if you really want them to change their nature you must use a very blunt instrument -- government regulation.
- ironmagma 5y agoYes, and how will government regulation appear? Just randomly, for no reason?
- 1B05H1N 5y agoIt seems like a good time to move open source projects off Github.
- jdsfighter 5y agoAny particular input as to where developers should move their projects? I've had wonderful luck with self-hosted GitLab, but while it meets our organization's purposes, it doesn't seem like it'd be the best general purpose Git provider.
- aaomidi 5y agoHow is this related?
- IYasha 5y agoIt is always a good time to move open source projects off Github. )
- symlinkk 5y agoWho cares? What did the “.NET Foundation” ever do?
- Lapsa 5y agoI have no idea.
- zvrba 5y ago> Project Maturity was a pilot including "maturity profiles," designed to improve software quality. The project was abandoned shortly after its introduction after community members complained that it was over-reaching, So "community library developers" complain when "user-developers" default to MS nugets because, hey, it's MS and tested, maintained and supported; and the same (?) "community library developers" also complain when rating system is conceived that'd help "user-developers" choose and use stable/mature 3rd party packages. Well.
- Aaronontheweb 5y agoThe issue here was Microsoft appointing itself judge and jury of which projects should have most-favored-nation status and that criteria being reflected directly into the package distribution system. Given Microsoft's singular influence over the .NET ecosystem, this presents a massive conflict of interest especially when pitting Microsoft's own first party solutions versus third party ones - there would be a tremendous amount of pressure to ensure that the MSFT packages rise to the top of the ladder without any guarantee as to their longevity. I detailed this all at length here prior to defeating the initiative: https://aaronstannard.com/dotnet-foundation-maturity-ladder/ https://aaronstannard.com/dotnet-foundation-maturity-ladder/
- zvrba 5y agoI've seen your other (earlier) posts about .net ecosystem and... I'm sorry, but if the said maturity scale would exclude projects like the ones you're bragging about, it would only be good, for it would reduce the amount of junk on nuget. Simple file locking implementation? Why the hell would someone risk importing a nuget when they can implement it themselves in like half a day? (If you know you need a file lock, you know what's needed to implement one, the rest is about finding the docs.) Library for scalable servers? You don't need one with async, all the other building blocks are already shipped with netcore. (Ya, maybe you won't be able to squeeze the last 5% of performance without enormous amount of work, but 99% of the projects don't need that. Those which do would probably roll their own anyway. BTW, the remaining 5% performance win from some library would easily spoiled by inefficient event handlers.) Implying that lack of libraries akin to those in Java means that .net developers are doing non-innovative, boring CRUD stuff is extremely condescending. Maybe Java has so many more of such libraries because everything is so much more cumbersome to write from scratch in Java? (All libraries are a liability. They'd better solve a HARD and/or COMPLEX problem that'd take 1+ months to implement before I vet them into a project. Your examples are not in that class.)
- speeder 5y agoI went to read the post about "WinGet" and it was also very nasty. https://keivan.io/the-day-appget-died/ https://keivan.io/the-day-appget-died/
- ffhhj 5y agoThat's why we must always give these companies a consulting quote that covers much more than flight tickets and expenses. Make sure they pay up front, otherwise it's some project manager's empty promise.
- fmakunbound 5y agoWhat strikes me is how wealthy corporations act like such cheapskates. The bring the guy in for a job interview, suck the rest of the vision for the tool out of him, ghost him for a few months, release a copycat product and even stiff him on travel reimbursement.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoReminds me of this old bit from Silicon Valley: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JlwwVuSUUfc https://youtube.com/watch?v=JlwwVuSUUfc
- easton 5y agoI don't really understand why they stiffed him (the only thing I can think of is that he's the core maintainer of Sonarr which might make him legally radioactive, but you should tell him), but what I don't understand is why they even called him in the first place. There's about a billion package managers for desktop operating systems and programming languages (shoot, Microsoft runs five or six), and the ups and downs are known by anyone who's used one for more than an hour (shoot, look at the winget issue tracker, there's still active tickets that were filed in the first week). There's no reason to play the wine and dine game, there's no secret sauce anyone really needs to know.
- 908B64B197 5y agoThat's because they wanted to hire him as a PM, not buy his package manager. He failed the interview. He's the only one who talked about "acqui-hire". Microsoft never talked about acquiring anything. There was nothing to acquire.
- nobodyandproud 5y agoAnyone remember the goomic https://mashable.com/article/google-engineer-manu-cornet-comics-critique https://mashable.com/article/google-engineer-manu-cornet-com... Microsoft’s super-political culture still seems to be around. You see this in the Azure space, where everyone internally within MS seems to be trying to one-up each other. So I’m not surprised that the .NET Foundation also suffers.
- sterlind 5y agomy first job inside Azure had a lot of traumatic political battles like this, but since moving to a different division (still in Azure) years ago, everything's a lot smoother. it really varies, but overall my impression over the past 9 years inside Azure is that it's really gotten better on the political infighting front. the Ballmer years were definitely the low point. it's really about the incentives the execs set up, and execs vary on how well they keep things harmonious. (opinions are my own, naturally)
- pjmlp 5y agoIt hardly changed, the whole .NET vs C++ politics are pretty much alive, and the whole GUI framework mess is another example. I lost count how many PMs they had showing us stuff how great everything was going to be, on Channel 9, YouTube and now Microsoft Learn.
- gokhan 5y agoCan we change the URL to non-AMP one? https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/05/microsoft_net_foundation_under_fire/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/05/microsoft_net_foundat...
- NicoJuicy 5y agoWhat would be the problem for Microsoft to just be open about it? Tell them to give a donation for work and a recurring salary based of continued work on the same project but under "MS Official" and upgrade it's role in the dotnet eco system. I don't think anyone would say no to a bag of money and continuing their interests.
- chmod775 5y ago> He intended to say nothing in public about it, but changed his mind when the foundation posted that "we wish him all the best as he refocuses on his personal life." > Concerned friends contacted him, resulting in this post, where he explains some of the background to his resignation and said: "I am fine. No issue in my personal life took me away from the board." That's a really weird thing to write about someone without clearing it with them.
- vadfa 5y agoSeems a very standard thing to say when someone quits.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- potatolicious 5y agoYes, but usually with the consent of the person quitting, when both sides want to keep the true circumstances of the departure quiet.
- kjeetgill 5y agoI think the specific euphemism "refocuses on his personal life", as opposed to a more general "pursue other opportunities", reads more like serious illness or family disturbance. It provokes sincere concern for his wellbeing beyond a job move.
- TeMPOraL 5y agoI always felt this particular euphemism was code for resigning through being forced out as a part of crisis management strategy, to avoid a big PR or legal fallout.
- fsckboy 5y agoI think the cases you are thinking about are agreed upon by the subject, who might be a high level politicians and/or CEOs whose "lack of a next step" would "stick out like a sore thumb", but whose prior hard work and/or financial success would leave them in a position to deserve to devote more time to family. Something like that.
- kasajian 5y ago>>>>Microsoft engaged in some strange behaviour with regard to its WinGet project, finding out all the details of an existing open-source project called AppGet by dangling the prospect of a job at Microsoft for its creator, but then in effect killing that open-source project though borrowing many of its ideas. Littles was more than disappointed.<<<< This is a misunderstanding of what open source means. I has zero to do with community. You may think that, but that doesn't make it true. Open source is only about license. It means you, as the copyright owner, give permission for others to use the software royalty free, and you can modify the software as you wish. With permissive license, you don't even have to give us the changes you made. But you do need need to keep the original copyright. THAT'S ALL IT HAS EVER MEANT. Now, a lot of open-source is created in a community. But this things about how so-and-so took the source-code and ideas from another projects and reused it, whether that act is done by the big guy or the small guy, or the project you took from ends up getting killed, that's just too bad. Don't join the game and then complain about the rules later.
- josefx 5y ago> This is a misunderstanding of what open source means. I has zero to do with community. You may think that, but that doesn't make it true. You would have a point, but this isn't about open source in general. This is about the .Net Foundation, which has the goal "to improve open-source software development and collaboration around the .NET Framework" and it hardly improves collaboration when the parent organization openly acts like a parasitic ass. Of course since this is Microsoft we are talking about a strongly worded letter wouldn't have achieved anything of note either.
- tailspin2019 5y agoWhile this is quite concerning, honestly as someone deep in the .NET ecosystem, Microsoft has made so many (surprisingly) good moves in recent years that I think there’s room for a couple of fuck ups. [1] I see all this as something that can be corrected. Not necessarily a sign of anything too sinister. (Maybe I’m too optimistic). Admittedly I didn’t like the AppGet/WinGet story but there could be a side to that which we don’t hear about. First time I’ve heard about the IdentityServer issue - doesn’t sound great. But MS have gone too far down the path they’re on for me to any longer dismiss their new found “open source” focus with the same level of cynicism that I once had. There is a LOT of really good stuff happening here. It can no longer be brushed off as just surface-level pandering, which was what I used to think in the early days of their move to .NET Core and open source. But that said, I really hope they take the lessons from this and sort out the Foundation. [1] I exclude Windows 11 from this analysis
- pjmlp 5y agoI am quite irritated how they managed the whole C++/CX replacement via C++/WinRT, throwing .NET devs that still have to drop down to C++ back into the VC++ 6.0 / ATL 3.0 days. Then the radio silence with .NET Native is so typical Silverlight/Managed DirectX/XNA.
- LASR 5y agoI was at Microsoft when Silverlight & XNA were the only supported platforms on Windows Phone 7. Less than a year after launch, just as some devs started writing windows phone apps, “we” decided to deprecate Silverlight and XNA in favor of WinRT for Windows Phone 8. Devs were just pissed and vowed to never touch Windows Phone after that. Also, all the customers that bought WP7 phones - they couldn’t upgrade to WP8, because “security”. These were the Microsoft fanboys and early adopters. I left Microsoft the following year. But it looks like they haven’t improved very much over the years.
- Shadonototra 5y agomicrosoft wasted its time rewriting dotnet to catchup with java nobody moved, instead they had other needs, GO appeared, and people adopted it what's left? people maintaining Java servers; and when it's time to switch tech, it's GO politics is what ruined C#, now they are bloating the language with features nobody asked/needed microsoft have the wrong culture, they are bloat oriented, and they are vendor locking driven it's either ASP.NET or nothing with C#, that says it all and you still CAN'T build a AOT statically compiled single file executable, you have to ship your 300 DLLs with you, even that, they couldn't improve, it's 2021, it's a billion dollar company, and yet, it's still "we are working on it", dude no, it's too late, i'll go with GO for a while they recommended zipping/unzipping at runtime your 300+dll folder as a solution to the "single file problem", so no, you can't come up and say, "we are awesome piece of tech", because that's a pure lie, a billion dollar company and msbuild, while it has improved, it still a joke compared to what other languages are providing, not worse than gradle or maven, but equally shitty https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28655192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28655192 200mb + 300 DLLS for a desktop application, that's the "awesome" dotnet for you, even java don't do that anymore
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- speedcoder 5y agoWhatever happened to Mr. Bunny https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2433344.Mr_Bunny_s_Guide_to_ActiveX https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2433344.Mr_Bunny_s_Gu... to which, after all, .Net owes a lot?