Slashdot Mirror

There's quite a good article on the subject here, starting with Benjamin Franklin's notorious pirating: http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/157

"Ben Franklin and others who owned printers realized that copyright didn't apply to them, so they promptly began making copies of everything - books, sheet music, etc."

I had know that for much of US history there was no respect for foreign copyrights (from other countries). I never saw anyone connect this to Ben Franklin's success before. Interesting!

Now that I look:
"Benjamin Franklin, Copyright Pirate"
http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/...

And:
"Benjamin Franklin, the first IP pirate?"
http://arstechnica.com/informa...

Yer, only if the specification is perfect. Which it never is. There is always things not documented that projects like Wine, Mono, Samba, etc must work out. Most of the time I don't think it's a deliberate MS policy (though I bet some of the time it is), it's just the nature of software. Really you want not just a published specification but a open reference implementation. MS, intentionally or otherwise, use this in both directions.
http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/296

I think Wine and ReactOS have not been targeted because they aren't big enough to be worth the major bad PR.

I agree that ReactOS is pretty insignificant at the moment (although I do have hopes for it), but Wine is the poster-child for running Windows apps on non-Microsoft platforms. I think it is definitely big enough to be on the radar.

Example, what about WISE ?

I don't see how WISE could be considered to be similar. I found it quite difficult to get any real details about the case, since most reports are vague about the details. However, according to the summary in Tech Law Journal:

"Bristol had a contract with Microsoft that commenced in September 1994, and expired in September 1997, under which Microsoft provided Bristol with source code for Windows NT 3.0 and earlier OS software. Microsoft was not obligated under this contract to provide Bristol with Windows NT 4.0 or 5.0 source code, and Microsoft has not provided it to Bristol. Bristol and Microsoft negotiated, but did not reach, a contract to provide 4.0 and 5.0 source code."

So it appears that Microsoft had contracted to supply the source to v3.0, and Bristol complained when MS wanted more money for a contact for 4.0 and up. That is nothing like what people are claiming that they will do with Mono.

A open standard isn't really enough : http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/296

What a stupid article. It complains because Microsoft implemented the standards strictly. I have always found it amusing that people complained when the file format of Office 2007 was different to the standardised Office Open XML (due to later changes in the standard), but then Micrsoft also copped flak because they implemented the ODF standard rather than the extensions used by OpenOffice.org. It seems that embracing and extending is good, but only if you are not Microsoft.

I think Wine and ReactOS have not been targeted because they aren't big enough to be worth the major bad PR. Example, what about WISE ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Interface_Source_Environment seams like we might be set to fool for the same trick twice. http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/18/analysis_how_ms_used/

A open standard isn't really enough : http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/296

One of the ways of introducing people to alternative software is to install it and have in sitting there on the menu. By removing the GIMP, they're just encouraging people to think that linux is "not ready for serious users."

I agree 100%. And judging from the response from the "monomaniacs" elsewhere on this topic you have identified a very important way of introducing people to FOSS. But one that runs counter to their apparent goals.

Part of the apparent goals of the monomaniacs is to steer any loose strays back into Microsoft lock-in, and ideally wholly back into MS Windows. The specious reasons offered for removal of GIMP look grounded in the idea that Ubuntu must become top-to-bottom Microsoft technology. Microsoft hasn't done much of any technology right during the time it's been around. Is it a wise choice to start letting them gut two fine distros, Ubuntu and Debian, to fill them with expensive, defective sublicensed software?

One confrontational approach might be to take Canonical to the Better Business Bureau for this fraud : it is not allowed to send someone a product, unsolicited, and then ask for payment later. That's what's happening with F-Spot (the M$ competitor to Solang, Digikam), Tomboy (the M$ competitor to Zim, Getting-things-gnome, Knotes and BasKet) or Banshee (the M$ competitor to Amarok, Rhythmbox, Totem and XMMS). Use now, pay later. If you compare the individual applications, you'll also see that the M$ version rather sucks, especially in regards to performance, but even in function and usability. The M$applications aren't built with reliable technologies. The regulars are and use python, c++ or java.

Mono, to name one of the problems, has a paper trail back to Microsoft via Novell and years of payments from Novell to Microsoft for said products. You use Mono with the understanding that it is a sub-licensed product that must be rented. The payment for the right to use it is paid by Novell for the time being. Who may be asked to pay may be up for grabs in the future, but patent law says it is the user and 5 years of receipts say that the payment is not just obligatory but accepted by the community. And standard business practice says that if it has become indispensible, then price is what the market will bear...

Lucid is not out yet, so there is time to undo or head off the damage done by the "monomaniacs"

One of the ways of introducing people to alternative software is to install it and have in sitting there on the menu. By removing the GIMP, they're just encouraging people to think that linux is "not ready for serious users."

I agree 100%. I would also add that part of the apparent goals of the monomaniacs is to steer people back to Microsoft lock-in, and ideally back into MS Windows. The specious reasons offered for removal of GIMP look grounded in the idea that Ubuntu must become top-to-bottom Microsoft technology. Microsoft hasn't done much of any technology right during the time it's been around. I don't see that it is a wise choice to start letting them gut two fine distros, Ubuntu and Debian, to fill them with expensive, defective sublicensed software.

One approach might be to take Canonical to the Better Business Bureau for this fraud : it is not allowed to send someone a product, unsolicited, and then ask for payment later. That's what's happening with F-Spot (the M$ competitor to Solang, Digikam), Tomboy (the M$ competitor to Zim, Getting-things-gnome, Knotes and BasKet) or Banshee (the M$ competitor to Amarok, Rhythmbox, Totem and XMMS). Use now, pay later. If you compare the individual applications, you'll also see that the M$ version rather sucks, especially in regards to performance, but even in function and usability. The M$applications aren't built with reliable technologies. The regulars are and use python, c++ or java.

Mono, to name one of the problems, has a paper trail back to Microsoft via Novell and years of payments from Novell to Microsoft for said products. You use Mono with the understanding that it is a sub-licensed product that must be rented. The payment for the right to use it is paid by Novell for the time being. Who may be asked to pay may be up for grabs in the future, but patent law says it is the user and 5 years of receipts say that the payment is not just obligatory but accepted by the community. And standard business practice says that if it has become indispensible, then price is what the market will bear...

Lucid is not out yet, so there is time to undo the damage done by the monomaniacs.

Actually, it's been done many times before. Cage was not the first. There's a great article about this case which also discusses some of the earlier variations on the same theme here.

It's also worth mentioning that Batt paid the Cage estate to, in his words, extend a hand of friendship, and that the settlement does not let the Cage estate collect any future royalties. Basically, the settlement recognizes that Batt's silence is "original" silence.

I am pretty sure Debian/Ubuntu uses the oo-build version as per this interview with Michael Meeks:

http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/184

Not 100% sure though (the easiest way to find out if you are using the ooo-build version or the "official" version is to see if the "greyed out" icons are just not displayed ("official version") or are actually "greyed out" (ooo-build version). Also the oo-build version does have a zoom drop-down on the task bar.

With multiple implementations of one open standard for documents, users, businesses and governments around the world can have both choice and freedom to access their own documents, share with others and pass onto future generations.

Which is of course what Microsoft must stop at all costs. Also worth remembering is that were the shoe on the other foot, and Google had the business lockin and office suite monopoly Microsoft enjoy, they'd probably protect their proprietary formats at all costs too. So whilst Google's opinion may be aligned with most people here, do remember that they're a company whose sole aim is profit.

This looks like a fortuitous PR stunt to me, I don't doubt that Google like ODF now but we shouldn't forget that Microsoft have been known to be open when they lack market share too.

Actually I think users do care about portability. If there is a MS Windows program you need to run, and you have a Mac, then you care about portability.

Being able to write one app for the entire user base instead of one small segment of computer users has to be of some value. Someone can write a Cocoa app that might be beautiful, but being able to write a Cocoa app is a very specific skill (Objective C) for a relativley small market.

On the other hand if you write a NewI\O app you write it once for a huge user base (all users). NewI\O apps are way easier to write than Cocoa apps. Furthere there is no reason that NewI\O applications have to be hideously ugly. In fact, native widgets are not out of the question.

Like it or not Internet apps are here, and are here to stay. As Jeremy Allison writes: "There are now no interesting non-networked applications."

Chris