Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Clarifies Jim Allchin's Statements
twivel writes "This Yahoo article clarifies their position. It is not "open source" software that "destroys intellectual property", but in fact it's the GNU General Public License that does. I can't wait for RMS' response. " What's interesting is their retroactive clarification that it's about taxpayer-supported software - a silly assurance, IMHO. Why? Because taxpayer software should be kept open - we paid for it, we should be able to use it. Locking it up into companies is not the answer - but Microsoft at least acknowledges other potentials, like the BSD license [?] . Check out Dan Gillmor's take on this - well done.
An easy solution to the "dilema" between your view and the pro-government-using-GPL view is for the government to dual license the work. GPL everything, but offer some sort of small fee license for closed-source work. I know this is at odds with your idea of "free for everyone", but remember that Microsoft and Cisco aren't taxpayers (they didn't pay any taxes last year). ;-)
This would do something to enrich the social fabric, at the expense of rich people getting richer.
-Paul Komarek
I think that people aren't (well the dumb ones are) objecting to companies making lots of money off of tax-payer investment, without giving anything back. For instance, Microsoft and Cisco paid no income tax last year. When was the last time you paid no income tax?
Microsoft does very little to improve the social fabric of the US. In fact, many "corporate individuals" do very little to improve the social fabric in proportion to what they gain from our society--for instance, a market. And for some reason this doesn't seem to bother Americans. Except me. For an example from Microsoft, IIRC, they didn't let temp workers bring their kids in during one of those "show your kids where you work days" at Microsoft. Can you imagine anything more mean-spirited?
-Paul Komarek
My choice seems to be to steal the sony laptop/iPAQ (so I don't pay Microsoft) or pay microsoft, if I want the sony/iPAQ.
You choice is hardly limited to those. Try a different manufacturer. Or build your own. The only way Microsoft will get any money off of you is if you voluntarily give it to them. So don't!
Freedom is not convenient. Nor will it ever. Get over it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
That would be playing a dangerous game -- the result could be a legal precedent that limits or even invalidates the MS EULA, especially if the judge figures out that MS is trying to blow smoke up his robe.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
No product can stand against SQL Server -- because it keeps falling over.
-Paul Komarek
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
There was also this:
People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for specific purposes.
But that's exactly what I was talking about. A natural copyright is the same as an intrinsic copyright. And both birds are 100% imaginary. No, the FSF does not have a natural right to control distribution with the exception of their right to choose not to distribute the work in the first place (that is if they keep the toothpaste in the tube, that's fine, but they can't put it back once it's come out)
This is however an entirely different kettle of fish than an artificial (or positive) right to control distribution, which we certainly do labor under. But we have that artificial right for the purpose of promoting progress in the arts and sciences. We do not have it for promoting Bill Gates' bank account, though if that's the best way to accomplish the goal of promotion, fine.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The private party (aka Microsoft) could use this as a preferred form of software investment (god knows it has worked in other industries): spend cash lobbying for publicly funded r&d rather than DIY R&D. Not only would this strategy reduce R&D cost - it would reduce R&D risk: The private party also gets the added benefit that this public works project carries the government's imprimatur, which effectively insures both liquidity and lockin.
GPL (as applied to public works) prevents Congress from being overtly manipulated by cash rich giants like Microsoft. Any other license would encourage Microsoft to sponsor lobbyists to control public funds. This is simply the way big government and industry work together - when the risk of investment gets too high, they push it onto taxpayers.
Consider the odd case that a corporate lobbyist didn't instigate the public works project. Without GPL, the fruits of this project benefit the parties with the best sales channels... There is no level playing field here. And once the public works project is started, then the benefactors would lobby to keep the benefit, further marginalizing the benefit to taxpayers...
Imagine: you run some important piece of software, and one day in the future, you decide to change it. But nobody would show you the source, even though it was obtained freely once upon a time before (liberal sense, not gratis). It has happened before and it will happen again. The BSD license offers no legal protection to software. Even if you were the original author of Version 1.0. The bloke denying it gto you could use the excuse that Version 2.0 belongs to him, and he does not have Version 1.0 anymore.
Of course, this defeats the purpose of defacing and upending the standards in the first place, since competing software could easily be updated to be compatible with the new version.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
You need to get a clue. You have to pay for Windows9x whether it is installed or not. That's the terms that PC manufacturers have to agree to in order to get a discount from Microsoft. Sounds like a tax to me.
When I said "TCP/IP hadn't been available under the BSD license", I meant an implementation of said protocols was available under the BSD license.
As a result, the various OS makers had two options:
1) Develop an OSI implementation from scratch.
2) Use an implementation based on the freely available (and modifiable/redistributable, even under closed source licenses) BSD TCP/IP stack.
That is why Internet actually works. That's why an array so huge of different operating systems could actually connected with each other without compatibility problems. I mean, we are talking about people who couldn't settle for a common floppy disk format here.
Anyway, if this people *didn't* have access to a TCP/IP implementation they could do whatever they wanted with, they would end up implementing the bloated and accounting-oriented OSI. Notice that OSI is an actual international standard, while TCP/IP is not (just a de facto one).
(8-DCS)
Well, it would work like this. One day, a meeting is called with Company X top developers to discuss the introduction of a networking stack on their operating system. They have really very few choices. They can develop their own protocol from scratch, but that would be costly and would take them very long, which would put them at a disadvantage against the competition. They could buy the network stack from someone else, but that's playing into competition's hand, and they would always stay at a disadvantage, so that's not really an option. And they can write a network stack for a public protocol. Of course, all being educated people, they know the Big Thing around the corner is ISO/OSI (I MEAN it -- that's what everyone thought until early 90s). At this point, though, one developer makes the following remark:
"Hey, some researchers in University X created a network protocol and released the source code free of cost. All we would have to do is release the source code for our whole operating system if we were to use their code!"
At this point the whole room falls into histerical laughter and, having broken the tension, they set forth to write their OSI stack.
(8-DCS)
If you own a platform, you can make it so that only your modified version will ever work. Because you can keep these trivial and harmful modifications to yourself, the original authors will loose control of their work on your platform. This way, only you will make money selling the original work.
Failing that, or at the same time, you get a bunch of lawyers to threaten, harass and finaly ruin the original author. After all, his "free" product might interfere with your earnings. Anything is possible in a world with one click shopping.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
> Doesn't that seem a bit silly? What part of the GPL would they attack? What would they sue for?
Easy. They get one of their puppet companies (MindCruft) to publish something under the GPL, "steal" the code from their puppet, and pay their puppet to take them to court with a lawyer who will blow the case. Court finds GPL worthless.
Nothing's hard when you've got billions of dollars to spend on it. (Possibly excepting innovating, which must be hard indeed, since even all MS's $$$ can't seem to acheive it.)
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Who ever thinks this can not be more wrong than wrong can be.
1) The government spending is not going to make or break the economy, unless it is alot. A billion is not that much in the big picture.
2) Almost all of Government spending can be considered a waste of money and resources, except for services that need to done that the free market can't provide (Feeding the poor, low cost medical care, free education, and other preventive expenses).
If the government does not spend that billion on software, because they get the same for free, it can provide other services or return the money to the tax payer so they may spend the money as they truely wish.
A counter agruement can be given that open-source software is nothing but good. If you get something for free, you can spend you money on other things, the cost of living is less, and the amount of work one must do to live is less. Thus the standard of living increases for all.
Governments care greatly about the economy, and there's no other way to measure it. If GDP falls, we are said to be in recession. When it rises, we're in a boom. So if the people in government believe the conventional wisdom that they can best serve their fellow citizens by continuing GDP (and tax base) growth, then they are forced to accept Allchin's argument on GPL. Allchin could even go farther in this logic by blaming some of the current economic slowdown on the increased "destruction" of property caused by the recent growth of Linux.
I could also blame Microsoft for the slowdown. With everyone having to spend too much money on MS software, since they take away from other investments that might make the economy really grow. Of course, if you look a 1) I would not believe that.
Linux O Muerte!
He didn't say it was a right. He said it was a cause. Americans for Widgets have a cause. Americans Against Widgets also have a cause. Causes aren't the same as rights.
Additionally, what do you mean by 'morally owned'? If you mean, authors of software should be able to claim credit for their authorship, I don't have any immediate problems with it. (it may require closer study though) If you mean, authors have a natural right to control the distribution and use of their works, copies and derivatives therof, you're wrong. There's no such thing, the law (in the states anyhow) has never claimed such a thing, and it really doesn't matter what people thing. A large number of people are opposed to free speech too, depending on how you pose the question, and it doesn't mean that they're right either.
I can tell you though that copyright is entirely different than freedom of speech. MS does have as much right to release closed source software as newspapers do copyrighting their news. At least, as long as Congress considers either to be copyrightable, which they don't actually have to. (software wasn't for some time)
And there's nothing that prohibits MS from refusing to release their source.
But on the other hand, what about this? What if Congress decides that in order to get copyright at all, MS must place their source in the Library of Congress. If they do, the source is copyrighted, but publicly readable. (like any published material) And only if the source is up does MS get to hold a copyright on the binaries. There's nothing that prevents Congress from doing this. And there's nothing that prevents MS from choosing not to accept what the government's big print giveth, even though that means giving up what the small print taketh away. There is after all, no natural entitlement to copyright.
Also, note that the GPL is kind of like environmentalism for a software 'commons.' If they gave without strings (e.g. BSD, public domain) there's nothing that prevents other people from taking and not continuing to sustain the source from which it comes. The constant lengthening of copyright terms are an excellent example. Disney takes fairy tale stories and makes movies. But they don't let people take the movies and make other movies, which is essential to the whole issue of copyright. The point is to have the most movies, not to protect Disney's pocketbook.
The GPL is a method of letting people take but requiring that they add to what can be taken. Its a choice; no one has to take at all. And it would be moot if there were no copyright at all. I don't think that it's accurate to call it proprietary though. It's not in the same spirit as that at all.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It makes sense that they're Pro-BSD, considering their entire TCP/IP stack is based on BSD code. Can't go trashing that, can we?
In a loose sense of the word, MS is right that the GPL "destroys" intellectual property. The relevant question is whether or not this is a bad thing (I'm inclined to think it is not!)
Bingo! Here's the Library of Congress link: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#piu
You can't remove the BSDL. But you can add additional restrictions for it's distribution. A ton of people get this confused, but it's the truth- yes, that does mean I can take a version of FreeBSD,"embrace and extend" and sell it closed source (or even with source, but restrict redistribution)
I'm not saying this is a bad thing. All of my work has been released under the BSDL (or in some rare exceptions, public domain). I don't even think it's "stealing" -- I'm one of the biggest BSDL bigots out there, but you have to understand- someone can, under the myopic slashdot definition, "steal" BSDL software.
-bugg
I worked at Microsoft on the Visual C++ team for a couple years
The only good MS product! When using Linux, this is the software I miss the most. Linux has no development environment that even comes close - and the few that do come even vaguely near have ridiculous learning curves.
The right most people who are posting think exists -- the right for any citizen to use IP created in a university in the U.S. via a government-sponsored project -- does not exist. The Baye-Dole Act gives non-profits the right to exclusively license this IP to anyone they wish.
> It would be like the government one day decided to give every citizen a government-made
> car. The market for private cars would collapse, and the government would have erected a state-run
> monopoly over the automotive industry.
But, if the government could give everyone cars, they'd still have to produce them which means auto workers would be making them. But, assuming that these cars *were* pulled out of thin air, doesn't it make sense to give one to each citizen instead of making them buy something that is no longer a scarce comodity?
I mean, the government is for the people. Seems to me that giving everyone a car will do more good for more people than keeping the car companies around which helps the owners, a small fraction of the people.
> Who would hire us and why? My guess is less people would be hired and for less compelling reasons.
My current job hires one full-time programmer just to work on development tools. He tweaks our CVS, writes testing tools, debugging tools, etc. And in my last job I wrote front-end modules for a DB (Access or Paradox) specifically tailored for the company. Ordering systems designed to fit our needs, DB queries that the accountant wanted, etc. Nothing new, stuff they could have done with a spreadsheet and a DB without forms. But they wanted it made easier enough to hire me for a year and a half as I tweaked, added, etc. (I also did some other things, I'm not that slow. But all custom software that nobody else would get any use from, even if it were released.)
> The GPL forbids you from selling add-ons, open source or not, for GPL-licensed software. You must
> give the add-ons away for free under GPL or not distribute at all.
Not quite. You can sell apps that run in X on Linux. They don't have to be GPLed. That's a way. The other alternative is to release GPLed software for free and sell the documentation and such.
Meanwhile, everyone in the world is free to start a GPL'd project based on the DOE code, or to incorporate that code into an existing GPL project. So when you say:
I think that even if the DOE code is intended to only benefit Microsoft, it will still, by virtue of its license, benefit all people trying to write audio players.
Maybe you can postulate a government-funded project that is closely married to the Microsoft platform and could never be useful on Unix. But such a project would be equally problematic if it were GPL'd.
Value-added features. Everyone had an operating system. Features exclusive to one's own OS were (hell, still are) selling points, advantages one had over the competition used to entice customers.
Opening the source code would negate that advantage, which was considered very important (lately it has been downgraded to just important). It would be unthinkable for them to do that, and if you believe otherwise I have this nice open bridge I'd like to sell you.
"everyone" didn't think that ISO/OSI was the Next Big Thing, certainly not at the time that TCP/IP was introduced and became popular.
Oh, no? Perhaps it was just my impression that OSI was in the the plans of every telco in the world, that OSI was the most talked-about networking protocol in the specialized magazines, that the very study of network protocols was centered around OSI, that every big OS company and telco were part of the OSI design committee?
Or perhaps my memory of that time is not as good as yours. Who knows...
(8-DCS)
PostgreSQL beats SQL server in every way and it's getting better rapidly
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Think what I might of Microsoft, King George they ain't.
Believe it or not, it's not always that easy to avoid the Microsoft tax - and in many circumstances, the principle just isn't worth the increased expense and effort.
When I need dozens of computers the same day, my only hope is to go around cleaning out all the electronics and office supply stores within a reasonable distance. I can't wait around for some dinky garage assembler in Flurjnik, Minnesota to scare up enough neighbor kids to put them together and mail them to me.
When I'm buying equipment in government or corporate situations, there are often regulations or contracts or purchasing guidelines that limit me to certain vendors. And I can promise you that any vendor who is the beneficiary of such a thing is collecting taxes for Micros~1.
Trust me, when I signed the paperwork granting me authorization to make major purchases on the government's tab, jail was definitely a stated consequence for failure to follow the rules.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Big deal. Doesn't change my point one bit.
The issue of whether or not GPL code can be sold for profit has already been decided. Many Linux distros out there are already doing it.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It is not a tax because the manufacturers "agree" (your word) to buy Windows from Microsoft. In addition, the consumer has to voluntarily "agree" to purchase the hardware. No one is being compelled. On the other hand, the tax I "owe" the IRS is compelled. If I disagree I go to jail.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
When I'm buying equipment in government or corporate situations, there are often regulations or contracts or purchasing guidelines that limit me to certain vendors
Then it is the government agency or corporation that is voluntarily choosing to use manufacturers that employ Microsoft products. In your own domain you can do whatever you want. Your employer or client cannot force you to buy Windows for your personal use.
Trust me, when I signed the paperwork granting me authorization to make major purchases on the government's tab, jail was definitely a stated consequence for failure to follow the rules.
But you wouldn't be going to jail for "tax avoidance". Microsoft had nothing to do with it. If the rules said you had to purchase Dell+Redhat and you bought a Compaq+Windows instead, you would face the identical consequences.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
When I need dozens of computers the same day, my only hope is to go around cleaning out all the electronics and office supply stores within a reasonable distance. I can't wait around for some dinky garage assembler in Flurjnik, Minnesota to scare up enough neighbor kids to put them together and mail them to me.
I had to come back and respond to this point because it's still annoying me.
First of all, there is absolutely no need to go all the way to Flurjnik to get computers without Windows. Have you ever heard of Penguin Computing? VA Linux? And those are just two names for Linux preinstalls catering to businesses. Many others exist and also for *BSD. And I don't need to mention the hundreds of other alternatives to preinstalled-Windows. Don't excuse your lack of shopping savvy by inventing a fictitous tax.
You current state of freedom, absent any external coercion, is a product of your previous choices. If you're stuck in a situation where you have to buy 100 computers NOW, then that odds are overwhelming that it was you that got yourself into that situation. What if your situation called for 100 flatbed trucks right NOW, and the only local supplier was Ford, but that Dodge could have them ready for you in a week. Would you then be paying a Ford tax? I don't think so.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I don't see why it's a good thing that you can take a public program developed by the government, make a few changes, make it proprietary, and sell it. Sure, it makes people money, but so does slavery. Note that I'm not saying you advocate slavery, I'm just saying that not everything which results in the transfer of cash is really a good thing.
If someone can't compete against free software, imho, they don't deserve to be in business. Imagine me trying to argue that FAQ maintainers are cutting into my business selling how-to books. If I didn't provide a better product, why would I deserve any money?
And it's not like there'd be less of a market for programmers, we'd just be hired to customize things.
I think people would still sell add-ons, but they'd have to sell a modular add-on, or an open source one. There's nothing extraordinary about paying for open source software... The company I work for has spent ~$50k on a realtime OS and they're looking for spend another $25k or so on another. Both of these have source code available and could be implemented for free. We're buying them to get the service package. One of these is also an addition to Linux. We've had great luck in buying open source, we get a superior product (the companies realize we read their code, they don't produce sloppy work) and we know what we're getting because we downloaded and tested it beforehand.
I have purchased many fine servers from VAlinux and couldn't be happier. They do not, however, come on a moment's notice.
Sounds like you just haven't had the same sorts of jobs/clients that I have. While it may be my fault for accepting an urgent request to get a lab full of machines up by 8am the next morning, I would strongly dispute that the situation was of my creation. In any case, it doesn't matter. The situation comes up. You claimed the Microsoft tax was avoidable (and sure it is if you're just worrying about the computer in your basement), I phoned in from the real world to point out that's not always the case.
No, but the situation is not analogous. I can get computers from any number of manufacturers on a last-minute basis. They equal the set of mass-market PC manufacturers with broad retail distribution.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
The point isn't whether or not it's BSD or GPL, but whether or not this sort of thing benefits Microsoft (see subject). For all those, I could have named other items like Mozilla or Gnome. The point is that these items, simply because they're free, don't hurt the little guy and benefit Microsoft. If you read posts for the ideas rather than the details, you may learn something.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
My own personal use is of trivial interest. I buy a computer every three or four years. Likewise your shrill proclamations of successful avoidance are of little consequence
The effect of the Microsoft tax on society is measured in the millions of purchases where it is assessed, whether because of channel availability, or purchasing rules, or simple broad ignorance.
Now you're just being silly. Nobody argued that Microsoft tax compliance was enforced by the IRS.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
You are taking the argument way too personally.
In truth, the GPL does give you rights that would be denied to someone who bought ordinary software. It may not be absolutely free, but neither is commercial software.
In fact, this idea that one cannot make a living unless one hides the source is so ridiculous. Please show me the evidence for this, or elaborate. The interesting thing is this: If this was so, then the BSD license would be a detriment, as opposed to the GPL, which at least gives you the right to look at your competitor's modifications.
Well, good for you! I'd love to see these issues get taken care of too, but that's got nothing at all to do with how software is licensed. One can write GPL software and still spew rhetoric about fixing the economy and the presidency. No mutual exclusivism here.
I don't know any two people who use MS word for exactly the same thing, but I can tell you that far more than 500 use it. Same goes for excel and any other MS (or other closed source) product. Software evolves to provide different solutions.
It does both. That's how it works. If you don't believe me, file a bug report for your favorite buggy linux program and watch yourself be supported.
Are free software and solutions mutually exclusive? Not in my experience, and if you've ever used free software you should understand this.
Funny, so does my linux system. Strange how that works...
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
But then, suppose the original author dies, or stops writing software. Everyone else now has to play by the rules of the GPL. No future modifications may be locked away. The license works even when the author dies. Isn't that good?
why Corel failed too....
Have you ever tried to use photopaint? Wordperfect wasn't bad but they bought that. Most corel created software was quite complex. I think Adobe helped in the current state of corel. As for thier linux distro, I don't think they really understood the linux concept.
This is just my opinion.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
If I'm a taxpayer, and I Microsoft Windows XP$#&, does Microsoft Software become "taxpayer funded software" then? Oh... wait a minute... ;-)
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
The GPL also prevents small developers from re-using publicly available code in their own products, again preventing them from competing with Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't need to copy or use GPLed code, because it has more money than [insert the name of your favorite deity here]. It can afford to hire endless armies of programmers to implement anything it wants. So, the GPL doesn't keep it from creating software. Not being able to incorporate GPLed code in a closed source product is a non-issue to Microsoft. It's only an issue to companies that might one day rise to compete against Microsoft. So long as those would-be competitors are forced to rewrite things in order to make money (you can't make money from GPLed code), they'll be spinning their wheels instead of going after Gates & Co.
So, why is Allchin making nasty remarks about the GPL? Because -- as he ably proved when he testified during the Microsoft trial -- he's clueless. (Sigh.)
--Brett Glass
1) Up until June 12th, 1999 *MANY* people/companies were in violation of the 4 clause BSD licence. These days, the only way you can 'rip off' BSD code is to remove the BSD copyrite.
2) Microsoft's own attempts at making their own TCP/IP stack blew goats. (and, it can be argued there are goats still being blown) And Linux has had, what, 3 'total re-writes' of the TCP/IP stack? How does the internet and TCP/IP benefit from having poorly written TCP/IP implementations trying to talk to the rest of the net? How do the projects benefit from re-invention, when all they have to do respect the wishes of the copyrite of the TCP/IP stack....and just not remove said copyrite?
What would Microsoft do with extra resources? Write OS software that one could be proud of?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV."
:) ). They are entirely free to come to the conclusion that the intent of the GPL is to release something into the public domain, except for an attack on commercial software developers.
You probably work with computers, so naturally you have a logical view of the law as hard, inflexible rules that are applied with machine-like precision, except corrupt judges or incompetent jurors.
Your mechanistic predictions support this theory.
You honestly think a judge is going to say "Okay now, everyone using GPL'd software has to stop immediately." just because that is the simplest interpretation of copyright law? Judges are charged with coming up with practical interpretations of the law. They don't like to cause chaos if they can find a way to weasel out of it (and I mean "weasel" in the nicest way possible
Let me put it this way: if you went to court over what you thought was an unfair and illegal term in your apartment rental contract, would you expect the judge to simply say the contract was broken and therefore you must move out immediately or face trespassing charges (since the landlord owns the apartment)? Of course not, you'd expect him to change the contract, possibly nullifying odious restrictions, without asking for your landlord's permission. Judges can do that when presented with an illegal contract.
If they decide that the GPL isn't entirely kosher, they might very well decide that the permissions of the GPL stand without the restrictions.
---
MS is definately telling the truth (well, sort of).
The GPL is definately a borg-ish license (funny considering the picture of good old Bill that slashdot uses). This isn't a bad thing, but it is accurate.
The half-truth is the nonsense about it constraining "taxpayer funded software developement". Obviously he must mean the Microsoft-Tax, since otherwise I would expect that anything developed with money from the public, should be owned by the public.
There are several reasons that Microsoft could be doing this:
1) They are trying to cut down Open Source in the eyes of the uneducated (gee... there's a shocker)
2) They would prefer people use the BSD license so they can just take code and use it internally without worrying about things like having to extend their own code.
3) There is GPL code in an MS product and they are testing the waters to fight the GPL in court.
This last item is uncertain. Without a code review how can you really know when any closed source project uses open source code? Since an independent code review will never happen, this is a moot point (although I doubt even they would do this deliberately since their lawyers would eat them alive).
The amusing bit was the articles comment that Sun is embrasing the GPL. It makes sense. All Sun cares about (for the most part) is selling hardware (and more and more Java). If MS came out and supported Sparc over Intel for WindowsXP Sun would back off (maybe). Right now they are trying to hit MS where it hurts, in the Office Suite.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Perhaps there is some confusion here. If I release a software under BSDL, for example, that software will *STAY* under that license, period. I can release it under other licenses, as the copyright-owner, but that does not "remove" that source code with BSD license on it from existence.
The question is whether we derivative works of that software to be kept open, or if we want that software to be taken maximum advantage off.
Since we would all be using OSI if TCP/IP hadn't been available under the BSD license, I know to which camp I belong.
(8-DCS)
What exactly is Microsoft trying to say? I really don't understand. Do they think that the GPL should be illegal or what? Aside from being blatantly unconstitutional, that would be just, well, stupid. I hope that no one, especially not in the government, is falling for this blatant BS. Its obvious that Microsoft is worried that the government might use open source softwate instead of Microsoft. So they are making these retardo statements so that the government buys more of their products. Mod this down, I don't care...I'm too angry to be coherent.
---
---
---
"Against stupidity the very god themselves contend in vain" -Johann Schiller
People, groups, etc playing a I win You lose type of game are very frightened by people who choose to not play that game, who are not intmidated by that game, and who play a game where everyone wins, since that means that they gotta loose because their opponents win.
utter lunacy, of course. In other words, they loose power if you do not play their game.
just find a better game.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
of public funded software development.
they are worried if more and more of software
developed at Govt/university centres they won't be
able to help themseves to it, & make a pile of $
off it as they are accustomed to.
Oh, & they are also more than happy to take most
of the Credit.
The it industry invented the Internet.
No. The internet came out of govt funded institutions. What private industry did was to build,capitalize and some would say, exploit it.
Getting them to admit that is hard to admit.
Must be against Libertarian dogma.
Same thing with the human genome.
Turns out that the Celera relied on data from
their publicly funded rivals to finish the job.
The key thing is that the Public will get a better
return on their investment thru the GPL.
Bcs the discoveries and knowledge won't be
borged and will be free to grow in an environment
that allows growth thru both "real" competition and co-operation.
GPL doesn't destroy IP.
The community still has control over the IP.
It's just that they it used in a way that is not
exclusively about money.
Microsoft is big enough that it can develop or reimplement almost any feature. They want to stop the GPL mostly because the increasing amount of GPLed software is liberating people from the dominance of Microsoft software. The GPL is a serious threat to Microsoft's business model.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Quite the contrary, it is closed source software that contrains innovation. Microsoft would have us believe that everyone having access, and the ability to make changes to GPLed code is in some way limiting? Strange. I thought is was the other way around.
The ability to benefit from others work can only make things happen more quickly. It's a way of thinking that MS uses quite often in it's marketing. They say, "Let us create software so good you can just do what you have to!". And this is what the GPL is all about. You get the code, so when you want to write software, you don't have to waste time writing it all again (because the code is locked up under licenses), you can get on with writing additions to the software, making it better, instead of just making is the same.
GPL enhances innovation, because software developers can do new things, instead of having to reproduce current software to get around licensing issues. It can't be much simpler than that.
More importantly, (and I should stress that I don't live in the US, so I don't benefit from saying this), if the software is tax payer funded, then it should be made available to the tax payers without limitation. Tax payers should be able to get their hands on the source code and use it. The tax payer owns this software, it's theirs. And as something they own, they should have total access to it.
Given total access, innovation can only be magnified, because the less replication of software people need to do, the more they can be refining and extending software to meet more of their needs.
This is going to sound like a Troll but think about it for a minute before answering. Its really not ment as one.
You said:
"Anyone who is paid by the government to produce software, should be obliged to make the software available, for free, to everyone, with no strings attached." (emphesis mine)
Okay, I will agree with this statement but add that the GPL adds a 'string'. It requires that I am not allowed to use that code in an unrestricted manner (ie. a Closed Source project). A BSD style license would allow people to use the code in Open Source projects or in Closed Source ones.
Now, I also agree that if it was produced by taxpayer dollars, then if you want to do use it for Commercial gain, tough, you should re-impliment the code yourself. On the other hand, I can see that perhaps the LGPL might be more apropriate if the work is involved in producing a standard (ie. a referance implimentation) and it can be encapsulated into a library. This would allow it to be used by both closed and open source projects, and would hasten the adoption of the standard, while requiring that any change the closed source project attempts to make to the library (embrace & extend perhaps), is propogated back out to the community (if the use of the code can be monitored in some way).
Perhaps the reference library covered under the LGPL and the actual code itself covered under the GPL, might provide the msot flexability, but maintain the ability for closed source projects to still utilize the work while not surpassing the rights of the individuals.
Just a few thouhts.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Nonsense. If the GPL is found to have no legal grounding then the software license reverts to the standard copyright, which means NOBODY except the author can distribute the code. The author is then free to pick a license other than the GPL (presumably the GPLv3 which corrects whatever is found lacking).
For a court to rule that GPL'd code is public domain is to steal intellectual property from the author and give it to the public. No court has ever done this. It would create such a dangerous precedent that even GPL hating companies like Microsoft would oppose such a ruling. It would be the destruction of ALL intellectual property.
Hey there moderators... get this post up there! It's poorly formatted, but it definitely doesn't deserve a 0 value just because it's AC!
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Why don't you go out and test this theory yourself. The Disney company no longer distributes Song of the South, and they intend to keep it that way. By their own admission, they will never again make a profit off that movie. By your reasoning, you should now be free under copyright law to take your old videotape of the show and start running off your own copies for sale. Go ahead and try it and see how far Disney makes it in court before the case is thrown out.
Disney has giant lawyers with sharp pointy teeth and a hundred arms each. They would come charging across the courtroom hurling boulders and screaming their terrifying battlecry, which no man can abide with soul intact.
What matter law to such titans?
---
Microsoft's point is, the Government should act to prevent the use of the GPL, and similar licences, both for software used in, and developed by, Federal/State/etc authorities.
Microsoft don't care what the point of the GPL is, they care that the Government doesn't mandate use of it.
~Cederic
--
Once they have the big bad US government on their side then they can begin lining the pockets of the world trade organization or key members of the EU in order to leverage US policy decisions in the world markets. After all, the United States has a long history of being sure that their view of intellectual property is the correct one and should be used as the standard in international trade.
this space intentionally left blank (oops)
And heck.... multi-million dollar loby with rich crooks in office and the next thing you know Free Software is illegal
I'm only half-kidding. I hope rms writes a fantastic response, and someone else talks to legislators.
Republicans are Nazis. LetsRiot!
There's many good reasons, here's one of them:
Microsoft wants ideas, implementations from smaller companies and innovative people to be available to them. But it doesn't want to share all that it has receieved. In the end making it a one-way black hole system.
When a person is unable to share with others what he or she receives. That person becomes isolated and lonely. It seems this might apply to companies too.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
My gist is that "innovation" doesn't die at the implementation level. To say you can't use an innovative idea without using the original implementation is the point Microsoft is trying to make. It's the difference between them saying "Let's take all of the source from the Linux kernel and make it ours" and "Lets take a look at what made Linux good and model our new kernel after those same ideas." Microsoft wants to sell you on the notion that you can't do one the latter without the former. It is simply a patented attempt to spin a complete lie into FUD.
(submitted to Microsoft Corporate Services)
Hi,
My name is Jason Thane, and I'm C and C++ developer living and working in Seattle, WA. Many of my colleagues have previously been employed at Microsoft in the past and have liberally extolled the virtues of employment there.
I have often considered the possibility of applying for a position within Microsoft but unfortunately will do so no further after today reading an article on dailynews.yahoo.com concerning executive Jim Allchin's comments regarding Open Source software and the GNU General Public License. Allchin's comments seemed to indicate that Microsoft believes our nation's lawmakers should consider Open Source software "a threat" to innovation and the development of the computer industry.
This statement is SO inflammatory to myself and many of my colleagues in the industry that it is suddenly little wonder to me why the brightest people I know have no interest in working for Microsoft.
If Microsoft continues to spew blatant propaganda and ignorant nonsense such as Allchin's comments, I have a feeling Microsoft's "best and brightest" might not be as good or as bright as many engineers who have chosen to avoid the company. Such as myself.
One more thing - Open Source software should be considered one of the most positive phenomena in the history of the world: a community freely sharing ideas and effort in order to create utility for all of its members. With hope our lawmakers will understand how much more important to their constituents (THE PEOPLE) that phenomenon is than the interests of Microsoft, Inc. I don't consider myself a political activist, but in this case the propaganda is so outrageous that it demands I write my elected legislators and urge them to work to protect Open Source and the future of the software industry from this company.
Sincerely,
Jason C. Thane
jasoncthane@REMOVECAPSNOSPAMbeirdo.com
If you're going to post, post something intelligent. PLEEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEE!!!
Interesting ideas. Had medeval monks had the power and desire to, would they have opposed the printing press?
IIRC, the church was very against the idea of printed books. Someone that published an English edition of the Bible was punished for heresy.
What OSS will bring an end to is a lot of shrink-wrapped software, but it won't stop people making money from it in support, enhancements and bespoke software. I've been in IT for nearly 12 years and I haven't written a single piece of commercial software, it's all been in-house to meet a specific requirement.
You're not obligated to pay sales tax (at least in the UK), since essentials are not taxed. A tax is also a levy on goods that is paid every time you purchase those goods. Since a percentage of the cost of every PC sold (apart from very small dealers or if you build it yourself) includes the price of Windows 9x, that is a tax.
And in related news, the French government, on hearing that Linux is un-American, immediately ordered 2 million copies of Mandrake.
Like the article says though, they're a fan of the BSD-style license. The BSD-license allows them to incorporate any or all portions of the code, w/o the "un-american" implications of the GPL. I think the Mozilla thing was more out of fear of the Anti-trust litigation.
I agree w/ a previous poster that there is no objective proof of this statement (regarding the TCP stack), but on the other hand, there is no reason why microsoft couldn't and wouldn't do this.
But taking a second look, the Win32 TCP stack doesn't compare to the BSD stack, so I don't even know where this comment is coming from.
If you don't believe me try it for yourself.
Bravo. I've never seen such a good parody of Micro$peak. You don't work for them, do you?
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
...and it might not matter.
Most of the restrictions in shrinkwraps are equivalent to the restrictions on an owned copy (the law was tweaked to allow software sales without licenses some time ago). Losing the license is not that big a deal.
I've never really heard of the terms against reverse-engineering (the only real thing that differs from simply purchasing a copy) being enforced.
I think they're mostly there for scare value, like the "FBI warning" at the start of movies. It also serves as a reminder to people that they aren't allowed to give copies to their friends; something that is a little counter-intuitive and many people didn't seem to understand in the early days of computing.
---
Blech. The GPL is neither particularly restrictive nor nearly as complicated as most people seem to think. For practical purposes, the GPL means three things to most users:
That neither restrictive nor difficult, particularly if you tend to distribute the software as source. The GPL just looks big and intimidating because it's written in legalese to make it harder to dodge in court.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
If you don't like it because it's different than a 'standard' license, then don't use the code; nobody's forcing you.
AC comments get piped to
why Corel failed too....
I don't think they really understood the linux concept
In case there is any confusion: Corel is not in the Linux business because MS bought a part of the company.
This is the only reason.
Lets make sure we done feed *ourselves* Markatroid FUD. M$ destroyed Linux at Corel because of Corel Suite, Corel Distro and WINE.
M$ was likely motivated because having Corel abandon Windows would have thrown up a massive red flag for the US DOJ. Outside of Adobe and Macromedia (maybe) what 'standard' desktop apps *ARENT* M$ dominating? They couldnt have put Corel out of business and not gotten spiked by the USDOJ. They invested in Corel for the same reason they invested in Apple.
they've copyrighted the licence!?!
That's rich. That just made my day. Thank you RMS!
A naive reader of M$'s "correction" could be fooled into a rather negative view of GPL'd software, especially if it's used by the government. They make it sound as if you are obliged to GPL any software you developed if you used any GPL'd software to develop it. Say, for example, I work for the government and used emacs to edit a C program, and gcc to compile it. A naive reader of the M$ blurb might conclude that you have to release the C program that you developed under the GPL.
This spin might succeed at getting a lot of people turned off on open source software. Why, they ask, should programmers in business or government be required to share all of their work, no matter what it is? It might be nice to do so, but shouldn't they have the choice not to?
Of course that's not what the GPL requires -- you only have to share any changes you make on the GPL'd products themselves, not on anything you create using them; and the government is unlikely to get involved in projects like emacs, gcc or the Linux kernel, so the issue probably won't come up at all.
It's a clever bit of FUD on M$'s part, because this impression will have to be answered by open source advocates with another "correction", and the distinction is complex enough that the broad public may never get it.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
It's simple. This is a CYA from the spin doctors in Redmond. Not too obvious, are they?
Why not tailor the GPL or BSD style licenses to you personal tastes
This is something I am noticing much of as late. I dont think this is a Good Idea(TM). GPL is very well understood. GPL makes an 'environment' in which people understand what is - and is not - permitted to do w/ their code. If I come along and release my software GPL AND the SNL (SubtleNuanceLicense) then the SNL may (likely) be more restricitve than the GPL. This makes for confusion - and conflict. The GPL Software is chugging along at a nice clip - there are alot of significant projects coming to fruition. If people start thinking that they like the GPL except for this-that-andtheother and make their own XYZL we may see this 'comfortable and universally understood' environment (the GPL environment) collapse because of Legal Whoring(TM) and Power Grabbing(TM) and Intellectual Property Asserting(TM).
The GPL means one thing: share. We all understand that. Lets not try and share under our own terms and conditions.
If Microsoft want to use GPL code there is nothing stopping them going to the author and asking / paying them to release a special version of their code to them under a different license. This can then be used under this new agreed license and would not restict or stifle innovation. Microsoft would continue and so would the GPL'd software. Plus Microsoft would be funding OpenSource.
Certainly no-one is arguing that the GPL is not a restrictive license. As most people here know it is , in fact, extra-ordinarily restrictive. I personally have always been a bit scared of overly restrictive licenses and when I release software I right I am sure to use not only a BSD style license but my own language which specifies what I consider fair use. In that, I think the solution lies. Why not tailor the GPL or BSD style licenses to you personal tastes and check out their legality with your local friendly law student or lawyer? Where is freedom of choice ? I don't like being told what to do. Not by Bill Gates, RMS, or anybody else that wants to tell me how to practise my craft.
Sort of, but it's often a difficult decision to be informed about, and an even harder thing to avoid, since the Microsoft tax is levied on hardware purchases from almost all major PC manufacturers.
I think you're still trapped in the 1500s (which would explain how you've managed to avoid the Microsoft tax). We don't have "rulers" anymore (at least in democratic societies). We have governments which carry out tasks on our behalf. And we pay taxes to plenty of entities that have no authority over us. I pay taxes on goods exported from many countries, to the governments of those countries. I pay taxes to UNESCO when I visit certain historic sites. I pay taxes to governments of states I would never visit (e.g., Texas) when ordering goods from there by mail in certain circumstances.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Well, at least in regards to it being an "intellectual property" destroyer. Intellectual property, for Stallman, is the commoditizing of information, which the GPL exists to prevent. So, I don't think he'll object to the statement, what he (and I) object to, is the rather flawed conclusion that this clarification makes.
Why should our governments contribute to closed-source development? It doesn't benefit their citizens, on the other hand, Expect is great tool that came from Government open source (it's public domain, mind you)
Also, it's convenient for Microsoft to support the BSD license, as it's a frequent source of Microsoft applications. (Run 'strings' on ftp in Windows NT/2k and you'll see)
The GPL prevents this, hence, Microsoft cannot easily 'embrace and extend' GPL software.
In no way am I against the BSD license, but it does facilitate the opposite of what the GPL represents.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
They can steal stuff from BSD-licensed software without any problems, thus enhancing their "Intellectual Property". GPL makes them give it back, along with any enhancements, thus devaluing their "intellectual property". I believe Exchange includes BSD-licensed software -- parts of sendmail, maybe? THe copyright includes "the regents of the university of california."
I wonder if they will mount a legal challenge to the GPL now? And how will they do it? Release a closed-source version of some GPL program, perhaps, and then litigate it? They wouldn't lose much -- the 'penalty' would be for them to release the source for their modified program, which I doubt they would care about anyway. I also wonder if another company would defend the GPL -- IBM perhaps? Sun, now they they're including Gnome with Slowlaris (yeah, we'll see)?
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
"...Because if you are taxpaying, you are not deserving of the innovating stemming from your tax-paying-paid developing, which, because, uh, if everyone can be using and adding to the source coding, this innovating will be belonging to the tax-paying, and not to whomever the tax-paying are paying to be developing.
"And then maybe your base will not be belong to us," he added.
Interesting ideas. Had medeval monks had the power and desire to, would they have opposed the printing press?
:)
I think Microsoft may have something though: If a free version of software exists, there will be no economic incentive for someone to go out and make a commercial version unless the commercial version is significantly better than the free one.
I don't see this as a problem, except for the companies that make money selling mediocre software. Business will be able to take advantage of free software to build their own in-house solutions, and software companies will have to concentrate on a few really good products instead of many so-so ones.
Companies that depend on fewer products are more risky, but even Microsoft with the hundreds of titles it sells has a volatile stock price. There is also a risk that the commercial titles will be more expensive as a result. But if they become too expensive, free software will serve as a check on the price.
Accoring to Eric Raymond, most of the software developers out there work on in-house systems anyway, so it is a boon to the greatest number of programmers.
I think William S. Burroughs one said "Word is a virus" How prophetical
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Perhaps "open source is an intellectual-property destroyer", but I fail to see how stifling creativity follows from the above statemnt.
The unquestionable truth is that whenever there is open exchange of ideas, innovation grows without bound. For example, the Holy Wars of Europe brought a spread of ideas which led directly to the Renaissance.
Guttenberg's printing press also led to the "free exchange of ideas" -- books were cheap! Those that adapted to the new society survived, and used information as a tool, rather than trying to stifle its creation.
I think open-source follows in much the same vein: a cheap, widely available spread of ideas, which brings together disparate concepts into a new and technologically advancing arena.
That Microsoft fails to recognize the benefits of open-source only serves to show their soon-outdated concepts of society.
Will they fall quickly? I doubt it, but I think history shows that innovation thrives on the spread of ideas which the open source concept embraces.
But GPLed software is available for anyone to use. Right of unrestricted use is part of the license. Closed-source software companies can even distribute GPLed software. Microsoft could release its own distribution of Linux if it particularly felt like it. They just aren't allowed to slap on a different license. In fact, IIRC, Microsoft already does distribute some Open Source software (under its original license) as parts of some of its multi-part software packages.
Actually, I agree that government originated projects shouldn't be licensed under the GPL. I think that it's probably better for them to be released under something like the BSD license or public domain that allows the broadest possible use. But that shouldn't stop the government from contributing to GPLed projects already in progress (i.e. NSA high security Linux) if doing so is a good way of achieving government aims.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Everyone knows one of their primary strategies is to sit on standards bodies just long enough to extend the standard with proprietary hooks. "Embrace, extend, destroy." Any license that forces proprietary changes become part of the public code base is completely at odds with the way Microsoft defaces... er... I mean embraces... standards.
---
The GPL is definately a borg-ish license (funny considering the picture of good old Bill that slashdot uses). This isn't a bad thing, but it is accurate.
Except that the GPL dosn't go activly seeking other programs to asimilate. Whereas Microsoft certainly enguages in this kind of behaviour.
Without a code review how can you really know when any closed source project uses open source code?
Without such a review you have no idea what is in the program at all. Therefore certain projects should never use closed source programs. These include functions of government such as military, security, taxation, etc.
Well, from what I grasped from the article M$ doesn't like the GPL since leagaly it restricts them from using GPL'd sorce code in their software.
If you plan on using someone elses work in your project to save yourself time and trouble then you should comply to their wishes on how that code is used. If you dislike the GPL license then don't use GPL'd code.
I guess they feel it is destroying their freedom to innovate*
*innovate - (from the Microsoft dictionary) The aquisition of any code or idea that will make our products better, preferably in a way we can claim we created it.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
> If the government is going to be paying people to produce software, the software should be open for all taxpayers to use.
I like that idea in principle, but in practice it's not all that simple. For instance, the government used taxpayer money to fund the White House, but that doesn't mean Joe Citizen can schedule it for a week's use during summer vacation.
Conceivably there might be circumstances where they would produce software for limited distribution as well.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There is no Microsoft tax. That term was orginally used in a very bad analogy.
A tax is an involuntary monetary obligation to a ruler. Microsoft is not a ruler. You are not obligated to buy any of their products. Whether or not Microsoft gets one penny of yours is entirely your decision. They haven't received a penny from me since DOS 3.3.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
> The body of work out there under the GPL is quite humongous and therefore I cannot believe that a court would just throw away the GPL
Possibly very important in this regard is the fact that some $BIGCOMPANIES now like the GPL or even have their own variants, so that if a court case ever came down to the traditional "biggest wallet wins" it does not necessarily mean that the GPL would be stricken down.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If the government is going to be paying people to produce software, the software should be open for all taxpayers to use. Including closed-source software companies.
Remember how anyone who did government-funded research in the US had to put in place provisions allowing the US government to use their research for free? The same should apply, only more broadly, for government-funded software projects: Anyone who is paid by the government to produce software, should be obliged to make the software available, for free, to everyone, with no strings attached.
Oh, and WTF is a retroactive clarification? Is it supposed to be in contrast to a proactive clarification of the form "I am about to say something confusing, but what I will really mean is..."?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
then they can't use the GPL, or make any modifications to GPL'd code. AFAIK, the federal government doesn't hold copyright on anything it creates, as it belongs to the people. Anything created is in the public domain, such as maps and stuff. I know they use various contracts with private companies to get around this, but that's beside the point, I'm talking theory here. How does that affect government workers modifying GPL'd code? The modifications are public domain, so that doesn't compromise the GPL, and the public domain sections of the code could in theory be extracted and used freely without GPL restrictions. This latter option is difficult, as GPL'd modifications to the PD code may have been made. So the GPL does in practice make it difficult for federal workers to create code in the public domain, if they also use the GPL. The PD sections would have to be archived separately and made available to the public.
GPL doesn't destroy IP (author's maintain their copyright), it just destroys authors' ability to exert singular dominion over that property. So they still "own" or at least have originated, the source, they just cannot horde it. Property laws were written when it was obvious that no item could be simultaneously and exclusively owned or used by more than one person. With the advent of computing, product becomes a lot more like ideas, in that they are infinitely reproducably and non-appropriable, than like physical items. Hopefully it's just a matter of banging enough clue into lawmakers. It's not about what's fair (as Bill Joy is concerned), it's about what *IS*. Once we define what digital/intellectual property is, then we can start creating new solutions to the old fairness question (tackled in original patentsand copyright law). Un/Fortunately this will make some markets based on scarcity evaporate. ("Gutenberg, stop immediately! Do you realize what the printing press will do!?? People won't be beholden to a select few for their information and education! Terrible!")
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
My favorite quote:
..."quoted Allchin as saying, "I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat
Should actually be read:
"I don't think we've "donated" enough funds to the U.S. government so that they see our way as being the only alternative in this matter."
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Heh. That's true. I guess that's the difference between GPL- and BSD-license users:
GPL license user: Hell no you can't use my code in your proprietary product! I don't care if your product sucks!
BSD license user: PLEASE use my code in your proprietary product, because your product sucks!
Which is amusing, because it seems Microsoft paid attention to the BSD types. ^_^
The enemies of Democracy are
c:\winnt\system32>strings ftp.exe
!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB
exe\ftp.dbg
!SEINEEW ERA SREENIGNE EPACSTEN
.exe
cpeterso
I might be mistaken, but last time I heard, the greater majority of innovation does not come from taxpayer funded projects. In fact, we could really do without most of the taxpayer funded "innovation". The IRS and other taxpayer funded entities are innovating in ways I would prefer them not to.
Microsoft's position is obvious, of course. They don't want the US Federal government creating any universal policies to support only Open Source products as other countries have done. Microsoft is well aware that while Linux may not offer 100% of the "features" that Microsfot products do, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to adapt, especially if there was some work put into it.
Also, if there was interest in large scale budget cuts, the Microsoft tax would be a significant factor. Microsoft is well aware of this fact, as they would feel it from the other end.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
It isn't open source that's supporting Alan Cox, it's the work he does for RedHat, oh errr...
Could someone please explain to me what this means? The Microsoft speak is too thick for me.
If software is taxpayer-funded, then the taxpayers should have a right to use it; the GPL doesn't prohibit that.
If it has a GPL license to begin with, then whoever adds to the project should be educated as to what that means. Personally, I think that people should be educated on the terms of Microsoft's standard licensing agreements--they look much more sinister (here's one; spot the violations of your rights that the DMCA will legalize...).
If it doesn't have a GPL license to begin with, then don't use the GPL if you don't want to, or release it under multiple licenses instead. Nothing should stop you from doing that.
And what does 'innovate' mean in this context? I have yet to see Microsoft innovate, but they use the word all the time. Does it mean "make money", or "exploit the user"? How are they (mis)using that word?
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
I think he might be thinking of Andrew Tridgell (Australian author of samba and rsync) and Linus Torvalds (Finnish author of Linux).
If Microsoft are getting genuinely worried about the GPL, as this article would suggest, then it would seem that it's working.
I personally cannot wait for the day when we don't need to worry about software licenses because there is no such thing as non-free software. Until that day, I believe we need to release (almost) all our code under the GPL, or we have the potential to unwittingly help those who are against freedom (witness the large chunks of BSD code within the various MS operating systems). Microsoft speaking out so strongly against the GPL proves that this is obviously the correct tactic to be taking.
--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Hey wow, I didn't catch that ftp uses BSD code the first fifty times I read it. Thanks for pointing it out. You people are so utterly pathetic, that you take one little utility out of the whole system and make it your, ah ... point? Assuming you had one?
As a matter of fact, can you point at any other command line utility besides ftp? You did say "any", didn't you?
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
The difference is that the GPL is based on copyright, not use.
With a EULA, you have a right to do anything you want with the software (the media's yours-- you bought it), until you open it. Then your opening of it binds you to the terms. Basically, the fact that you're using the software means you must have agreed to the license.
With the GPL, you can do anything you want with the software, except distribute it. The copyright is owned by the author, which means you don't have the right to distribute it, unless you accept the terms of the GPL.
There will never be a case of GPL violation that goes before the courts. If someone violates the GPL, they will be sued for copyright infringement. They will then have to prove:
a) that they accept the GPL
b) that the GPL permits what they are doing.
The problem with Microsoft's statement is that merely copying code that someone else wrote is NOT innovation!
Innovation is coming up with something new of your own. What Microsoft wants to be able to do is to take a piece of code developed by public funding and use it whole-hog in their own products. Clearly this not innovation, it is COPYING!
If someone releases a piece of code under the GPL that expresses an innovative idea, Microsoft is perfectly free to use the underlying idea in their products without encumberance, so long as they write their own implementation. How is this a threat to innovation?
Cimminy.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
I think it is pretty obvious which License is written with charity in mind, and which isn't.
What could be more unamerican than the destruction of a free market? One shoe fits all and by the way, it only comes in black. Enjoy your rental warez, sheep.
What could be more "american" that people communicating ideas and building a better future for all? When did greed and competition displace hard work and cooperation? (it's rhetorical, folks, i know when it happened).
Why shouldn't the government spend money on gpl coding and products? They are already spending horrendous amounts of my tax dollars in corporate welfare for Microsoft, every fscking year.
There right wing corporate welfare (Hi, Mr. Gates) and left wing social welfare (you could work, but ya don't).
I would very much like to see some seed money from the gov to open source and gpl projects. Just cut back on the MS welfare and spend it on Linux.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
So they favor the BSD license over the GPL because they don't want to give and take, just take.
Sounds a lot more like freedom to MOOCH than to innovate.
..but the question should perhaps be 'do we want IP in the software business?'.
I personally hope that IP ownership has reached its high water mark and will recede a little. I thank God that Knuth and numerous other giants didn't/wasn't able to patent all the algorithms they devised, otherwise every Computer Scientist would need to have an army of lawyers going over his code with a fine toothcomb.
I think that some form of IP protection is needed, but not the current 20 year duration that software patenting places on some ideas, or the injustices of the DMCA. A good wheeze for MS would be to write a new version of Windows with ROT-13 code and thus say that anyone who reverse engineers their products has broken the DMCA.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
It also doesn't make Microsoft good or bad.
I'd rather spend my time working out reasons to lower taxes, increase education spending, get rid of dumb ass George Bush for president and get the economy back on scale
And guess what, businesses need to make money off IP and everything else they make money off of to provide you software. Commercial/GPL/Free or downright public domain, it doesn't matter. Someone has to support it. Your dumb ass comment about "For every small company that can't make money writing GPL software, there are 500 that can make money by using it" is pathetic as well. How can software evolve if 500 people are using this piece of software in a different solution? Is the community not only supposed to use thee software but support it as well?
Don't you know that 99.9 percent of the people who exist and use computers, use them to solve specific issues? How can a computer be of assistance to people who want a solution rather then a piece of software for free?
I pay for a quality. Believe it or not, Microsoft's software as of lately is pretty damn amazing.
I've got a 1,200 dollar PC that can play MP3's, Watch DVD's, Surf the net, email friends, chat, do my taxes, play games, trade stocks, and most of all work.
I paid for that right, and i chose microsoft products on that PC because they are powerfull enough, simple enough and stable enough to get the job done.
I also chose linux for my server for the same reasons, powerfull enough, simple enough and it gets the job done. BUT i also BOUGHT linux becuase i don't have time to goober around with everything when there is a whole world outside begging time and i'd rather be out in this world then sitting around saying everything should be free.
This was a fairly big deal for me and I wasn't even on the Internet Explorer team. Imagine the grilling those guys got.
Other companies may covertly use GPL'd code, but Microsoft is very, very anal about avoiding it. They understand that they are a target; they are always under the spotlight and cannot afford the PR disaster that would happen if they were caught using GPL'd code in a non-compliant fashion.
They may implement something from scratch, or find an alternative, but it certainly won't be done by the same people involved in an audit of GPL code.
Best regards,
SEAL
First point, sure the GPL forces derivitaves and modifications to be released also under GPL and this IS more restrictive than the BSD and other liscences. I'm not that fond of it all the time either..... But Microsoft? Isn't that like the wolf calling the greyhound a threat to the lives of sheep everywhere? How open source software of any breed can possibly be seen a threat to innovation by Microsoft, land of NDAs and open-source rip-offs, is beyond me.
Secondly, the "intellectual property" that the GPL restricts ripping off of is NOT the same as restricted innovation. Do you see a cool and innovative idea that you want to use in your product? THEN WRITE THE SOURCE FOR IT FROM SCRATCH! Original works that are based on a premise or idea that isn't patented was fair game under US Code last I checked.
How GPL software can ever be more of a threat than closed source software in government work, software that always come with plenty of potential for sabotage and bugs and little peer review.... I'll never understand that argument.
Bill, fire this idiot.
A single thing is clear in the article. Microsoft is scared to death.
Finding why is quite easy. RMS wanted to kill IP, or at least to guarantee that you can use a computer without selling your soul. He deserve credit for starting the fight.
But MS didn't care about RMS.
Then linux came. A toy operating system. MS was a bit scared by linux, because it attacked its bottom line. They used FUD tactics against it, and failed miserabily, because it only gave linux more momentum. MS could have destroyed linux a few years ago (hiring key developers, releasing a MS linux, playing strong-arm with early adopters and media, dealing with EOM to close hardware, obfuscating protocols, actively detroying linux paritions at install, challenging the GPL, pushing BSD ahead), but the anti-trust trial probably prevented this to be done at full force (they did a bit of everything, but no real move). All in all they were not really scared.
Then, in a couple of years, IBM embraced linux, Sun embraced GPL, several office clones where released, desktop environments were becoming standard. This is scary.
What are the key applications of MS ?
* The OS. Free OS exists
* Internet Explorer. A key app to get people hooked to windows. Mozilla exists, and can't be destroyed.
* Office. Office clones exists.
* Backoffice. This is ta big advantage remaining. No open source product can stand against SQL Server or Analysis Services. But joe random user don't care.
* Visual Basic. Another advantage, cause it is the de-facto development standard on windows. They integrate it in every app, to make it ubiquitous.
* Third party apps. Mostly DirectX games (see around yourself people that use computers. What are the apps they use that have absolutely no free counterparts ? Recent games. Most lusers I know that run windows at home uses IE/OutlookExpress/Word and 5 or 6 games). Be sure that the x-box strategy is the to re-inforce that.
Anyway, FUD have been showed not to work.
GPL prevents embrace and extend.
Note that the sole protection (beside its huge amount of users) of 'open source' is the GPL. This is what prevent MS to "compete" (ie: getting inter-operability by using the code, modifying code, then preventing open-source to play catch-up).
Anti-trust trial is over (anyone that think that US govt will do anything is dumb beyond belief).
Microsoft is flexing its muscle and will probably try many simultaneous tactics.
Getting govt to refuse GPL would be a huge point to them. What they really want is probably to get universities to ban GPL (something like : you can't get govt fund if you produce GPLed code, or better, if you use GPLed code). It is a war for developer mindshare. It'll take years to get that. They need to pervert public perception of the GPL. They need to dramatically decrease the amount of GPL developpers.
Another attack angle that is obvious is the divide tactic. MS will play BSD against GPL. Unfortunately for them, the issues of GPL vs BSD are well known, and most intelligent people understand that both licenses have their use (and LGPL have its use too).
An interesting attack angle is the court challenge of the GPL. You can bet that millions of dollars are currently spent to find how, and to bribe key people. But will MS have the balls to challenge the GPL ? This would be a disastrous PR, in an order that have never been done before. They may loose big time.
Most promising angle of attack, is to totally change the rules of the game. Getting content protection into the hardware, promoting the use of 'trusted' system software and 'trusted' media applications, is a way to prevent *any* digital media to be delivered to open-source platform. OTOH, it is also a way to push people into a 'free' media system. After all, it is the proprietary software mess that started the free software movment. Making media distribution proprietary is perhaps the best path to a free-media system...
Anyway, the free software camp is getting stronger everyday. It will definitely be an interesting fight.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Allchin's concerns, eWEEK was told, stem from GPL paragraph (2B), which states, "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
... [which] might constrain innovating stemming from taxpayer-funded software development."
Are they saying that my creating/innovating something, then licensing it under the GPL so that it will exist in the state that I desire (free as in speech), is un-American? Isn't that what the Microsoft EULAs included with all their software, even their "free beer-ware", is designed to do?
In other words, Microsoft representatives warned, "anyone who adds or innovates under the GPL agrees to make the resulting code, in its entirety, available for all to use
How is it un-American for hundreds/thousands/one or two people who work for the government (any government) to take their paychecks (taxpayer money), purchase a PC and Net connection, and use those taxpayer-funded resources to create a mail/groupware client that will handle text/RTF/HTML/XML email, calendaring, To-Do lists, address books and collaboration WITHOUT automatically running the Virus of the Week before the user can stop it?
Perhaps it's because the GPL is not a profit/vulnerablility/upgrade-protection license.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
As for the GPL license, I don't particularly like the policy behind it, and I think RMS's recent approach to using it is too heavy handed. But, then, I don't particularly like Microsoft's "we own your firstborn son" licenses either. The legal foundations on which they are based are similar, and if Allchin complains about the GPL, well, he might lead the way and get rid of Microsoft's heavy-handed licenses. See, what Allchin is really saying is that he is concerned when other people use copyright and software licensing laws in ways that interferes with Microsoft's business.
And he probably senses that economically open source software is a threat to his company because open source makes sense: it is finally a good mechanism to distribute software development costs equally, whereas all Microsoft can offer is having customers pay hundreds of dollars year after year for "improvements" they don't want in the first place.
Well, tough cookies, Allchin. Basic economic theory tells us that in an efficient market, Microsoft won't be making much in the way of profit. So, learn to live with it, and innovate a bit on the software side for a change.
A tax is an involuntary monetary obligation to a ruler. Microsoft is not a ruler. You are not obligated to buy any of their products.
Have you ever tried* to buy a Compaq, IBM, HP, Acer, Dell, Packard Bell or other Complete Box WITHOUT Windows installed?
M$ has forced a 'tax' onto PeeCees through heavy handed OEM deals. Another reason they are a monoploy and must be broken into >10 pcs.
*I build my own boxes - but 98% of people do not.
Spot on. Moderators, up the parent of this thread!
/. readers with first hand experience with Allchin? (most people who survive a double-barreled "negotiation" with an experienced M$ hit-team tend to take the cash and move to a tropical beach or teach kindergarten and never touch a computer again).
Allchin is a thug. An intelligent thug, but a thug nonetheless. He plays the heavy in negotiations where M$ are trying to bully a smaller company into giving away their only asset for a pittance. Are there any
Allchin is a top-level M$ exec, and as such he must sit in high-level strategy meetings. Certainly the topic of these meetings is how to ensure their glorious leader can sleep better at night. So when a strategy committee punted around ideas on what is causing the holy emporer to lose sleep, the GPL came out as a major cause. The solution, obviously, is to attack the GPL by changing the laws it is based upon. If Disney can change copyright laws through the Bono act, M$ can tweak laws to eliminate the viral effects of the GPL.
So there is quite clearly a cleverly hidden M$ agenda to influence lawmakers in the US, and probably in the EU as well. Allchin just shot his mouth off to make himself seem smarter to some reporter, and tipped M$'s hand. Now they are in spin control.
If M$ follows their usual course of manipulation, there is already a "Political Interest Campaign" underway in Washington DC to "educate" senators on the evils of free software to the american way of life. There is a group of M$ lawyers creating some new laws which can be given to a senator's aides, and subsequently passed off as an original work by the "All-American Hero" senator. Those laws will change copyright slightly so the GPL loses its protections, and will cause the whole body of work to become public domain, or the copyright will be handed over to a "controlling IP body" similar to the MPAA/RIAA.
Others (TheDullBlade) are touching on these ideas in various threads, but missing the point on how the courts will be given new laws in which to invalidate the GPL.
Expect this to be a long and drawn out fight. I'll be keeping an eye on DG-13 activities for signs of changes to copyright law in the EU. Whatever influence M$ attempts in the US, they also tend to attempt in the EU.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Isn't that really saying that any GPL code you modified must be GPL'd and that when you sell the modified product you can't charge extra to give them the GPL licence. But can't you still charge for the code?
For example, I will give you this product for $20, but I can't offer to sell it for $10 under a non GPL license instead. Code costs whatever, but license must cost and be unconditional.
Granted if I sell it to you, you can give it away for free (or charge for the code yourself) but I still have ample opportunity to make money.
It's turtles all the way down.
Bear with me a moment. I'll get to what I mean by this.
Okay... MS's argument is that since the GNU license does not permit derived works to be non-free, programmers can't start with a GNU code base, improve on it, and make money off that innovation. Since programmers can't make money off of improving a GNU program, and trying to develop the same thing from scratch is much more expensive in terms of research, they won't be motivated to try. Their belief is that GNU software will lead to a propogation of mediocre software instead of the best that programmers can do (ignore for a moment the fact that this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black)
An exact opposite of this license (that is, closed source, where reverse engineering is prohibited) is equally, if not more imposing on innovation. If code is protected by law, not only can a person not use that code as a starting point for research, but in some cases, it may even prohibit independant development of an improved solution (a specific example of this being DeCSS). At least with free software the stuff can still be developed, but by prohibiting the innovation of new ways to solve problems which have been locked and sealed by the law actually stops anyone else from ever even developing improved code in the first place. Which is a greater imposition to motivation to improve on an existing program? Cost? Or the threat of legal action if you do?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It is worth noting that the GPL does not prevent Microsoft from using, improving or distributing the code. The GPL gives exactly the same right to Microsoft, as it gives to "the little guy".
The only thing that can prevent Microsoft from using GPL'ed code, is Microsoft itself. The restrictions imposed by the GPL, which are the same for Microsoft as for everyone else, may conflict with their business model.
This is one of those posts that will generate a lot of noise with only one signal: "Yeah, big surprise. They can and do rip off BSD so of course that kind of OSS is OK."
I think the real important thing to remember, and this may throw some logs on the GPL vs. BSD debate (although I hope we can avoid that) is that the GPL is working as intended. It's scaring the crap out of the guys who aren't willing to support the kind of freedoms that the GPL is engineered towards. Meanwhile, the BSD license falls in to an area that's total freedom in which everyone can do what they like, which is perfect for the juggernaut from Redmond.
I think at this point it should be painfully clear that the distinctions between Linux and BSD on a technical level are becoming slimmer and slimmer as they grow towards each other in terms of implementation, while the ideological gap caused by their licenses grows wider and wider.
In the end, I suppose it comes down to how much you value the freedoms of your rulers (i.e. Microsoft). Because rulers get special powers (such as the force of a monopoly) do they get to retain the same rights that you have that are in place largely to protect the little guy? Your answer to that question pretty much determines the license you should release your code under and vice versa, so choose wisely.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
The trouble, IMO, is that Micro$oft DOES have credibility...with old-school IT managers, CIOs, CEOs, and people who know more about their own companies' bottom lines than software development. So Micro$oft is going to pile onto any opportunity they can find, fake or manufacture to discredit anything that doesn't support their business model.
Just my two cents' worth...donate the change to your company's "educate the CIO" fund.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Two word: Cygnus Solutions.
/. is the new forum for your FUD campaign against GPL. Why do you hate it so much?
Prior to their buyout by Red Hat, Cygnus was a profitable company selling expertise around GCC (you know, Brett, that GPL'd Gnu Compiler Collection under that dreaded GPL).
NOWHERE DOES THE GPL STATE YOU CAN'T MAKE MONEY!!!! FSF Survived for years selling tapes of GPL'd software. GPL is anti-proprietary, not anti-commercial (learn the difference).
BTW: IDC survey numbers: Linux had 25% of the shipped server market in 1999. Up from 16% the year before. GPL sure is hurting Linux.
I guess you've decided
If that is what you're saying, that's quite an interesting point of view and I can only wonder how the courts would interpret that. I assure you that one day this will be argued in front of the Supreme Court.
-bugg
The real confusion is between selling and licensing. Microsoft does NOT sell Windows to consumers, it LICENSES it to them. Redhat does not SELL you Linux, it sells you manuals and support and LICENSES their distribution to you. It so happens that the license is free but the extras are not.
; 2b=b;2=1
Difference? You betcha. If I _sold_ something to you, that immediatly gives you the right to do pretty much anything you want with it (as long as you don't violate copyrights, trademarks, patents, or state laws). However, if I _license_ something to you, I can dictate whatever terms I want and I get to set the rules about what you can and cannot do with my product. The GPL strives, as I see it, to give the licensee as many rights as possible without damaging the rights or intention of the creators.
People really need to understand this difference. A lot of people still don't understand that they do not own that copy of Windows that's on their computer. It's owned by Microsoft and licensed to them. Linux users also need to understand that the creators of Linux have agreed to license them Linux at no cost (and considerable more rights than Microsoft gives).
Now what do the differences mean? That's a subjective interpretation that, if I were to mention, would get me a steaming hot pile of flame. no thanks.
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
First some assumptions:
1) You have the right to expect payment for software you have written.
2) You have the right to set whatever payment you want for the software you have written- if you don't like it (or think I'm asking too much), *don't use my software*.
3) Using someone's software without paying for it is *piracy*.
So far, I don't think I've said anything so radical that Alchin would disagree with me. But here comes the twist. I define the GPL as payment in kind. The cost of using my software is that I get to use *yours*. The cost of being able to modify my code is that I get to modify yours. Quid pro quo.
If you don't like this deal, DON'T USE GPL'D CODE.
Here's the punchline. By advocating that you should be able to use GPL'd source code without paying for it in kind, that is *piracy*.
...that courts will rule that GPL'd software is in the public domain, especially GPL'd software that doesn't properly specify contact information to negociate other terms or even who actually owns the copyright.
I mean, shrink-wrap licenses are weak enough when they explicitly state who you're forming a contract with.
I think the viral licensing clause puts it on very shakey legal ground.
I also think that it could well be argued that the license is prejudicial against commercial software developers with malicious intent. The FSF propaganda supports this ("It's exhilarating standing up to an evil empire." anyone?). This might be enough to break the GPL legally.
I just don't think the GPL will stand up in court against a serious attack by a large commercial interest. It really stretches the bounds of contract law, and was, after all, designed to attack proprietary software developers.
Then there's the question of whether a lawsuit against a GPL violator could actually be awarded damages. The copyright holder is not using his copyright to secure a profit for himself, and it's damage to just such a profit that's supposed to be reimbursed in a copyright suit; you're not supposed to be awarded damages just because you don't like the way the violator makes his living. The courts might very well toss out all cases as frivolous.
---
It's a commen myth, again repeated by the Microsoft drone, that says that software funded by public money is somehow different from other software and is somehow magically always Open Source. This is simply not true.
I've written software at several universities in the US and Canada. Generally either the *university* owns the rights and licenses the software -- take a look at the Internet Explorer "about" box some time -- you'll see that Microsoft licensed the original NCSA Mosaic source from the University of Illinois. The authors had nothing to do with that (as several of the authors left to found Netscape, I'm sure they weren't in favor of giving Microsoft a helping hand)
Or as in incentive for working there, a university may choose to give all rights to the originators. This is in fact the policy of the University of Waterloo and resulted in many spinoffs such as WATCOM and Open Text.
I have nothing against the GPL -- indeed I have written a gene-finding program that is licensed under it. However nothing except my own wish to do so required me to do so.
With this statement Microsoft is trying to obfuscate alchin's comment so it doesn't sound so stupid. That's where the taxpayer-funded part came in. It's just there to confuse, since it makes no sense and they don't elaborate.
They also pointed out very clearly their next target. It's the GPL and they have it firmly in their sights. Believe me when I say that, even as we speak, there are many lawyer man-hours preparing for a full blown attack of the GPL being paid for in Redmond. They are most likely preparing to come down on the GPL with all their might as soon as their antitrust case is resolved (or settles down, depending on Bush).
I will be anxiously awaiting Microsoft's big move as it is sure to be impressive.
"just connect this to..."
BZZT.
Liberty.
M$ is not trying to ban the GPL. They are trying to get publicly funded projects to use the BSD license instead. This is not an unreasonable request. Basically, if software development is funded by everyone's tax dollars, why should it be licensed in a way that discriminates against some taxpayers?
BSD licensed software can be incorporated into GPL software or proprietary software. Hence, it is symmetrical and unbiased in this debate. That is appropriate for something publicly funded.
Now, a good case could also be made for licensing publicly funded software under the GPL. Namely, that it is not in the public interest to encourage the growth of proprietary software, which has proven to be harmful. My point is that this is a legitimate debate (if you even think the government should be funding software development, which is itself a legitimate debate.).
I'm glad that gave this little clarification. I can only assume then, that they would have no problem with me writing shell to replace explorer.exe and copying a WinME CD with the replacement, and selling for my own $80 correct?
Feel free to point me to any false logic with that, until then I will be working on it, any feature requests?
Here's what they are REALLY saying now:
OK, open source is OK, when it is licensed under licenses like the BSD license where we can steal the code, "embrace and extend" it, and make it proprietary.
But that GNU license is UNFAIR COMPETITION... We can't make a MS Linux without having to reveal our source.. Sniff-Sniff. Why, that's UNAMERICAN to deny Corporate Rights...
Don't you all think that is pretty much what they are saying? That they hate the GPL because it prevents them from taking code and making it proprietary?
Also, I think it is obvious that MS is going to next try to challenge the legality of the GPL. M$ is trying to spin the GPL as evil, anti-American, etc to lawmakers and government types...
How do we counter this?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
But now Microsoft has basically said he's evil. Which I'm sure, deep down in his heart, he has been waiting for. :-)
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
I don't they want to get rid of the code. I think they just want to try and invalidate GPL so they can steal some code that is already released under it and claim that it furthers the inovation of "quality software".
Just because they say that's what they meant doesn't mean it's what they meant.
It's possible (hell, likely) that they were testing the waters-- seeing if anyone would support an "Open Source Software Is Evil" stance.
Now that they know it just makes them look dumb, they claim it's copyleft they hate-- which is something you'd expect them to hate.
And it all blows over.
Ummm, if it costs money to develop a GPLed app, that money goes to the programmers. They'll spend their wages just like they would otherwise.
:) (It's a joke!)
Seriously, what do you think would happen?
You'll actually *help* the economy by paying workers directly. Middle-class individuals tend to spend or invest more of their money than a company who would want to hold onto a lot of it in a very liquid state for emergencies.
So if you want $1B spent, give it to twenty thousand people, not to one large company.
So, this proves we should disolve MS corp, they harm the economy.
Can somebody explain to me the difference between a Microsoft EULA and the GPL? Both are 'by using this software, you're agreeing to the terms' type licenses. If the MS one is considered 'unenforcable' because you're not signing anything, negotiating anything, and need to accept it just to get at the software, why isn't the GPL? Not trying to troll, just honestly curious; they seem to me to be funamentally the same thing.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It only took them more than a decade to figure this out. What a crack legal team.
This is particularly amusing. Apparently the word "innovation" now means "take existing code someone else wrote, and sell it as your own after making possibly trivial changes". The BSD comments preceding this quote seem to support that conclusion as well.
It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of open source. It's a GLOBAL effort, not an effort funded solely by the USA taxpayers. If it was possible to measure value to the Open Source community as contributed by country, I'm sure Australia and Finland would be at or very near the top.
So perhaps Australia should send a great big invoice to the USA government, demanding payment for all the code the USA has been using for free? No, because that's not the point of open source. The point of open source is to increase the value of software to SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, not to the select few individuals that happen to be in the right place at the right time when IBM decides to throw money around looking for a cheap OS for a rushed personal computer project.
Closed source and proprietary do not require copyrights. Toss out the entirety of copyright law and they will still exist. In fact, the MS EULA is not even based on copyright law! It's based on contract law. Tossing out copyright wouldn't affect Windows one little bit.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And would the BSA storm in and stand up for our rights?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Trying to justify what came out of Jim Allchins mouth is making you look real bad.
A better approach would be to declare Jim Allchin an idiot, this way it doesn't make it seem like everyone at the company is in the dark, just this one moron heading up the windows software development.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Does that mean I pay a tax to Goodyear when I buy a Ford? Or that I pay a tax to the farmer when I buy a head of lettuce at the grocers? Wow! I need to get a new dictionary, mine is obviously out of date. And here I thought that a tax was something compelled by a party external to the economic transaction.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
They want to rip on only that code which they can't use themselves. (Techincally they *could* use GPL code, if they opend up parts of Windows' source code, but that's not going to happen.)
These hypocrites at MS aren't slamming open code in general, just open code that requires them to reciprocate. Code they can use without giving anything back for it they have no problems with.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Have a look at the GPL. Tell me about the freedoms it grants, and tell me it is not "Free".
Yes, "free" software will never be as free as that was in the public domain. Ever notice how little aoftware existed in the public domain, compared to what exists under the BSD or GPL? People desire protection when they contribute to a the commons, or they will hoard.
Come to the think about it, the BSD license does not really protect. But that is not your argument. You want public domain, not BSD. So go away, troll. I banish you.
The concept of free software is better, but the software itself is sometimes not.
My statement wasn't meant to imply that, though I believe it is often true. I meant "it is more desireably that a piece of software be open or closed", not implying a quality comparison between two specific pieces of software.
The enemies of Democracy are
Youre damn right that microsoft loves the BSD license. Take open any microsoft command line utility (ftp.exe used as example here) and what do you see????
Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Sweet Jesus! Is this what I think I see? Shame this isnt linux code instead of BSD code.
Right - Both IBM and Sun's business breaks down to this:
1) Hardware
2) Services
3) Software
4) Other
Microsoft's business is this:
1) Software
2) Hardware
3) Other
4) Services
Note the relative positions of Software and Services and think how Linux might fit into that picture...
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
MS won't last another 10 years.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Redhat, Caldera, Suse, Debian, et all *already* sell GPL code for profit. The issue is already settled.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It doesn't make sense! Even if billions of bucks are put into some public coding, the coding is still there. If Microsoft uses it as they see fit, that is linking it to their own code, the original code is as free as ever.
Look at it this way: I write 30,000 lines of code. This code is fine and can be used in a larger project of maybe 3,000,000 lines of code, should these 30,000 lines determines how the rest should be licensed?
It is a matter of choice, but for public money I would prefer that a non-political license is used, like the BSD, so some may use it in a GPL project, others in their own way. That is freedom.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
since the Microsoft tax is levied on hardware purchases from almost all major PC manufacturers.
The big difference between Microsoft and the government, is that Microsoft can only get manufacturers to pay them through persuasion. But no manufacturer has any choice about not paying the government tax. Voluntary versus involuntary. Huge difference.
If I don't pay taxes to the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board, I go to jail! On the other hand, I own a modern x86 computer that has never had any Microsoft software on it, ever. And I have absolutely no fear that Bill Gates can do anything about it.
We don't have "rulers" anymore (at least in democratic societies).
Please check out the etymology of "democracy" and find out what the _cracy_ part stands for. By "ruler" I did not mean a monarch. I meant a person or group of persons that can compel me through force to obey their rules, otherwise known as government.
---
Harsh words time: if Microsoft is compelling you to do anything, it is your own damn fault. Grow a backbone and start making your own decisions. If you don't want to purchase a copy of Windows, then simply don't purchase one! Of course it won't be convenient. Freedom has never been convenient. You're going to have to excercise your shopping muscles and find one of those manufacturers that don't charge for Windows. Or build your own. So what if it's hard! Who gives a shit! My ancestors fought and died in the Revolutionary war for freedom and here you are blaming Microsoft just because you're too lazy to shop around.
"You paid the tax! But I though you hated King George."
"Sorry, dear. It was just too much work throwing the tea into the harbor."
"Well, no matter. You'd better hurry because it's time for your Sons of Liberty meeting."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned