Open Source Is Bad [updated]

pjones writes: "This just in! Open Source is bad for companies and countries too. In a New York Times article (registration required), John Markoff reports that: "In a speech defending Microsoft's business model, to be given on Thursday at the Stern School of Business at New York University, Craig Mundie, a senior vice president at Microsoft and one of its software strategists, will argue that the company already follows the best attributes of the open-source model by sharing the original programmer's instructions, or source code, more widely than is generally realized." Singled out for particular rebuke and scorn are IBM and the famous GPL and its author Richard Stallman. Who will be there to cheer Craig on?" See also ESR's dispatch on same. (Read below for update with time and place.)

Update: 05/03 01:55 PM by T : cananian points to this announcement on time and place. The upshot: from noon to 1:30 p.m, in room 1-70 of NYU's Kaufman Management Center (KMEC), 44 West 4th Street.

Comments

Actually..

[Rob Kaper]

The GPL protects intellectual property.

The GPL was designed to keep free software free. Basically it gives you all the freedom in the world, except for taking away that freedom from others. Okay, I think we all know that.

Now apply the same logic to the intellectual property within the software. Just because everyone can benefit from it doesn't destroy the intellectual property, it is just being shared.

The GPL protects intellectual property from being absorbed by one particular entity, whether it be a person or company or organisation. The GPL was designed to do this.

Proprietary software protects the IP of the individual writing it. GPL is less egoistic. But of course, it's almost a crime anno 2001 not to be egoistic.

The right to innovate ?

[AftanGustur]

The real threat to future innovation and development does not come from Free code.

No, the real problem is when someone has come up with a brilliant idea, spent weeks/months writing it up in an application only to find out that he has "infringed" upon dozens of software patents in the process.

Now that is something that threatens future innovation.

--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D7272 C3AF4F2snlbxq'|dc

"threat to the intellectual property"

[T-Ranger]

Of commody, standard components, sure. Exactly. Thats the point.

Microsoft it making this argument from the perspective of (duh) a software company. And yes, OSS, and GPL software does very much undermine some practical aspects of IP.

But, the world is bigger then just software companies. Software is infastructure, and infastructure design must be open so that it can be inspected and independently verified. Putting 'freedom' and politics asside, software needs to be independently verified and approved for safety and reliability reasons.

This independent review could be done by something like a government agency, UL/CSA/ASA etc with a pool of 'anti-virgins' (in the reverse engineering sense), but moving to OSS satisifies this, and is the logical extreem.

Personaly, I realy dont care about having the source code, but knowing that my apps (well, the big, important ones) have had good independent peer review lets me sleep at nights. (well usualy, insomnia tonight...)

But they used the BSD TCP stack...

[Therin]

He says "The goal of the G.P.L. is sweeping up all of the intellectual property that has been contributed" and "people aren't very sophisticated about the implications of what open source means" and "This viral aspect of the G.P.L. poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it". Okay so he doesn't like the GPL - but MS used BSD's TCP stack, so I guess the BSD license is groovy. Funny, he didn't mention that in his speech.

Interesting MS response

[Peter H.S.]

First of all, Linux is good for Microsoft; they probably enjoy having an easily identifiable enemy to bash, and rally up against, since so few real MS enemies is left.

But it seems that MS have some trouble with crushing and destroying Linux; First, Linux really isn't a single company that can be killed or bought, or intimidated into submission.

At same time, "everyone" agrees, that Open Source has its advantages, and actually makes pretty good software that works.

The advantages with OSS (Open Source Software) seems so compelling, that even MS must stress, in the middlest of a full scale FUD attack against OSS, that MS software is kind of Open Source (see, a few hardware manufactures, and some Uni's are allowed to peek into some parts of our code). Really mixed signals.

OTOH; This FUD speak, targetting especially the GPL license, really underscores one thing;
Open Source, and OSI approved licenses, like GPL, really are a viable, long term, money making, market gaining, idea and force, or else MS would not bother.
Remember, this is not a random MS employee venting his personal opinions, but part of a carefully corporate campaign (see article). MS PHP's must have met to strategy meetings, made plans, exchanged emails, sought approval from Balmer/Gates?, and put lesser minions into action.

I guess it soon will be season for some serious MS "astro turfing".

Meeting is as 12pm in Room 1-70 of 44 West 4th St

[cananian]

Full details on the time/place of the meeting are available at http://www.cat.nyu.edu/pipermail/theloop/2001-May/ 000009.html. The message is quoted below. It looks like the room will be tiny, so show up outside the building with signs in plenty of time to be seen!

An invitation from NYU CAT Co-Director Mike Uretsky:

Craig Mundie, Chief Strategist of Microsoft will visit the NYU Stern School of Business this coming Thursday, May 3, from 12:00 - 1:30.

He is here as part of a trip to New York in which he will be talking about Microsoft's move towards open source. That discussion will take place in the Kaufman Management Center (KMEC), 44 West 4th Street, Room 1-70 from 12-1:30. It is really a discussion and the intent is to have a real and open dialogue.

Additional details are found below. Feel free to invite colleagues. In light of the fact that the room has limited capacity and I am providing food, I would appreciate it if you would take the RSVP request seriously.

Thanks

Mike Uretsky Co-Director NYU Center for Advanced Technology

A Unique Invitation

May 3, 2001
12:00 1:30
(Lunch Provided)

A Discussion with Craig Mundie: SVP and Chief of Advanced Strategies at Microsoft.

The Rapidly Changing Commercial Software Model A New Approach.

As the Internet evolves into the next phase, it becomes necessary to re-examine and modify the commercial software model. These changes take place within boundaries arising from the software development community, source code licensing philosophies and a framework of intellectual property rights. Microsoft Senior Vice President Craig Mundie will present The Commercial Software Model how Microsoft is positioning itself for success in this dynamically changing business world.

Since there may be extensive press coverage, it is important that you RSVP.

Re:horrible title

[Chris Marlowe]

"Open Source Is Bad", huh? Well, reading that I would guess that the author is implying that Microsoft doesn't like open source. No, that's not true. Microsoft likes open source, very very much - after all, huge portions of their networking system come from open source. Microsoft does not like the GPL. Please take note:
open source != GPL
... by no means is it the only type.

That's true as far as it goes. You understand that; I understand that.

The point the rest of us are making is that Microsoft seems to hope its audience at the NYU b-school (and PHBs overseeing IT decisions) won't understand that.

The speech, closely parsed, will only say (GPL == bad). Microsoft became what it is today on the strength of its insight that most of its purchasers are not skilled at close parsing. They will hear (open source == GPL) && (GPL == bad). Vice-presidents and CIOs will read about this speech in InfoWorld, and will soon be telling their tech staff, as Gospel truth: Run Apache, sign your business over to Stallman the Communist.

You imply that such an suggestion on Microsoft's part would be breathtakingly misleading and hypocritical.

Yes. And your point would be... ?

Well done propoganda by MS

[khym]

Hmmm... It seems that Craig Mundie's speech has a couple of intents which are logical: justify their closed source model to Wallstreet, and discourage companies from opensourcing existing software products. But I wonder how much that is motivating this speech, as opposed to the hope that people will come to illogical conclusion that they shouldn't use software based on a bad business model...

From the article:

Microsoft is preparing a broad campaign countering the movement to give away and share software code, arguing that it potentially undermines the intellectual property of countries and companies. [my emphasis]

Intellectual property of countries? As far as I'm aware, some public universities hold patents, and that's about as far as any country has intellectual property. And what university has any software patents? Are they trying to imply that, say, by using a GPL'd wordprocessor, any document written with it is "open source"?

In his speech, Mr. Mundie will argue that one aspect of the open-source model, known as the General Public License, or G.P.L., ... mirrors some of the worst practices of dot-com businesses, in which goods were given away in an effort to attract visitors to Web sites.

Yes, many advertising based web sites have bombed (mainly due, as others have pointed out, to the irrational obsession with click-through rates). But giving away software in the hopes of getting support contracts (which many open source companies use) is a different business model than giving away content to gain eyeballs, a model that some companies have managed to make profitable (like Cygnus).

G.P.L. requires that any software using source code already covered by the licensing agreement must become available for free distribution.

Yes, if there's some GPL'd code out there that you'd like to use for a non-GPL'd product, you simply don't use it; seems simple enough to me.

"I would challenge you," he [Mundie] said, "to find a company who is a large established enterprise, who at the end of the day would throw all of its intellectual property into the open- source category."

And no one is advocating doing anything of the sort as a business model; the only people arguing for whole sale opening of IP are people like RMS, who are morally opposed to IP. All the other opensource gurus point out that you should carefully consider what you should opensource, and how you should do it.

"We have been going around the industry talking to people," Mr. Mundie said, "and have been startled to find that people aren't very sophisticated about the implications of what open source means." He acknowledged that the open-source movement was making inroads.

Ohhhh boy. He's implying that there's lots of managers/executives who are seriously considering going opensource without knowing anything about the business model repercussions of it, without actually saying so (who did he talk to, about what implications?). Well done, Mr. Mundie, well done!

But he added that the company's proprietary business model was a more effective way to support industry standards than the open-source approach, which he said could lead to a "forking" of the software base resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of standard programs.

And how many times has this actually happened? Especially with GPL'd software?

"It is innovation that really drives growth," Mr. Mundie said, arguing that without the sustained investment made possible by commercial software, real innovation would not be possible.

If so, then Microsoft doesn't really have anything to worry about, do they?

"This is not understood by many sophisticated people," Mr. Mundie said. "The goal of the G.P.L. is sweeping up all of the intellectual property that has been contributed. That creates many problems downstream, many of which haven't come home to roost yet."

Eh? How could this happen? I guess that, say, branch A of a company could GPL it's software, which virally affects the base libraries the entire company uses, so software from branches B to Z of the company get virally affected. But this would assume that: 1) the company is using GPL without being aware of it's viral properties (unlikely), and 2) they can't release their base libraries under LGPL (which would contain the contagion).

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

Re:Gandhi's Four Steps

[kilrogg]

You have it backwards:

4. First we Won (the right to be microsoft free)

3. Then we fought (the hardware manufactures to release specs so that we could support more hardware)

2. Now we are laughing at microsoft for running around waiving their hands and pissing their pants scared.

1. Next we'll ignore them :-)

Mr. Mundie

[Isldeur]

Stramge. My family used to be good friends with the Mundies a few years ago, especially back when he was the CEO of Alliant. He seemed to be full of praise for X and UNIX then... :)

GPL Inc.

[e_n_d_o]

How about just thinking of the GPL as a corporation?

(before I go on, I don't know if anyone else uses this analogy, so I don't mean to steal anyone else's idea here.)

Anyway lets call the company "GPL Inc." GPL Inc. produces proprietary software, just like any other normal company. Funny thing is, the cost of all this proprietary software to the public is $0. And just like any normal evil corporation, there is no way in HELL that they are going to let you see their code unless you are an employee.

But everything's okay, because it's REALLY EASY to get a job at GPL Inc., you need not even fill out an application. Downside is the pay sucks, and the dental plan just isn't going to happen any time soon. By working for GPL Inc., you have access to the source of their vast collection of proprietary software. Just like an employee of a normal company, you can work on that software and improve it. But since you're an employee of GPL Inc. whenever you work on that software, all the work you do is the property of GPL Inc.

If you're company sells Linux boxes, you're just reselling software from GPL Inc. If your employees work on that software, they're being contracted out to GPL Inc.

So herein lies the problem: GPL Inc. is a massive international corporation. They just might write more software and have more programmers than even MS does. They write some of the best software in the world and people are starting to realize it. They have partnerships with all the big players in the industry, with the obvious exception.

And that is called competition, which is a very very bad thing.

--

just a few points

[vsync64]

He cited the history of Unix, which has been replete with incompatible versions.

Yes, partially due to the fact that each vendor was restricted from building on the work of others, and partially due to the fact that there were multiple vendors. You won't see "Bob's Win32", simply because Microsoft actively works to prevent such compatibility.

Once solid platform-independent implementations of the various UNIX tools became available, people began switching to them. For all the complaining people do about the various Linux-based OSen, they are remarkably consistent at the most basic user level (drop me on any GNU system and I will be able to at least find my way around the system, write code, etc). And this toolkit is available thanks to the GNU GPL and the enthusiasm RMS roused in the various developers.

Secondly, free software actually enables integration with closed platforms. For example, see Samba or Cygwin, which allow tight integration between Windows and Unix (no thanks to the "open" and "developer-friendly" Microsoft). And the first thing I and most other people do when confronted with a fresh Solaris box is to install a decent userland.

"It is innovation that really drives growth," Mr. Mundie said, arguing that without the sustained investment made possible by commercial software, real innovation would not be possible.

Uh huh. Sure. Let's take the WWW as an example, since everyone lately seems convinced it's the most innovative thing since sliced bread. It was invented by a guy at CERN, and Mosaic, the first massively popular graphical client, was written at NCSA. Since Web stuff became a commercial thing, exactly what "innovation" have we recieved? Bigger and more offensive ads and horrifically noncompliant HTML, that's what.

--

Gandhi's Four Steps

[TheFrood]

This has already been mentioned in this context, but I haven't seen it yet in this discussion. Gandhi's four steps to victory are as follows:

1. They ignore you.

2. They laugh at you.

3. They fight you.

4. You win.

Linux spent approximately a decade at step 1. Step 2 was hit this past year (I think) when Microsot ran an ad featuring mutated penguins in Germany. With these remarks, coupled with Allchin's earlier ones (Free Software being un-American and all that), it looks like Linux has entered step 3.

Pity. I was hoping step 2 would last a little longer, but I guess Microsoft isn't in a "laughing" mood these days.

TheFrood

Re:Message to Microsoft from a shareholder

[janpod66]

Java was natural language evolution: it was created out of a technical need for a simple language with features from Smalltalk, Pascal, and C++. When Sun created Java, they certainly weren't in competition with Smalltalk, Pascal, or C++ vendors.

C#/.NET, on the other hand, was a direct business response by Microsoft to Java. Microsoft saw that Java was doing well and couldn't bear to let Sun have the market. So, they came out with their own system that's incompatible but has an almost identical feature set. That's why C#/.NET is a Java rip-off.