Slashdot Mirror
MS VP Speech Online
mpawlo writes: "The widely debated Craig Mundie speech is now online." We tried not to run this, but there are too many submissions to ignore. Yes, much of what the guy says is nonsensical. Why not translate it into terms your boss can understand? For example, Mundie says forking code is bad. Here's the same thought translated into manager-speak: "Having multiple vendors competing to offer us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor who can sell the product to us at monopoly prices." Update: 05/03 8:19 PM by michael : Alan Cox has a response.
To play devil's advocate a moment, "a vendor that's guaranteed to be around in 10 years" sounds good to a manager too.
CD C:\Windows\System unless on NT
C:\WINNT\System32
Type FIND
You will then see something like:
---------- FTP.EXE
[7137]@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
This technique can be used to unearth Copyright info for other programs in your standard Windows directories, such as:
NSLOOKUP.EXE, RSH.EXE, RCP.EXE, FINGER.EXE, NTOSKRNL.EXE
Enjoy!
I think that with very small works, the problem is magnified all out of proportion. But for most small works, you probably can't even find the person who did it first. Nor are small works usually worth enough to warrant any real vigilance on the part of the creator to protect them. Infringement cases will also take intent into consideration. If it is determined that you willfully infringed on someone's copyright, you will likely be in trouble (i.e. trading Metallica MP3s), but if it's determined that the infringement was coincidental and/or caused no real harm, you'll probably get off very light or completely free.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
But if there was no intellectual property (IP) law, the GPL would not be *needed*. All code would be free for everyone to use. That's the whole point of the GPL -- to make software free for everyone to use as they wish. The GPL is just a trick to use IP law against itself. It creates nearly the same situation that would exist if there were no IP law. The only 2 exceptions I can think of are that GPL code cannot be mixed with closed-source code (evening the playing field for itself) and that the source must be easily obtained (without IP, it could be hidden, but you could still "steal" the original source or reverse engineer it).
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
IIRC, the proprietary software company concerned copy-protected its software with a parallel-port dongle. Some bright young hacker monitored the parallel port and figured out that if a certain sequence was sent to the dongle, a 128-bit sequence was sent back. He developed a small device which would do the same, and sold it for $500 - appoximately 1/10th the cost of the software.
Now, as it turned out, that sequence of bits was generated as the output of a small collection of flip-flops and the like on a custom chip - it was hardware. However, the software that checked the dongle stored the sequence directly. The hacker's device also stored the sequence directly as software.
And, after several appeals, the crux of the matter turned out to be that the arrangement of flip-flops and the like could be legitimately reverse-engineered, so if the hacker had have simply wired up some transistors that would have been legal. However, because the device contained the bit sequence - which was a piece of a copyrighted software program - the device was ruled to be infringing copyright law. So, at least in Australia, 16 bytes is enough to infringe copyright.
Whether that would extend to a 40-bit DVD key is, of course, open to question, but it would have been very interesting as to how Jon Johansen and his unknown colleagues would have fared in front of an Australian court . . . :)
After all that (and several other fascinating court cases as a technical expert), it was interesting that my lecturer took the view that software IP laws are a disaster area.
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
But now Microsoft says code forking is bad, so that means it is really good?
No, it's still bad. It just that Microsoft is claiming that Open Source is responsible for code forks.
Ironically, this is about as far as you can get from the truth while still being slightly based in it. You see, without access to source code, you can't have a code fork. What's there to fork if only the one party controls the code? However, to say that Open Source causes code forks is ridiculous.
You see, without the release of the original AT&T V7 source code to UNIX, there could have never been forks in the UNIX code base. What happened is that each proprietary UNIX vendor decided to add missing features to their systems to encourage people to buy their hardware. Without adding nifty new features to UNIX that other vendors didn't have, you didn't have as compelling a reason for customers to buy your hardware. Once you got them used to your API's you got to sit back and enjoy vendor lock-in. It was the lack of cooperation between vendors and their unwillingness to give their additions back to the community that led to the forking of UNIX.
Nowdays, in the BSD worlds, you still have code forks over political/philosophical differences. These led to the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD camps. The difference between what happened to the commercial UNIXes and the modern BSDs is that the modern BSDs can take advantage of what their rivals have done! While there is different focus in what they are improving, each group gives its contributions back to the whole BSD community. This means that security audits in OpenBSD can turn up flaws that can be patched in FreeBSD. New ports done by NetBSD often turn into the basis of new OpenBSD ports. Heck, even Darwin may have contributed a good HFS+ filesystem layer that the others can adapt.
Microsoft is also being a huge hypocrite whenever they talk about code forking. Hello? Windows 95/98/ME vs. NT/2000? Oh, and there's Windows XP/2002 now -- a professional vs. consumers product fork in grand NT tradition. If you've ever once looked through MSDN, you've probably seen the functional documentation about how this or that function does one thing on 95, another thing on 98, and yet another thing on NT. Don't even get me started on WinCE, either. Microsoft is the pot calling the kettle black. However, since the forking of UNIX has long been one of it's greatest derided problem, and since most people aren't really aware of the differences between Windows versions under the hood, they can get away with it.
That's what irritates me most about this. MS is completely misrepresenting the truth. It's not that code forking is suddenly good because MS is demonizing it. It's that the situation isn't as bad as it once was, it's that it isn't that different from their own products, and it's that it was the commercial interests that caused the problem in the first place.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Let me get this straight. We tried not to run this, but there are too many submissions to ignore. Tried not to run this? So it's all right to post a preview of a speech, along with ESR's preemptive strike against it, but there's no need for another post once the speech is given? At least Slashdot readers know a big story merits hearing from both sides. Too bad the Slashdot crew is clueless in that regard.
Also, the government using the GPL is completely correct because it was paid for through tax money. Saying that it is "walling if off from commercial business" is a half truth. It is mandating that commercial business may not wall it off from the people that paid for it.
t
But now Microsoft says code forking is bad, so that means it is really good?
One thing from this article, and others that gripe about the GPL, is the basic fact that GPL'ed code doesn't go where it isn't wanted. Microsoft clearly isn't speaking about its own business practices when they warn against the GPL - they've obviously been staying away from it so far. What they're doing is using their weight, their influence, to warn companies away from supporting the GPL.
The GPL is very easily avoided. Yes, it's viral - if a license can be considered 'viral.' It does 'infect' the derivative works. That's what it's for. Microsoft is right when it says that this makes it more difficult to sell products - and certainly if a product can't be sold, it could be viewed as 'removing incentive.' (Odd that such a phrase, commonly used to argue against higher taxes, would be used to argue against reducing the so-called "software tax.")
But, as others have touched on, GPL'ed code isn't forcing itself down the throats of commercial developers. No one is forcing anyone to take the metaphorical hypodermic full of GPL. Think you can make a better grep, and sell it? Fine. Provde it. But don't use GNU grep code without giving back.
More importantly, it should be noticed that Microsoft objects to GNU software because it takes a price - a price that is paid to the community at large, not to a specific individual or company. GNU software may not charge for anything besides the distribution costs (not that it couldn't!) but it does charge you with the responsibility to give back.
These are things we all know. Microsoft isn't willing to pay that price. The so-called Shared Source is an attempt to appease the desires whetted by the OSS movement. No one is allowed to give back to the community once they look at this source code.
The biggest shame in this whole situation is that Slashdot may be the most public place for OSS and Free Software advocates to respond to these nonsenses.
I just got through reading Mundie's comments all the way through. I found little if anything with which to disagree.
"Having multiple vendors competing to offer us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor who can sell the product to us at monopoly prices."
You are looking at things through Slashdot colored glasses. Mundie wasn't referring to monopoly vendors or even competing vendors offering products implementing the same standard. He was referring to competing vendors all trying to push slightly different standards, with no clear winner. Interoperability is a costly problem. Transferring files between Macs and PCs causes problems all the time, and that's just two platforms.
Most importantly, Mundie stood up for independant developers. There is one fault I can find here. I think reducing or eliminating the cost of MS development tools would be much more beneficial to independant developers than revealing source. I would much rather get MSVC 7.0 for the price of the CD than look at source code that belongs to MS.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This story was, so I just replied to it and attached my message. I really do not sit around hoping a story like this gets posted. :)
(Moderators, mod this down if you wish, I don't care, but you are better off modding up more useful articles)
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
For example, the original purposes of the mental health industry were to help government and big business control populations and to control markets. The classic historical example of this is Nazi Germany.
After the war, many companies wanted to make use of the techniques to improve their markets, politicians wanted to advance their causes etc, all taking a page or two for the Nazi play book. But they did not want the stench of the association.
Now we all know that these are honorable men, and that these end goals of control and manipulation have been set aside by the vast majority of governments and organizations around the world.
But here and there we see a hint of the old technique. You redefine the word. You include just enough of the truth, and twist it with a lie, that it requires a sophisticated understanding to spot what is wrong.
to quote Hitler (full chapter here): given variously as (depending on translation:" ... all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." (or alternatively) "... an effective propaganda has to limit itself to just a few points and must keep repeating them in the form of catch phrases for as long as it takes to have ascertained that even the very last person understands under these words what one wants him to understand." The full chapter makes fascinating reading, especially when comparing it to MS Marketing FUD and tactics.
Ultimately a lie *will* backfire, however, because people see through it and hate you for it. It may take a while, a long time.
Therefore the best PR campiagn is not based in lies, but is uses real truths.
But the MS marketroids resort to twisting and distorting the facts
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
From the speech: "Despite the demonstrable success of the computing industry and the IP-based economy, and the clear failure of newer firms that gave away products for free"
;)
Yes, MS has been quite smart about not giving software away for free!
Well, except for that whole Internet browser thing.
And Outlook Express.
And perhaps a bunch of little utilities that come with the OS
Oh, and all those fonts and clipart from their website.
Hmm... what was MS saying about the folly of giving away IP freely?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Somebody was sitting around with the ctrl key already pressed and just waiting for Slash to post a MS story... =)
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
The primary point of this article is that Microsoft is simply saying that they need to maintain a viable business model. Giving away your code for free, or even letting other people copy your code is usually NOT a viable business model. Microsoft does not develop custom projects. They develop general use products for the public. If they were to release the source code for Windows, there'd be absolutely no reason for anybody to buy Windows, period. It could easily be re-copied, and re-packaged. They're NOT in the custom software business, so while companies like RedHat can make a tiny bit of money (and I do mean Tiny) from doing some custom projects, Microsoft is not structured like this. They DO sell the exact same software to millions of people. It makes no sense, whatsoever for Microsoft to open source their products. That's all this article is about.
That's a bit specious, considering that software developed by the government is required to be public domain. Does that mean the NSA's mods are not GPL, but Public Domain?
The Public Domain nature of taxpayer-funded development of software is why TCP/IP is an open protocol. Funny how Microsoft has never complained about the Public Domain aspect of government-developed software, but the GPL gets them hysterical...
---dragoness
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this part added in a much more recent edition of Gates' book? Even in 1995, Gates viewed the Internet and the World Wide Web as nonentities.
-A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
What you fail to realize is that the whole concept of copyright protection is something that the governement/people gives to businesses so that the people will benefit. Not so that companies can benefit -- that's just the means to the end. Microsoft is implying that the government needs to protect the means, even if the end is no longer being achieved. But that doesn't make sense to the people unless there is some benefit the people will get. But Free Software already provides that benefit.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I've wondered how the NSA (as well as Becker's drivers) can put stuff under the GPL. Without Copyright, there is no GPL. But the Federal Government can not get copyright protection. Everything produced by the Feds exists under the public domain.
I can imagine that a GPL project can incorporate stuff from the public domain (just as commercial software can), but I can't see how things like Becker's drivers alone or NSA patches can be GPLed. MS ought to be free to use any of that code in any way they see fit.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
They're NOT in the custom software business, so while companies like RedHat can make a tiny bit of money (and I do mean Tiny) from doing some custom projects, Microsoft is not structured like this.
This is true. However, no where are Microsoft, the members of the RIAA, the members of the MPAA, or any other enterprise ever given the guarantee that the business model that they have freely chosen will always be profitable. Times change. Technologies change. Markets change. Adapt or die.
Change and progress are good. They wash away the dead wood institutions in our society, while vital ones adapt and prosper.
How to fight this? Explain that the GPL puts no restriction on the use of the software. If you can get GPL software you are free to use it as you see fit. The only things the GPL restricts are copying, distribution and modification.
On the other hand Commercial software, especially Microsoft software has harsh limits on how it can be used. Hence the term "End User License Agreement". Tell 'em they'll never have to click through one of those for an Open Source product.
Next mention that the only way you'll be affected by the GPL is if you want to copy, distribute or modify GPL software. You can use a GPLed editor like GNU Emacs on a GPLed system like Linux to write proprietary software if that's what you want to do. If you're not writing software that links with or uses GPLed code, selling or giving away GPLed software you don't have to worry.
Explain that when Microsoft's code leaves their building it's "hands off". You can look, but you can't touch or even show other people. Their "shared source software" is at best a learning tool for other people. At worst it's a means of trying to get cheap student labour to find and fix their bugs for them.
As for standards, explain that Microsoft is infamous for embracing a standard then extending it so that nothing works with it. Explain that this would be fine if it weren't for their monopoly which basically makes an open standard into a Microsoft standard. Tell them that by its very nature, Open Source software is open standard. If you want to know how something works, just look at the source.
Finally explain that the only reason Bill Gates and Microsoft can give so much money away is that they've made such obscene profits on their software. Explain how if an Open Source company were on 95% of desktops it would never have that kind of power because everything it made would be open and freely available. Explain how many eyes make bugs shallow. Then say "if you love something, set it free". *grin*
Any other suggestions?
Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me whether MicroSquish code is ever available under an Open Source license. Mozilla has shown us that opening your source code doesn't necessarily make for a better product.
What's wrong with windoze, is not that I can't read the source. What's wrong with it is that it's unreliable, unsecurable, incompetently designed, and bloated as all get-out.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm inclined to agree with Microsoft and my objection is with the people who invoke Perl and BSd to defend Eazel and Napster.
Alright, what the heck does Napster have to do with ANY of this?? Napster wasn't open source, and don't you dare make the arguement that it operates like open source. With Napster, users download copywrited material and share it with others. With OSS, programmers share their own work and creations with their peers for them to improve and use how they wish. I don't see how they are similar what-so-ever. In ESR's editorial on this very speech he warned that he would try to group OSS, Napster, and software piracy under the same heading. I personally don't understand MS's objection to the GPL, except that they can't take the code and sell it. This "viral" activity of the GPL is only a problem to companies who wish to exploit the code. If everything was distributed under the BSD license, MS would be happy as can be, they would just keep taking the code as they needed and marketing it as their own.
John
We all go a little mad sometimes.... haven't you?
They also gloss over the fact that if you write original (not derived from any other product) code and release it with a GPL license, you're absolutely free to license it out to someone else under a different license. If a company wants to use it in a proprietary product, they can come and offer you a shitload of money for you to allow them to do so.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Linus, as usual, used his own metaphors, to enlighten the press and non-geeks. IOW, he simplified my question, de-jargoned it and answered it plainly and honestly. His metaphor was a tree with branches, and that brought up the 'splinter' comment.
What wasn't reported in the article, was how he ended his answer, and I clearly remember this: That was also the year I recognized why I admired and supported the OSS movement.
When Gates was done with his speech, he was hustled off-stage by an army of handlers and into a waiting limo, looking neither left nor right, and interacting with none of his so-valued cutomers.
When Linus was done, he and his wife and children hung around the show floor. His wife pushed the stroller around, and, despite the press and admirers, he kept his focus on them. After the show floor closed, there was a gathering sponsored by one of the early Linux companies. Linus was there with his wife and kids. They mingled for about two more hours, then someone suggested Buster's for video games and more beers.
In contrast to Gates, his handlers and the limos, the last I saw of Linus that night, he was piling with his wife and kids into a mini-van, on their way to Busters', with mad-dog and a bunch of geeks (Can I bum a ride? situational carpool).
NO MATTER HOW GATES AND COMPANY SPIN IT, _THAT'S_ THE TRUE SPIRIT OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE....and that's why we will win, AND THEY WILL LOSE.
Hell, they already have.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
I didn't have a huge problems with the first half, other than a few veiled hints at where the article was going. I did get a chuckle when I read the paragraph talking about .net.
Now, they start moving on to the negative points of OSS. Not that I don't think OSS has it's problems. In some of these places I think microsoft may have some points - but they often exaggerate them or extend them to places where I don't think they are applicable. Some things they say:
Unhealthy forking that leads to incompatability. At first, I thought "This is stupid, it doesn't happen". But in one way it does. Look at the different releases of redhat. A program compiled for RH 7.1 most likely won't work with redhat 6.2. Now, I don't call this "forking" as much as I would call it "Upgrading". Microsoft has exactly the same problems with their operating system upgrades as well though. The difference is, when you upgrade an operating system or one software component, often you have to upgrade others. With OSS it's easy, get the source and recompile. With MS it costs money. His point on the GPL and including other peoples code is ridiculous. I'm glad he gets his information on licensing of the GPL technically correct, but what he is complaining about is just silly. In the proprietary world you can't include someone elses proprietary code in your program and release it, right? So why would he even care that he can't take GPL code and include it in his proprietary code? Whats the point here? If you want your code to be proprietary, just write it all yourself. To those who write and release proprietary code, GPL code is nothing more than "someone elses proprietary code". Now him saying "The viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it" is just plain FUD. Sure, if you take the damn code and use it in your code, it affects you. If you just use GPL software as 'end-user' software, you have no problems.
They talk about open source business model being support or hardware oriented. They claim that it will fail due to the falure of similar attempts earlier by other companies that are support or hardware specific. For sure he can't be talking abut SUN (who still makes a great amount of money by selling hardware and developing enterprise quality operating systems). This model does work. But the good thing about OSS is that it is not tied to a company. It existed before the companies sprung up to support it and it will exist even if some or many of the companies die. It will always provide a valuable product to the community and end-users who rely on the product. When companies like microsoft die, you are stuck with a pile of binary garbage that will never be maintained, upgraded or fixed.
Ok, their real point here is that mass-marketed products tend to not do so well with either of these models. I think Microsoft may be partially right here. For example, selling PC games (not online type games) will never work in a "support" model, nor would it work in a "hardware business model" either. The only way to really support cool single-user games that require lots of R&D, quick development times to be competative, etc is to support them by paying customers. This is why I think the number and types of free games doesn't even come close to the numbers and quality of commercial games.
Free software is better suited for cool apps that have longer development cycles, like a word processor, or operating system. Things that aren't "completely redone" every few months like computer games are. Ok, maybe even computer games will start slowing down once we achieve near-realistic graphics and people can focus primarily on content. But for some reason or another, I think the game industry still has quite a bit of evolution to go through though.
Microsoft's primary business model is *not* games though. It is Operating Systems and Office Applications. Given time, and number of upgrades, I believe OSS products WILL catch microsoft products. Right now microsoft does have the lead in end-user software such as word-processors. Already, we notice that micorsoft is digging and clawing for new ideas to "differentiate" or give a "competative advantage" to their products over others. The failed "Paperclip" is one example of an attempt to differentiate office from other products. The question is, how long can microsoft continue to justify paying more and more money to upgrade their apps? Microsoft themselves know this is a dead-end. This is why they created ".NET"! There's no need to force people to upgrade if they pay monthly fees. If they can change the thought process of the users that "Users don't own software" "Users buy a service", their business will live into the future.
--
Twivel
Open-Source is a threat to Microsoft's business model and, as a business, Microsoft is making the decision to attack its biggest threat. This will include exaggerations, leaps in reasonings, and a lot of FUD. The important concept to take away from today's meeting is that Microsoft is *very* smart. They understand open-source. They understand the weaknesses of the open-source community. And they are attacking them with full force.
Gathering thoughts from a few open-source hackers at this meeting today, it seems Microsoft is leading a 3-pronged attack:
What Microsoft is doing is simple: they are taking away the easy open-source arguments, and muddling the complex ones. Whether you think their message rings true or not is irrelevant: they are making a solid marketing case. The Open-Source community had better be ready to respond.
Before I begin, I should point out that open source means different things to different people. I will assume that Microsoft is talking about Open Source that meets the Open Source Definition. That is, the source code must be freely available. The software must be freely redistributable. Other users must be allowed to modify this code and distribute them under the same license. Note that there is no limit on charging for distribution, though specific open source licenses may indeed prevent this. Also, once you have distributed the binaries, you must also distribute the source if requested.
Microsoft points out that open source often leads to forking of the code base. This is indeed sometimes true. However, shared source/commercial source does not prevent this. Witness Microsoft's operating systems. Windows CE, Windows 9x (including ME), and Windows 2000. In fact, Windows 2000 is perhaps even a clearer example of a code fork as it is available in at least four different binary versions (Windows 2000 Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Dataserver), each with a slightly different code base. Even ignoring this, each one of Microsoft's operating systems shares a common lineage, MS DOS, though Microsoft has sometimes started fresh.
The viral nature of the GPL, the Gnu Public License, is the next thing Microsoft takes issue with. They point out that once software is licensed under the GPL, all derived software is also so licensed. This is absolutely true and is certainly something that companies need to be aware of. However, there is a flip side to this argument. Say I write a new browser and release all the source code under the GPL. Now, my intellectual property is protected in the event that a company comes along, takes my source code and makes minor modifications and then sells it for $250 a piece. Saying that the GPL is a threat to intellectual property implies that the GPL abhores intellectual property and this is certainly not the case.
Microsoft also points out that the GPL undermines commercial software development. This is somewhat true. If I GPL a word processor, I am quite unlikely to be able to sell thousands of copies of it because anyone who purchases a copy can turn around and distribute it for free. However, Microsoft seems to be ignoring one thing. The majority of software developed for profit is developed for specific customers. Programmers or development houses are contracted to develop a specific solution for a specific customer. This customer then pays for the delivery of the software. Open source software (and indeed, GPL'ed software) does not affect this proven business model at all. The only problem would be that the customer could then freely redistribute the software or modify it without paying the developer. This essentially prevents the developer from selling the exact same software to another customer.
This is important. Please note that open source software does not require that you give your software away for free. You are quite free to develop it for a significant price, making all your profit from this development. Microsoft seems to ignore this.
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
And indeed that many OSS people seem to only be vaguely aware of, is that the GPL *depends* on intellectual property law to function.*
It is not public domain. It is the fully copyrighted work of the author who *allows* you to use it *under license.*
It is no more viral than the commercial license which seeks to 'infect' your pocketbook. Over, and over, and over again.
The GPL 'infects' your code by allowing you to take is WITHOUT financial recompense, which it would be perfectly within the rights of the author to demand, and asks only that if you modify the code to give those modifications back under the same terms that you obtained the original code * for free.*
Noone holds a gun to your head and tells you to use GPL code. If you don't like the terms of the license, don't take the code. Just as some say about commercial licenses. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it.
GPL code HAS a pay structure. Don't dance if you don't want to pay the piper, who in this case is only asking to be allowed at the banquet table.
The irony is that MS is bashing a license that is * totally in keeping* with its own from a legal standpoint, and only exists BECAUSE of such intellectual property laws as protect MS's rights.
If the GPL destroyed intellectual property it couldn't, itself, exist.
KFG
Sound anything like, oh say, IE?!
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
All in all, I found what was said to be rather accurate, and it is interested to see Microsoft moving itself towards a Shared Source model. 2 years ago, I never saw any source. I found it kind of humerous that they included their "samples" as a significant contribution of source code, and that they boasted that "100 universities" had the source code. But all in all, it was rather rational.
This is coming from a guy who volunteered for the GNU booth at LISA (sysadmin conference), writes GPL'ed software at home, advocates Free and Open Source software at work, and teaches free classes on programming twice a week in his free time. Honestly, this article seems like a nice concise representation of the issues that we are facing in the technical world, and the licensing tradeoffs as well. It is a remarkably centered piece, especially considering that it's coming from Microsoft. Maybe it's coming from their Biz department, rather than Marketting.
However, I wouldn't take the article as a sign of the impending doom or non-use of GPL'ed software. As another /. reader said, it's good to view GPL'ed and OpenSource software as software belong to a single company (GNU?), namely, the company consisting of all contributors.
I believe quite strongly that Free and OpenSource software will overcome Microsoft.
First, the very thing that allowed Linux to exist in the first place, the life blood of Free/OpenSource Software, namely, communication, is becoming cheaper and easier. We are watching a bandwidth and connection revolutions. As barriers to communication come down, the success of Free and OpenSource software will increase.
Second, as more and more people become involved in the computing world (and they are coming, they are definitely coming- just look overseas) and the online world, the # of Free and OpenSource developers will increase. I believe that our numbers as Free/OS software developers are, and will, increase faster than the # of employees at Microsoft.
That KDE and GNOME (particularly KDE) would cease development because OS/Free software isn't a viable business model would be a faulty conclusion. KDE is not a business. Go to the KDE web page and tell me that they're running a business. It's very clearly a community.
We can build our own operating system, and as developers, it's just sort of our nature to do so.
Anyways, Kudo's to MicroSoft for a well written summary, and a "Yay" if they actually follow through on their commitment to share their source.
Back to my side of the fence: Yay KDE! Yay GNOME!
I think is what Mundie is trying to announce. Of course their 'Shared Source' is a load of crap, but I get the hint that Microsoft is truly starting to realize that a lot of their potential developer base gets more serious systems development done with OSS tools and libraries. They're trying to treat the Open Source philosiphy the same way they treated Java. Embrace Open Source and 'fix' it, until it benefits Microsoft.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
By making the source under glass more readily available, is MS undermining a persons ability to work on open source projects.
If more people are allowed to see the source does this increase the likely hood of IP litigation if programmer X has been in the vicinity of MS source and later works on an open source project?