Try "Shared Sores"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
At least for end users.
Re:Sounds suspicious...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
It is communist, you see communist governments rely on shared-government, where all get some.
Good, upstanding, smart, Capitalistic governments rely upon Open-government where you can see what happens and defend your interests.
Therefore shared-source is a threat to democracy, and capitalism!!! Shared Source Must DIE!!!
What is more I have a list of 52 high ranking members of the US government that use shared source, and thus are TRAITORS!!!!
Bonfire at 11
OK, I'll go have a look now.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Wow! This shared source stuff is great! I'll go fix that BSOD in NT that's bugging me!
/me hunts on Microsoft site...
Hmm. The source is nowhere to be found.
What's the point of shared source if you're only sharing it with the companies that give you large amounts of money?
Buy RedHat!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Buy your wares from RedHat and keep them in
business. As a responsible ISP, we buy several
copies of RedHat software and have joined their
ISP program. These guys are doing great things
for everyone. Help keep them in business and
show the world that Open Source software can make
business sense.
It is an art, but it's not a new one
by
Cardinal
·
· Score: 2
Trust me, they aren't missing the point. They find magnificent ways to couch ideas that they don't like in a negative or deterring way.
(snip)
It is almost an art the way MS does this stuff.
Yes, but it's not a new art.
There's a great breakdown of MS's use of the fine art of disinformation here. (The analysis is about a third of the way down)
Fact: Any programmers working on Linux kernel must release his work under Linux's current kernel license
That's not exactly true. Any programmers working on the Linux kernel WHO WISH TO RELEASE THEIR WORK must do so under the current kernel license. However, one is not required to release one's work. If a company hired some kernel guy to change some minor thing on their own server, in the linux kernel, and that was not part of a released product, but just something used internally by the company, that change would not need to be distributed.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If astro-turf is fake grassroots efforts this is either very poorly done or satiricaly fake astroturf. Its +4 Funny either way!
~^~~^~^^~~^
Sharing? More like a source code loan.
by
Craig+Maloney
·
· Score: 2
Would somebody please tell Microsoft that their definition of "sharing" is more like a loan than sharing? When you share something, you don't expect to get it back (ie: sharing brownies). When you loan something, you still retain ownership (ie: loaning someone a book).
(Of course I'm sure the source code loan program probably doesn't have the same alliteration and "feel good" tendencies that sharing source code does.)
Hmm. The GPL requires that derived works of a licensed work must also be released under the GPL. It does not require that unrelated work written by GPL software users be released.
Is this viral? It seems to me that if we're looking for biological metaphors, it would be more accurate to call it hereditary or heritable. GPLed code doesn't go out and infect your work. Rather, if you choose to "breed" new software from GPLed code, that software inherits the licensing traits of its parent.
Hence, you might be asking for legal problems if you have a developer contributes to GPL code at home, and writes closed source during the day, since he might have taken derived ideas to the work code.
I'm pretty sure the sorts of lawsuits you're probably thinking of -- suits filed by one company against another which has hired away some of the former's programmers or engineers -- are rarely over copyright, which is what the GPL covers. They're over trade secrets. If they were over copyright, they would be easily settled: see if there is substantial code in common; if not, no problem. As for trade secrets, a project that releases its code to the public under the GPL cannot be said to hold any trade secrets. Thus, I'm not sure the threat you're discussing actually exists.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note, as you do, that "GPL hasn't been tested in court." Isn't that just another way of saying that nobody has ever been sued over GPLed code? Considering that the GPL has been around since 1984, that's some sort of track record. How many closed-source software companies are there which have been around for sixteen years and have never sued or been sued?
Since processes can be patented and trademarked, they must also be copyrightable.:) This means that Microsoft's "Shared Source" scheme is a copyright violation, as there are plenty of schemes that do the same thing.
(Furthermore, copyright doesn't have to be registered. It has a de-facto existance, from the moment the work is created.)
Anyone want to sue Microspot?
-- It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I just love the way that they disingeniously talk about a software license 'infecting' a program.
[O]ne of the dominant open source license [sic] -- the GPL -- is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL.
Programmer: Here ya go, boss, the latest build of our really important software product...
Manager: [scanning the source code] You idiot! See this line here? 'i++;' That's directly from the Gnu Emacs source! Its GPL License has infected our revision control system! Now we've got to release the whole thing to the world, source and all... there goes the quarter! I *knew* you should have set lawyer traps in the hallways!
Programmer: How DARE they try to take the code I've written and make me give it away for free just because I took code someone else wrote and used it for free!
Awwwh, hell. This is nuts.
by
Pathway
·
· Score: 1
Man, this is crazy. All of this. Every part.
Linux is an awesome operating system. It's unix background makes it extremely compatiable (across platforms) while it's easy to use interfaces (Bash, Gnome, KDE) allow anybody to use it. It's open source, so I know that people that CARE are working on it, and not some kind of software merc.
Windows is the operating system that all the games I want to play is avaliable on. Everything runs on it, and I can trust that all the companies for my hardware are going to support it to the best of their ability, otherwise the would go out of buisiness. It's closed source, bloated and the same thing from 6 years ago, but none the less, it works.
Microsoft is scared. What are they afraid of? Having to lower the cost of windows to $60. Think about it: If the full version of Windows was $60 retail, microsoft would be loosing half of it's income from OEMs. Linux isn't scaring microsoft int the least. Linux's price tag is. (okay, that's probably not all of it, but it's gotta be haunting MS.)
I like free software. I like Free software too. I also like the software I go out and buy. (Mainly Games, but some other apps as well.) I think that the basic functionality of a computer system MUST be free.
MS: Write a new version of windows: Call it "Windows SS" (SC stands for "Shared Source"). It should be a desktop GUI with a start bar, no free aplications, no utilities, no media players... Nothin'. Just a GUI file loader. Make is avaliabe for download (Source and Binaries) for free to anybody who wants it. Have some kind of crazy License agreement that states that any program derived from this source is Microsoft property. Then sell the "Full" version of windows, with all the bells and whistles.. Charge what ever you want, I don't care.
Arrrrrg.....
That's it! I'm buying a Gameboy Advanced, and forgetting about all my troubles.
</rant>
Re:The FAQ... (satire, honest)
by
Genom
·
· Score: 2
(parent mod: +1 funny if I had mod points)
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Cool part is I can actually see the campchaos guys doing something like that;)
Have you heard of the LGPL? I think you will find that almost all equivalents of MicroSoft's "libraries" are covered under the LGPL, which specifically allows exactly this.
LGPL is more free than MicroSoft's libraries because besides the ability to use it in closed programs, you can also make derivative libraries (which must be open source, like GPL programs).
Now not everything is rosey:
1. The LGPL has some strange wording that makes many people think the libraries have to be shared. I personally don't think so, but this belief puts a lot of annoying requirements on the library, and requires "installation" and "dll hell" for programs that use them. Rather than question this we have modified the LGPL to specifically say that static linking is allowed.
2. RMS has a strange idea that putting libraries under the GPL will force people to make the programs under the GPL due to the "virii" nature. This is absurdly untrue, the result is that people don't use the library at all, and they then use a commercial library that runs only on platforms that are made by large Seattle companies whose name starts with M. Putting useful libraries under GPL licenses is seriously hurting the acceptance of Linux as it is stopping the creation of commercial programs that port to Linux. Fortunately most everybody else appears to disagree with RMS and use the LGPL or Berkely licenses for libraries.
You can write all the code you want and not put it under the GPL, and can sell it for whatever you want!
Oh, boo hoo, you can't take the source code with Linux and turn it into your own profit-making program. I'm just so sad for you. Hey, do you think you can take MicroSoft's code and turn it into a profit-making program without MicroSoft having something mean to say to you?
Re:Impressionist FUD can be a serious problem!
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 2
Developers would not copy GPL licensed code into applications that were not meant to be GPL any more than
they would copy Microsoft Shared Source into a Program without Licensing the code from Microsoft for use. In either
case, you would be in violation of Copyright law.
Excellent description of the equivalence. If GPL is "viral" then their own code is "viral". This point needs to be hammered home, there are people here on slashdot that show amazing ignorance of this, you can imagine what people in the real world think!
This is actually a very interesting question.
This is because what you decribe are mostly services. Software is mostly a product. The only way to get paid for a product is to sell it, thus to get money from it.
Microsoft disagrees with you here. They are actively pushing their software as a service initiative. In effect, they give away their software for free but charge you a monthly fee for using their servers where it is hosted. It is only logical for them to do that because there is only so much you can do with a word processor. Other than the funky gizmos (and incompatible file formats), there is no difference between Office 95, Office 97 and Office 2000. I will concede that Office XP is an improvement though -- apparently they killed the clippy;-) So, in effect, the only way Microsoft can "encourage" you to shell out more and more money for Office is by constantly changing the file formats so that you have to "upgrade" (oh, and you also need to "upgrade" the OS while you're at it. And the database. And...). Enter the services. Now you shell out money to Microsoft automatically if you want to use their services at all. Problem solved -- now Microsoft gets an infinite revenue stream without having to resort to dirty tricks like changing protocols.
Anyway, rantings aside, many business analysts do agree that software industry is a service industry in disguise.
this is because usually (there are exceptions) software isn't required to be custom
Well, you'd be surprised how much custom software there is.
Take a word processor. If it is available on the web for free (and legal), why would anyone
pay me to write one for them?
I can ask you a similar question: if I already have a word processor and it does everything I need, why would I want to pay for it again? (see above). ___
-- ___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Probably not. I didn't say there wasn't much custom software, I just said that (IMHO) software isn't *required* to be custom
Actually, there is quite a bit. A lot of software is custom-made to fit a company's needs and it's simply not applicable in any other situation. There is also a lot of work in customization, integration, etc. etc.
How many companies have reinvented the wheel and developed their own [fill in the blank] system because they were just too lazy to figure out how an "off-the-shelf" system would fit into their buisness process?
Oh man... where do I begin?:-)... BTW, it doesn't help to provide a counter-example next to the argument you are trying to prove....
Very true, sorry for the bad example.
This is actually a great example. It ilustrates that selling software is not a sustainable business model unless you can find some way to force your customers to upgrade.
BTW, I just read 1984 a few weeks ago. It's really really impressive. And scary. ___
-- ___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
A. We have code. You don't. We make money by selling our code. You don't. We will let you look at the code, but don't touch it. We think this is balanced.
Q: Why did Microsoft decide to highlight the Shared Source Philosophy at this time?
A. We got scared by Open Source.
Q: Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
A. Yep.
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
A. We can't figure out a way to make money with code covered by the GPL.
Q: How is intellectual property (IP) protection related to innovation? Why should society today rely on IP protection to foster innovation?
A. IP protection works because we can make money off of it. If we couldn't make money, that would really piss us off. Society is a better place when we make money. Innovation is very important, as long as we make money. Basically the pattern is money==good.
Re:The FAQ... (satire, honest)
by
Omnifarious
·
· Score: 2
Some Open Source companies will do well. It's only a matter of time. Cygnus was profitable before RedHat bought them. RedHat will most likely be profitable soon.
Also, the King amasses a great deal of wealth, and wealth is important, but that doesn't mean we should have monarchies.
Re:The FAQ... (satire, honest)
by
kettch
·
· Score: 2
The really interesting part about this whole thing, (the M$ faq and the satire above) is that M$ only provides the answers to questions that they want you to ask. Where are the answers to questions like "why does microsoft feel the need to *&(^&)@@#$ the customer every chance they get?" or "Why does microsoft think that you can't make money off of the GPL?" or my favorite "Why are you a bunch of software Nazi's out to kill everyone who pisses you off?" ----------------------
--
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Re:The FAQ... (satire, honest)
by
moZer
·
· Score: 1
I can see before me a slightly modified version of the James Hetfield - Lars Ulrich (of Metallica) flash movie circulating a couple of months ago, only with Bill Gates screaming "Money GOOD - Open Source BAD!"
--
Hello, my name is Robert Lerner, and I pronounce Lernux as "99% cpu"
Re:The FAQ... (satire, honest)
by
kezdeth
·
· Score: 1
It may be intended as satire, but it could still easily have come from the mouth of Mr Gate$.
-- Kez
Re:The FAQ... (satire, honest)
by
mini+me
·
· Score: 4
Hahah, I love this idea, I wonder if Camp Chaos could be convinced to create this?
The way I see it, Bill Gates would be in place of Lars Ulrich telling the story about how the GPL is bad and so on, Steve Balmer would take the place of James Hetfield saying Windows GOOD! Linux BAD! and so forth...
Gates: "Like good afternoon, my name is like Bill Gates from the software giant Microsoft. I'm here today to to talk about open source software."
Balmer: "Open Source BAD!"
Gates: "Yeah so like these open source coders are out to destroy our company and destroy the American way. Open source licences are like a virus or something and they well infect you, and your mother fucking code if you use it. You will also turn into an evil communist if you write open source software."
Balmer: "Communist BAD!"
Gates: "We spend upwards of 24 to 48 hours writing our code and we don't want you open source zealots to steal our hard earned money!"
Balmer: "Money GOOD! Open Source BAD!"
Okay, so the story line isn't great, but I wrote it quickly...
in their business section...
by
crisco
·
· Score: 5
Notice that these pages are in their business section, not MSDN?
Others have pointed out that this is indeed a PR/business strategy, not a technology one. MS is not arguing technology, code quality or any of such, they are pushing that the GPL is bad for business.
MSDN does give away great quantities of source, most of which is example code, not core implementations that can be improved.
Oh, and this is just my opinion, but www.shared-source.com needs some web design help. I think the PHB types that this should be aimed need eyecandy to feel good about the opinions stated. I'll try and throw something together this weekend but I'm sure there are more capable designers that could help.
Chris Cothrun Curator of Chaos
--
Bleh!
Re:in their business section...
by
Surak
·
· Score: 2
Others have pointed out that this is indeed a PR/business strategy, not a technology one. MS is not arguing technology, code quality or any of such, they are pushing that the GPL is bad for business.
Yup. And guess what they think is bad for their business? They may as well have come out and said it...oh wait...they did:
Re:in their business section...
by
Velex
·
· Score: 1
Of course this is a PR move. Can't you just smell the BS wafting from their page? There is absolutely nothing substantial about this! So what if Microsoft releases their source code to 31337 h4x0rs that pay for it? It doesn't change anything!
It's kind of sad, but this kind of BS is what makes America America. If we couldn't come up with three thousand 31337 ways of selling the same old snake oil, capatilism would fail. People can't think for themselves -- either some corporation has to do it for them, or a government. Be happy that it's only Microsoft, who has no enforcement, that's doing the thinking insted of good old Big Brother, who has enough enforcement to make you want to throw up. As long as a corporation is thinking for the morons, we'll be free to think on our own. Governments don't only think for morons, they think for smart people as well.
-- Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Re:in their business section...
by
Foggy+Tristan
·
· Score: 1
Notice that these pages are in their business section, not MSDN?
That's the key right there. A lot of the responses are so far pointing out the philosophical and intellectual problems with M$'s "Shared Source" FAQ and concept. That's a bit like arguing that people shouldn't see Rob Schneider's the Animal because it lacks a proper subtext balanced against 19th-century romanticism.
Microsoft's clearly approaching this as a marketing battle: We don't have to sell things to win, we have to capture the hearts and minds of the public and the law.
When marketing, logic is irrelevant. Marketing is designed to appeal, usually on an emotional level, and the FAQ is clearly aimed toward that.
The GPL is viral. Ooh, bad.
Linux will hurt your intellectual property. Ooh, bad.
The best way to fight this is on a marketing level, not an intellectual or philosophical level. Someone really needs to take FUD out of Microsoft's hand and start beating them up with it.
-- Beware typoes.
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
johnnyb
·
· Score: 1
Re:IT rhetoric at it's worst
by
johnnyb
·
· Score: 2
The question I have is, if Microsoft thinks I shouldn't use the GPL because of the redistribution terms, what redistribution terms will Microsoft allow me?
It calls the GPL "complicated". However, _any_ use normally allowed by copyright laws is allowable with the GPL. It is MS who makes it complicated by revoking several user rights under copyright. You only get to the "complicated" parts of the GPL for the rights not granted by normal copyright. With MS, you never get extra rights.
It's like saying, they have more features than we do, but on the features that they have that we don't, it's more complicated.
Re:We 'share', and you grant us back all your 'wor
by
jeffry_smith
·
· Score: 1
> If this program allows the company to quickly fix a bug in MS product XXX, then it should be a good deal for the company
Except you can't actually change code, so how do you test your fix? How can you be certain it really is a bug? And why would you want to pay for the priviledge of fixing bugs in THEIR code (so they can sell you the fixes in the next update)?
On the other hand, if any Linux developer looks at the code (or works for a company that has the code), MS could claim theft of their IP.
Who rated this as Troll? This is VERY on-topic, and an accurate statement of the GPL.
Re:MS URL doesn't work with HPUX 11 and NS 4.75
by
enterix
·
· Score: 1
But it does with Solaris 8 and NS 4.75...
OT: Re:Investment bank IT --
by
MeerCat
·
· Score: 1
I work for investment banks in the UK, and I've tended to work for the Europeans rather than the US banks, but sure, I can fill you in.
If want background on investment banking, read Liars Poker by Michael Lewis (for the culture/anecdotes/jargon/bullshit) and An Introduction to Global Financial Markets by Valdez for an intro to how global financial markets work.
There are loads of other books, but these 2 are cheap, timeless and everyone in the City knows them. If you can't at least mention them in passing then it marks you as a newbie.
As for the banks, in short, the money's good, the technology is stupid (every snake-oil system ever sold), the bullshit is thick and fast, the politics is somewhat stupid, and the average quality of staff is incredibly low, but they'll be pretty good at pushing you into corners. Oh, and the banks all think they're bleeding edge, they think they're doing the most complex tasks in the world, and they think they're working in "real-time" because they've just dropped overnight batch processing.
We can move this to an Ask Slashdot, or if you want to mail me I'm happy to discuss more offline... you can guess my email address from the slashdot name and the URL quoted above.
T
-- I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
Its rather funny because...
by
MeerCat
·
· Score: 5
... when Win2K came out, and was breaking all sorts of software, a guy I met from one of the big US investment banks bent my ear for ages about how great Win2K was and how they had no problems with it at all. This seemed a little strange as most investment banks that I've been at run huge amounts of really badly-hacked, badly-behaved, poorly documented in-house programs (you pay big money, you attract every wide-boy for miles around).
When I quizzed him in detail he finally admitted that this was because they had the FULL source code from Microsoft and were patching (or at least flagging) their own fixes as they hit problems and giving these back to MS to integrate.
But he wouldn't trust Linux, or any Open-Source model, and neither would MS....
Seems some people can have their cake, and eat it, and deny there was any cake there anyway
T
-- I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
Re:We 'share', and you grant us back all your 'wor
by
ocie
·
· Score: 1
To play devil's advocate for a minute. Most companies don't care how a software problem gets solved. If this program allows the company to quickly fix a bug in MS product XXX, then it should be a good deal for the company. It is unfortunate that individual users are excluded from this arrangement, but that is Microsoft's perogative (sp?).
I wouldn't worry too much because:
a) in their own way, Microsoft has acknowleged the power of open source/free software.
b) if nobody thinks it is a good idea to contribute fixes back to Microsoft, it won't happen. It's not as if Microsoft is forcing its users to "fix X bugs or we yank your license".
Yes, yes, you can go on endlessly about the advantages of open source, and on the whole I'll agree with you.
But where Linux loses is marketing. And that, alas, is exactly where Microsoft excels. MS could sell ice to the Inuit.
The people who really count--that is, the people who decide to spend several million dollars on an operating system for their business: we're talking banks and big business, and the cumulative bijillion little businesses--are going to buy Microsoft Windows.
Not because it's the best, but because they are businessmen, not computer geeks. They don't know how Linux can be to their advantage, they don't understand how Microsoft products have high cost-of-ownership, and they don't see any good business studies that prove Linux is going to save them an order of magnitude in costs.
Indeed, what really drives them to buy are the glossy full-page advertisements with simple words. All the technical, moral and philosophical arguments in the world aren't going to make a dent.
If Linux is to dominate, it needs to be marketed.
It also needs a few missing killer apps, but, hey, that'll happen.
Which is why IBM's interest in Linux is a Good Thing, since they have the ability and motivation to market Linux to suits. --
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The moderation above is an example...
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 1
And mderators[sic], how is this insightful?
The moderation you refer to is an example of the very sort of astroturfing this post and an anonymous rebuttal to an astroturfer's empty denial referred to. Microsoft paid lackeys are here, in force, doing exactly what they are paid to do, undermining the public fora of the open source and free software movements, attempting to sow discord, etc.
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
A. There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to a great deal of confusion. For the sake of clarity, we wish to reiterate our basic points in regard to the GPL and other OSS licenses.
Come on. The GPL a complicated liscense? The intent of the GPL is clearlt spelled out in terms even a non-lawyer can understand, is rather short as liscenses go, and is fairly non-obfuscated. Has whoever wrote the FAQ even read the GPL vs. your average MS EULA? Most people (IMNSHO) never get past the first paragraph in the EULA, because the obfuscation sets in almost immediately, even if they bother to read it at all! Sheesh...
Sorry. The GPL is viral and a clever choice of words for the spinmasters at Microsoft. Watch out for jabs like this in the future. They will say the correct thing but use charged words to sway the debate. A very good tactic.
Microsoft is entirely correct to say the GLP is viral because all derived works must also have the code to given away - so the orignal code infects any following work. Whether this is good or bad is left to the debate that is occurring now.
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
Sloppy
·
· Score: 1
Does it count if the guys who are creating any replacement
product look at the original source, then laugh hysterically
No. But keep in mind that the "Chinese wall" is astrategy, not
a requirement. You can look at the competitor's source and then either laugh
at how bad it is, or salute in admiration, and either way, you still might
not be guilty of copyright infringement when you write a competing implementation.
Alas, while you might be safe, you're less safe than before. The wall strategy
is just way of increasing the predictability of judges' decisions so that they
are more likely to result in your desired outcome.
---
-- As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The GPL doesn't require you to release your source code unless you distribute/sell it, at which point you must give it up to your distributees/customers.
Internal use requires no source code release. But then, that's not gonna make M$ any money from other peoples work...
Largely, I think, because Slashdot really just points to other news stories. Occasionally they'll actually point to the source of a story (in this example, if they pointed to just the M$ webpage, then it would be a new story) but if you look over the archives and such, 90% or so of the "news" stories (not Katz's review of TMR or anything) are pointers to other news sites. And remember that it's users who submit stories to slashdot, so of course it's going to have some lag time.
I think it's great, personally.. even if I get the news a few days late, it's rarely important that I get the info right away and this way I don't have to watch 20 news sites.
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works.
The correct response to this is:
All Microsoft licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Microsoft licenses do notvary in how infectious they are, allprograms are derivative works.
Using MFC is not creating a derivative product. You are linking against a library that MS provided for you. You have no access to the source at all and I'm not sure but I doubt that MS would let you get away with selling copies of the MFC libraries.
Direct quote from the faq: Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all
derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original
program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect"
derivative programs.
So I guess if you simply disallow derivative works, your license is not "viral" ? Seems kind of like whining to me, "Some open source licenses are protective of the developer's rights. That is they prevent MegaCorp Inc. from using the software without giving back to the community."
Anyway, when was the last time a derivative of an MS product was made and licensed by someone besides MS ?
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
Moeses
·
· Score: 1
If you don't compile it yourself how do you know that the binary that you're running actually came from the source code you're looking at? You'd have to trust the distrubutor of the binary code, which is exactly where you were at before you looked at the source.
Am I the only one that noticed that they're missing a number 1 on their little list of "key resources"?
Perhaps they edited that one out. I know what it read anyway:
1. Monopoly power: The ability to convince people to develop for our platform because we have a monopoly and it's the only way to get a peice of the pie. Thus; allowing us to maintain our monopoly.
--------------------------
-Riskable
-- -Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Q. Why did Microsoft decide to highlight the Shared Source Philosophy at this time?
Highlight? You mean they've been doing this all along? I don't think so, but it's obvious that they've got some talented spin doctors crafting everything about this campaign.
Does anybody else see this a partial victory for the open source movement? Okay, so you can only look, but the free software movement got Microsoft to open it's code for outside peer review.
Think about that! How likely was this a few years ago?
The GPL is viral in that the program takes on a life of its own, independent of original and subsequent authors. As long as anyone is interested, the program will survive, regardless of any actions or inactions of the original developers. This is actually very good for business, in that nobody can cut off their air supply.
Better? If they aren't, they are catching up and surpassing awfully fast. Actually, no single source can be competitive. Two desktops, Gnome and KDE may waste a few resources, but the competition will drive both and more important, force both to "play nice". I would tend to trust something like NSALinux because there are a few paranoids who will go looking and will scream their heads off if they find anything suspect.
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
Flower
·
· Score: 2
Sure, Windows cost money and to peek at the source is going to cost you a shitload of money. I guess this is the same type of thinking Scientologists use to blow thousands of dollars so they can have the comfort of getting to the next OT level. I can just see it now. Here is the code for Active Directory but before you buy it you need to buy and study the code for DCOM lest you be unprepared for the revelations of AD and it kills you.:p
Oh, and getting RH7.1 along with SGI's XFS installation image cost me nothing but download time and a few CDs. Just like the source costs me nothing for those products. I think you missed a few $s when you spelled Micro$$$$$$oft and gave an extra to RedHat.
-- I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Re:Micro$oft is PETRIFIED, that's all.
by
Halster
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft are petrified... totally.
The thing that has them scared the most, is that they've got no way of measuring exactly 'how' scared they should be.
Open Source is a juggernaut that has built up and started moving at an incredible speed over many years. It has it's roots in the origins of computing itself (ie. academia).
The problem for Microsoft is, how do you judge the threat from free software? You can't simply look at the financial performance of it to judge whether it's a threat like you can any other company.
It's the fact it's an intangible threat that's got Microsoft so scared and paranoid they'll resort to shit like this.
The Open Source juggernaut has changed the rules of the game.
Monopoly is a bit harder for the traditionalists to play when you can win by sitting on 'Free Parking' the whole game!;)
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
--
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
Platinum+Dragon
·
· Score: 2
Anyway, now Microsoft have gone "open source" do we actually need Linux any more ? I mean, sure Windoze costs $$S, but then so does Red$Hat these days...
'K folks, lets not allow Microsoft to perpretrate another Big Lie and get away with it. The term "Shared Source" is nothing more than a smokescreen. Call it what it is, "poison source". The source will be no more "shared" than, say, the demolition plans for Arthur Dent's house. You won't be able to use the code you see for yourself. You won't be able to compile it. You'll be able to look at it and perhaps suggest "improvements." Hell, MS might be magnanimous enough to let you, Mr. Independent Developer, write patches - but don't even try to distribute them without MS' approval, because that would mean others might try to - *gasp* - compile MS' proprietary, "shared" code!
Why "poison source"? Quite frankly, I think "Shared source" might have a more dangerous viral aspect than some people claim of the GPL. Do you really think a developer will ever be allowed to work on an open-source project again, never mind a GPL one, after agreeing with MS' terms for looking at their source? If they do within at least eighteen months (what I believe current NDAs from MS are written for), you can bet MS will immediately launch legal action to have that project shut down due to "potential" copyright infringement. In this case, the virus doesn't even come from using the code, but just by looking at it.
Hey, maybe MS will be nice and not force developers to sign an NDA and a no-compete in order to look over the code. However, MS has given me no reason to trust them before, and they certainly haven't done anything recently to get me to trust them now.
Are they going to continue to tell us that Linux has no effect on them? On one hand it is a major competitor and on the other hand it is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand?
Acknowledging Linux as a competitor means that it has an effect on the buissness. However Linux isn't GPL (binary only modules and some LGPL, etc) and Linux isn't all the software under GPL. Also the parts of disccussion that apply to open source rather then just GPL include alot more code and software.
Hmm. The GPL requires that derived works of a licensed work must also be released under the GPL. It does not require that unrelated work written by GPL software users be released.
Is this viral? It seems to me that if we're looking for biological metaphors, it would be more accurate to call it hereditary or heritable. GPLed code doesn't go out and infect your work. Rather, if you choose to "breed" new software from GPLed code, that software inherits the licensing traits of its parent.
The trick is the word "derived".
The most strict definition is to completly contain the orginial peice. The loosest definition is to take an idea or single line of code from the orginial. Since GPL hasn't been tested in court, so we don't know where the line is.
Hence, you might be asking for legal problems if you have a developer contributes to GPL code at home, and writes closed source during the day, since he might have taken derived ideas to the work code. It's enough for a lawsuit, and the stakes can be very high. Hence the term viral. It's like breathing around someone with a cold and taking it to work, you contaminate EVERYTHING. (Also losing any IP that is part of your closed source project, hence the IP destroyer comment)
The core of Microsoft's anti-GPL argument is, if you are a buissness, do you really want this type of risk?
No, the GPL is not viral. It does not leap from unwilling host to unwilling host; your code will not suddenly come down with GPLitis out of the blue.
If a genetic metaphor for creating a derived work is desired, consider the GPL as a dominant gene. It takes a deliberate propagative act to create a "child" that's GPLed; but having decided to "mate" your code with GPLed code you know the result will be GPLed - just as someone who carries
two recessive genes for a trait and mates with someone carrying two dominant genes knows that the child will inherit the dominant trait.
For example, if a blue-eyed woman mates with a man whose ancestors have been brown eyed for umpteen generations back, if I recall my biology correctly she's going to have a brown-eyed baby. (Barring mutation, crossover, etcetera, which is beyond the scope of this metaphor, okay?) If she doesn't want a brown-eyed kid, she's free to seek out another father. If you don't want your result to be GPL'd, you're free to seek out other code to derive your program from.
The metaphor is not perfect, in that such a child would still be a carrier of the recessive gene, however it's a damn sight closer than "viral".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:I like this quote from the FAQ...
by
xy
·
· Score: 2
My favorite quote was this, from the front page of the Shared Source website:
Over the past 25 years, few people outside of the development community talked about source code and even fewer had access.
Never mind that closed source is actually a relatively new thing...programmers started out by giving away source, because the hardware to run it on was what was important... As I recall, IBM used to more or less give away the source to OS/360 because what the customer was really paying for was the big iron to run it on. Ah, great MS FUD...defend your own business model by claiming it has a long, distinguished history, and make it sound as though these "open source" lunatics are some kind of crazy group of upstart hippies. Never mind the actual truth of the history of computer programming...
Open source could be considered software communism...
Where is rms on this one?
by
CokeJunky
·
· Score: 1
Once again, Open Source and Free Software has been confused. Microsoft discusses the GPL as an Open Source license, allowing them to conveniently ignore the fact that the GPL is the legal embodiement of a philospophy the describes software freedom.
Dunno 'bout Microsoft shared source but Microsoft shared libraries make me barf...
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
MustardMan
·
· Score: 2
AFAIK the main reason you need this kind of protection is if you are attempting to avoid voilating contracts, such as NDA's or similar things you might sign to look at the code. I know if my university required me to use the code to windows, I would sign absolutely nothing giving any rights up to microsoft
Re:We 'share', and you grant us back all your 'wor
by
printman
·
· Score: 1
We're one of those "self-proclaimed" open-source companies, so let me set some things straight.
First, we *do* require that contributions to the project be "signed over" to the project owner (us). This avoids several legal issues of ownership and is something that most open source projects (commercial or otherwise) do once you have more than a few developers. It isn't always about money, it's usually about more practical issues such as "do I have the right to release this code?".
Now, clearly there is a difference between open source and shared source. Not having looked at the MS license yet, I can't comment much, but my guess is that the MS license is a "look but don't touch" type of license, which doesn't meet the OSI definition/requirements for open source. The reasons for using this license point to a clear desire to NOT share and NOT promote code reuse and innovation.
A company that releases their product as open source is going out on a limb - there are no guarantees that people will help fund or contribute to the continued development, and many people assume that the company is there to support people for nothing in return. Also, there is always the risk that someone will take the code and create a competing application that puts the original company out of business.
Our CUPS software is used by many Linux distributors, but we don't see a penny or contribution from many of them. There are a few really good vendors, SuSE and Caldera come to mind, that have done audits, submitted feature enhancements, etc., and Mandrake has contributed GUIs and support to the picture.
Sometimes releasing a free open-source version and a pay closed-source version of a product is the only way to make money. Sometimes that choice is forced on the vendor because of NDA information (that is the case for our ESP Print Pro product).
In any case, I think that any vendor that does make the effort to open-source all or part of their products is truly participating in the open source process. Having a commercial version of a product is the price you pay (literally) to get a supported open-source product.
-- I print, therefore I am.
Impressionist FUD can be a serious problem!
by
Rashkae
·
· Score: 1
The Fud in this FAQ is extremely subtle. I confess that I have, in
the past, referred to the GPL as "viral" in a joking fashion, but
Microsoft has taken the analogy *way* too far. "Viral", "Infects",
this document is intended for people who don't know anything about the
GPL. It is designed to create a *negative* first impression of the
GPL. It is very effective. Most people would not be inclined to find
out more information about GPL if this was the first time they read
about or heard of it. It is designed to make GPL supporters sound like
Back Orifice Supporters. (You know, the program that's a legit
administrative tool, even though there is no good reason for
admistrative tools to run in complete stealth).
Imagine the impact if in a few months from now, Anti-virus software
packages include the text of the GPL license as a virus signature.
Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas as to how we can divert
this trend. Maybe suing MS for libel would be a good start. It needs
to be stressed in mainstream media that the GPL is not viral,
it is a legitimate copyright provision. Developers would not copy GPL
licensed code into applications that were not meant to be GPL any more
than they would copy Microsoft Shared Source into a Program without
Licensing the code from Microsoft for use. In either case, you would
be in violation of Copyright law.
Re:Impressionist FUD can be a serious problem!
by
SuiteSisterMary
·
· Score: 2
It is designed to create a *negative* first impression of the GPL.
Why do you think that so many of the more successful 'open' apps use variants of the BSD license?
-- Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
In accordance with prophesy
by
babbage
·
· Score: 1
Re:In accordance with prophesy
by
dagoalieman
·
· Score: 2
Now now now... I think you may be jumping the gun a bit.
While we all know damn well that's what will happen in the long run, this could have some interesting applications right now. I think MS may have a good idea, just implemented poorly- it could be a possibility to bring a little bit of money back to the programmers, which everyone knows is a good step to encourage people to develop more.
BTW- This article was short, sweet, to the point, and no editorial other than the neutral "Discuss." Are the editors feeling well??
-- We don't need no
Net Explorer
We don't need no
Thought control
Re:In accordance with prophesy
by
lnx_daemon
·
· Score: 1
M$ has no ideas
Prisoners Dilemma...Tit for Tat...
by
bubbha
·
· Score: 1
Commercial Software Model. Five key elements make up this model:
1. Community: A strong support community of developers.
slaves chained to their seat rowing to the drum beat... that's not a community
2. Standards: Promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition.
propriatery file formats do not promote collaboration and interoperability. Imitation is not innovation. Healthy competition implies products win on merit. Aint none of that going on here.
3. Business model: Promote the growth of a profitable business.
That business is called Microsoft. That technology is called Windows.
4. Investment: Level of research and development investment drives resources for future innovation.
If R&D means sitting back and watching someone else innovate and then buying the company and slapping your logo feces on it
Licensing model: Provides product and source access without jeopardizing the intellectual property rights of those who create or use the software.
Before there was MS Word there was MacWrite. Before there was MS Excel there was Lotus 123. Before there was MS Powerpoint there was Cricket Draw. Before there was MS Access there was DBase. Before there was Visual Basic there was Turbo Pascal. You stand on the shoulders of those who went before you, cut their heads off, and shit down their neck.
Dude, you have got to be trolling. But assuming you aren't... Communism is forced sharing ("to each according to his need"), open source is voluntary. Also, the approach of western academia, sharing ideas and peer review, which underlies open source is hardly "communist."
Community and communism are not the same thing.
--LP
Re:I like this quote from the FAQ...
by
binner
·
· Score: 1
You know this is FUD, and I know this is FUD, but that's not the point.
As far as the general populace is concerned, computers didn't exist before the information superhighway (haven't heard that term in a few years have you?). Therefore, to them, we are a crazy group of upstart hippies.
Crap of not, the public is used to being spoonfed (some of them even enjoy it!).
Cheers
-Ben
-- Say what you mean, mean what you say! But please know what #$@% you are talking about!
there is some strangeness here...
by
lscoughlin
·
· Score: 1
I don't like the GPL personally either... however the lisence that most commecial software developers nee to know about is not the GPL... It's really not relevent to them. The lisence they need to know about, is the LGPL, which gives them complete freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't change the library they link too.
The LGPL is a much much better lisence than the GPL, imho, and is completely ignored by microsoft in this sence.
All i have to say about thier shared-source mess is: whatever.
They're missing the whole point of why developers bother... it's because they know thier code will always be out there.
If the shared source lisence made a provision that all the source it was held under would ALWAYS be availabe... then it would be interesting.
The short of it however is, that if you work on shared source programes you 1) will still have to PAY for the software you write and work on, and 2) you are not garountee'd the ability to work on that software in perpetuity...
Use the LGPL. Forget Shared source, it's an unimport waste of marketing time.
-T
-- Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
Well.... I figured it all out. If you go out and back and around and back in enough pages, it is *barely* possible that you can get to the MSDN from that site.
Once there you can get some headers to go with your Micro-Softwich & Coffee. Oh wait, those are just the same thing I already found in my dev-kit.... Darn. Hmm, what's that dev-kit doing on here anyway?
--Isn't shared source what happens when M$ lets a new build of WinBloats out the door before they mean to?
Nietzsche on Diku: sn; at god ba g :Backstab >KILLS< god.
They SHOULD STFU because they are senselessly complaining. That has nothing to do with freedom, it is simply my opinion. Obviously if they want to complain about nothing they can.
-- Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
GPL == viral, so M$ code == ?
by
Ender+Ryan
·
· Score: 2
If GPL code is virus-like, what does that mean about M$ code?
No one can force you to use GPL code, so the virus analogy doesn't really stand up anyway. I guess you could say that the GPL is like a non-communicable virus.
Anyway, that's a pretty ridiculous argument from MS anyway, while you CAN use GPL code (with the limitations the GPL provides), you _CAN'T_ get access to Microsoft code at all. Well, you can if you pay out the ass for it I guess, but you can pay a GPL developer to license their code to you under a different license too.
So, MS argument == NULL
That's my take on it anyway...
-- Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The parent is a very insightful comment on copyrights that often get overlooked when thinking of pedagogical terms like "Freedom" and "Business". It's really important to ground yourself in the core substance of the medium. Copyright. GPL gives you freedom to use copyrighted material if you agree to free your derivative copyrighted material. What results is a virtuous circle of contribution, innovation, and community.
Microsoft can't compete with this. Their community in the early nineties was an open Dos and windows platform that businesses could profit from. They soon realized that Microsoft is hostile towards "middleware" businesses and many went out of business. In the Free Software community there is no monopolizing impulse, and businesses can happily coexist, peddling their proprietary middleware. Microsoft shut out IBM, and now IBM finds extraordinary value in linux. Other once profitable software companies that were shut out from windows by microsoft are also finding value in linux. Software companies dont want to compete with MS on their own monopoly platform. Internet companies dont want to pay licensing fees to microsoft to run their busines, avoiding draconian EULA's.
Expect more of the exodus from windows to free software. A small taste of freedom is addictive. An intravenous injection of freedom is downright intoxicating.
Fools! Not Microsoft . . . YOU!
by
webword
·
· Score: 2
If you visit Microsfot's shared source page, and link to it, and talk about it, you are giving them power. For example, if you link to the site from your own web site (or via Slashdot) then Google will rank the page higher in their search results. Thus, you hand over power to Microsoft. Second, since Slashdot pointed to the page, other news and media freaks will pick up on the story and give Microsoft even more mojo. It was foolish to point directly to the Microsoft site.
Let's take a look at the reverse of the power flow. First, assume that Slashdot is anti-Microsoft and pro Open Source. I hope we all agree this is basically true. Next, think about how Slashdot has pointed to Microsoft, directly no less. This, as I described above, gives them a bunch of juju and augments their position. It gives them credibility. Finally, think about this: Microsoft never points to Slashdot and rarely (if ever?) points to Open Source web sites.
They are not powerful and rich for nothing. The folks here are foolish to think they have power through hacking and technology and fighting the good fight. Wrong! Many of the folks here wouldn't understand advertising mojo or marketing juju if it bit them on the ass with big, sharp, bunny teeth.
Look folks, I'm not a total troll. I hope you are actually listening... Marketing, media, and propoganda, oh yes, all weapons of Microsoft. Slashdot is playing exactly into the hands of Microsoft. You are sheep! Nothing but sheep. (OK, that last bit about sheep was definitely out of line.;-)
Re:Look...this isn't funny anymore...
by
webword
·
· Score: 2
Interesting thoughts. I think people really should be worried. Imagine that Open Source really does become a target. If that is the case, and it could happen, then what would that mean? Here's what I think: Sites like SourceForge, Slashdot, Freshmeat, and so on start to feel intense heat, perhaps to the point of getting their asses kicked.
Web sites can be shut down, folks. We are not very powerful compared to companies, or the government. To make matters worse, the community is not united. The community is fragmented. Why? I'm not sure because I am not close enough to it. I don't program and I don't hack. However, I do see that there are many egos. There are leaders, but there is no centralized power. Without centralized power (i.e., money, captial, intellectual resources) I don't think it will be possible to slow down the growing wave of Anti-Open Source. Think about that.
So, here is where I start to really think. What is the true purpose of the Open Source Community? Is it for fun? Adventure? Because it is a small, exclusive club of smart people? Is it because you feel ownership? Do you have a giant itch to scratch?
BULLSHIT to all of that. Bullshit, I say. You are going up against a company with over $25 BILLION in cash. What is the Open Source community worth? All of you? All of your work? All your effort? Pah! It ain't worth shit comared to that. And don't start telling me that the internet is driven by Open Source. That doesn't mean a thing. At this point in time, I would state that you could build the internet using commercial products. People would live with that. People would still have the internet, now, without Open Source. They'd pay if they needed to, to support their habits. It wouldn't be the same, but it would work.
But back to my point about power and money. Microsoft, UNLIKE the Open Source community has a very clear goal: BILLIONS. They are driven by money, and they know how the system works. What are you driven by? Will your love of coding, or your developmental scratch, or your minor rebellion be enough to fight the BILLIONS backing Microsoft? I want to know what you plan. I'd LOVE to back Open Source if it had a battle plan.
Re:Look...this isn't funny anymore...
by
webword
·
· Score: 2
Thanks for the clarification. However, I could still see how powerful companies and the government could crack down on volunteers. You can volunteer to smoke crack, for example, but you would get in trouble for using it. I know that is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you catch my drift.
Gee, whiz. Where have I been for the "past several months" while "people have been talking about source code." This new-fangled technology gets my head in a spin, glad Microsoft could explain it to me.
You sound like you have lots of experience working with investment bank IT -- can you tell me a bit about it?
I recently accepted an offer to work for Morgan Stanley as a equity trading systems developer, and I'm wondering how stuff is going to be once I start.
Thanks a lot!
Not to me, man. The're trying to seem as if they're jumping on the bandwagon without actually jumping on the bandwagon, which is a typical and classic Microsoft Maneuver. For them, it's all perception and image. No one at the corporate level actually "gets" the Real driving force behind Open Source, so they're settling for a cheap copy (Which Microsoft is really good at.)
Now before someone jumps on my case for being anti-Microsoft, I am, and I have a right to be. I sat through this on Team OS/2, as well, and I'm seeing a lot of the same tactics (Almost word for word press releases etc) for Linux. While I don't think they can kill the system, they can make it much more difficult to find hardware that will work with it. And I like being able to use Linux at work if I want to. It's very clear to me that in Microsoft's world, I would not be able to do that (Or even work without one of their stupid certifications.) So if I'm very vocally against them, it's because I know they're not trustworthy and I know that they will do everything in their power to force me to use their products.
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Fundamentally innovation can be broken down into two parts: discovery and implementation.
1) Discover something that someone else is doing that looks like it might make money.
2) Implement a less featureful version of it, give it away for free and start charging around version 5.0 once we've eliminated the original company.
From gdict:
1. The act of innovating; introduction of something new, in customs, rites, etc. --Dryden.
I think we're closing in on the disparity between the MS definition of Innovation and the one the rest of the world uses. (So yes, what I could stomach of their shared source FAQ was somewhat insightful.)
As a side note I didn't notice them enumerating what source would be shared, nor what you could do with it, but the meaty parts of the page may have come after the gag reflex kicked in. Next time I hit a MS web page I'll be sure to take a dramamine first.
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:MS View of Innovation
by
nick_danger
·
· Score: 1
The question begs asking: Is MS' seeming turnabout driven by the fact that they're faced with either a) a clean-room re-implementation of some application/program/widget/thingamabob that has become a core part of something else that began life as a GPL'd hunk of code, or b) acknowledgement that all the truly cool stuff is being done in the GPL universe and there's no way for them to capitalize on it (hence embrace, extend and corrupt)?
Microsoft largely didn't have to FUD OS/2, because IBM was perfectly capabable of fux0ring the product themselves. (The fucking thing didn't even include networking support until about 1995! And, No, SNA doesn't count!) Of course that didn't stop the Teamers from imagining all sorts of conspiritorial slights.
This attitude has translated over to the Linux community. People post all the time about how Microsoft is "scared" of Linux. Which is completely untrue, as MS is fighting an offensive battle to gain ground in the webserver/database markets that had traditionally been owned by Unix. The day they start moaning about losing fileserver seats to Samba is the day they're on the defensive, but that hasn't happened yet.
But yeah yeah, Stephen Bartko, one propaganda page at microsoft.com. Blah blah whatever. Don't learn your lesson and keep fighting the demons in your own head. It's just another defensive battle which you will lose.
--
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Last year Microsoft stated that Sun was it's #1 threat. Have they given up or just lowered their sites? Neither -- they want to *expand* their marketshare by progressively eating away Unix-dominated segments.
Thinking of it as a "threat" is the paranoid looney take, and most Linux advocacy folks have gone there. "Market opportunity" is the way too look it.
And writing me off as a "drone" is not only factually incorrect, it's completely unfair and completely stupid. Great fucking way to sell your product.
I just don't want to sit here and watch another group of idiots blow their whole fucking leg off trying to flamewar Microsoft as the OS/2 guys did. Learn your fucking lesson or perish. There's even a HOW-TO. Read it.
--
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I am not here to refer a large nameless group of people as "idoits"
No you're here to call a large nameless group "brain washed Microfoft (sic) drones".
You seem possessed of the rather ridiculous idea that operating systems can "rise" and "fall", or be used or rejected by large segments of the operating system purchasing market, due to flamewars on technology discussion sites like this one
Actually that's the exact idea I'm attacking. Calling your competitors a "threat" is an example of that sort of thinking. The lesson of OS/2 is that a looney fringe *can* hurt a platform's prospects, and that's exactly the tune that Mundie is playing.
--
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:MS View of Innovation
by
bryanbrunton
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft is scared of its competitors.
Linux is a competitor of Microsoft.
Therefore, Microsoft is scared of Linux.
It is a well known fact that the MS corporate atmosphere has been structured around paranoia. It is a well known and documented fact that Bill Gates himself is an insecure, given to temper tantrums, paranoid panty waste.
Microsoft executives have stated that Linux is its #1 competitor/threat. 27% of official servers shipped last year shipped with Linux. Is it possible that a few of those Linux servers are used as File/Print servers? HP ships small boxes that do nothing but use SAMBA. My company has replace 6 of 7 NT files servers with SAMBA.
Why are simply deductions like these so hard for the brain washed Microfoft drones?
Re:MS View of Innovation
by
bryanbrunton
·
· Score: 1
>>Have they given up or just lowered their sites?
Actually, they raised their sights. Sun didn't gain 25% of server market share over three years time. Linux did.
>>paranoid looney take
You are clearly lost in your own mind. You would rather spend time debating whether using the term "threat" is "paranoid looney", than considering the reality of situation. You seem possessed of the rather ridiculous idea that operating systems can "rise" and "fall", or be used or rejected by large segments of the operating system purchasing market, due to flamewars on technology discussion sites like this one. This idea is so clearly without an basis in reality that I don't even know where to begin.
>>Great fucking way to sell your product.
I am not here to "sell my product". I am not here to refer a large nameless group of people as "idoits" as your flawed mind does. I am here to point out that your previous post was completely irrational.
Trust me, they aren't missing the point. They find magnificent ways to couch ideas that they don't like in a negative or deterring way.
For example, if you want to rip a cd using windows media player, it defaults to having that security encryption crap turned on--meaning you can't play the ripped music on other computers (without breaking the encryption).
If you go through the help and the menus, looking for some way to turn it off, you are going to have to look pretty carefully. It is in there, but they disguise the meaning. You turn it off by turning off "License Managment". The help file description of this is (paraphrased): "If you turn off license managment, and try to download a song to a portable player, Windows Media won't copy the license file over."
While this is true, it won't copy the license file over, it is only true because the music file is not encrypted anymore and doesn't need a license! Whereas the helpfile text sort of implies that you still need a license to play the music, but now you have to manually copy said license over to the portable player.
You have no intrinsic rights to distribute derivative works of someone else's copyright. None. Nada. They do not exist.
The only circumstances under which you may make and distributge a derivative work is with the blessing of all authors of copyright.
The GPL provides this blessing as long as the works are licensed under the GPL. This means you have more rights than copyright law would allow, if you use GPL software.
The GPL also has the effect of making the distributed works the intellectual property of the community of free software users, in that they may be distributed only as free software. This thing that Microsoft claims is worth so much, the intellectual property, belongs to all free software users.
And that scares Microsoft to death, and leads them to a clever marketing campaign in which the GPL is called viral. It is not. The only perspective from which it may even SEEM viral is the perspective of a BSD license. And that could not be further from Microsoft's perspective.
The so-called viral aspect of the GPL is the one thing that Microsoft rarely regulates -- the ability to link (even dynamically) your application against their copyright protected library for free, whereas the GPL suggests that if you do this, your entire work must then be covered by the GPL. This is one aspect that has, in the past, been misunderstood by a number of developers and is important to recognise.
There is indeed much confusion over this one. I, for one, would argue that a library by definition defines an API, and that anything that uses that API is NOT a derivative work, since the entire purpose of a library is to define and export an API for other applications to use. RMS believes that something that dynamically links against a library IS a derivative work. This belief is absolutely critical to TrollTech's business plan. They provide QT under the GPL, or you can buy a more standard copyright arrangement if you wish to incorporate QT code with your proprietary apps.
But the GPL has a proviso that: If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. This proviso would seem to apply specifically to programs using an exported API. Others may argue that the linking program still must include the header files at compilation time, but again, it is the intent of a library to provide public headers and APIs.
And also consider, a program dynamically linking to a library is analogous to ANY program running under linux. All system calls dynamically link to the kernel, which is GPL licensed.
As far as I know, this aspect of the GPL has never been challenged legally, and it would seem to me that RMS is quite wrong in his assertion.
The GPL license is not viral, and any sense in which you claim that it is becomes mere FUD and is just plain wrong. This is the height of Microsoft marketing trying to associate evil with the GPL.
Under copyright law you have no intrinsic rights to distribute anyone else's copyright. If you make a derivative work, you have no intrinsic right to distribute that derivative work. You may only distribute derivative works if all authors of copyright agree on terms.
Under the GPL, the situation is substantially improved. You can distribute someone else's copyright. You can make and distribute a derivative work, with the added proviso that all the work must be released under the same license.
Basically, Microsoft calls this viral because they would rather the author of a derivative work have ALL copyrights to the derivative and the original work. This is the BSD license. This is even more rights to the recipient of a copyrighted work.
But please remember that GPL programs still give you as a software user MORE rights than you have intrinsically. The GPL has some protection for the community that would prefer if everything were open source, because it restrains any open source (GPLd) program from becoming proprietary. It in effect assigns the intellectual property to the open source (or free software) community. This is what Microsoft is attacking.
The crown jewels for Microsoft are its intellectual property. It is fighting like mad because the GPL gives the free software community the same protection of its intellectual property that Microsoft has of its own. It is not a business model - it is a community software model.
Just because M$ discontinues a product, doesn't necessarily mean that I or my customers want to. I've watched DOS, Windows 3.1, QuickBASIC, and a dozen other things just vanish from the shelves and from tech support. Some people have their businesses dependent on these technologies. If the business changes, and the technology is no longer there... then what? It's expensive to change. Now we watch as NT 3.5, NT 4.0, and Windows 2000 are vanishing to XP. There are far more shops depending on these technologies. Frankly the attitude I'm seeing is "if I have to switch, I'm switching to Linux so this won't happen to me again."
There's the old argument of "if I need support or someone to sue, at least I have Microsoft" -- ask yourself this, when was the last time you got decent support from them? When you needed a new feature or reported a real defect, was it your business model or theirs which was given priority? And if you went to sue Microsoft, and were 100% in the right, given the deep pockets there... could you survive battle the court costs? With the source you can fix it or hire someone to fix it.
The fact of the matter is, business doesn't like to ride technology waves. They want something that gets the job done, works right, and is reliable and as maintanence free as possible. As long as Microsoft misses this point, they're going to alienate customers.
It still amazes me that even IE's about box reports that it stands on the shoulders of NCSA Mosaic.... When I talked with a represanative in Microsoft's security group, they were using Linux internally.... The begs the question about where would Microsoft be without OpenSource? (Guess you could steal it, but hey... wasn't that how GW-BASIC got started?)
Viral software is your best programming investment
by
jrifkin
·
· Score: 1
The big attraction of the GPL is the assurance
that if you contribute to GPL'ed code you will
always be able to use/compile a derivative work. What a great way to leverage your productivity. It's like "cast your bread onto the water and
it will return n-fold". If you contribute
to a GPL'ed work your return is perpetual access to the improvements made by others. You can't say
the same about those other licenses.
Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify, and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification. Moreover, programs containing code subject to the BSD license are subject to only limited obligations imposed by that license. This type of license gives users freedom to incorporate their own changes and redistribute them, without requiring them to publish the new source code or allow royalty-free redistribution.
wake up people.. we have been divided in the middle by GPL and BSD . we have all stood for a long time to remove intellectual property and give away our thoughts and efforts to others who may need it for free. but now they are attempting to divide us between "viral" and "non-viral" groups. i'm sure that some of the BSD guys are going to accept this, and i'm sure some of the GPL guys are going to go against the BSD guys. but then we would have all lost our battle. To share our source and give away our efforts for the rich and the poor, and help humanity in general.
I was really unhappy that the other day BSD was not included in the document by Bruce Perens. Particulary because it was all about GPL. This is more than that. This is about keeping intellectual properties or not. This is about the freedom to code without thinking about stepping on somebody's one-click patent.
I'm sure the BSD guys would agree with this. but are they on the other side now ?? what is the response ?? the world is waiting..
Not sure if I would call it 'divide and conquer'
or not. It seems more like 'isolate and
exterminate.'
Obviously there's no natural affinity to the GPL
on the of people who release code under the BSD
license or any other non-GNU license. If there
was they'd be using the GPL, wouldn't they??
So the GNU advocates are on their own. Oh
well...
Response to Linux Myths
by
Viking+Coder
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so you think that the "Linux myths" article is good for a laugh. Well, where's the response? I want to see an articulate response to the points that Microsoft brings up. I'm willing to bet that they funded the "independant" tests. I know that they're lying about the cost of tech support - Microsoft charges more for tech support than anyone. I'm amazed that they can claim that IIS is a better web server than Apache. So, if Linux is so great, where's the response to this? I mean, everyone keeps bitching about FUD, about how Microsoft is using words like "virus," and wow, that's really going to change public perception! But, hey - here's a list of things that Microsoft claims is FACTUAL EVIDENCE that Linux sucks. Let's refute these claims in an organized manner, okay? I want to see a response to all of Microsoft's points. Let's admit defeat, if it's true that Microsoft knows how to PRINT faster than Linux. But when they say that Linux can't support x amount of memory, doesn't do Journaling File Systems, Apache is slower and less efficient than IIS - let's refute those claims if we can! Okay? I don't have the time, resources, or energy to do this - but I think it's an important thing to do!
By their argument, DNA is viral, in that all derived works are "infected" with it.
Capitalism is viral - it's how the USSR lost the cold war - they couldn't compete with our markets and efficiency.
Democracy is viral - almost every form of government that has tried to resist it has fallen. (With a few exceptions, and I'd argue that it's only a matter of time.)
Brilliant ideas transform society in a way that cannot be opposed, cannot be ignored, and they have a way of making life better. The GNU GPL is a brilliant idea - and it's only a matter of time, Microsoft.
We can do it better, cheaper, faster. What leg do you plan to stand on? Oh, right - legislation and name-calling. Sorry, I forgot.
I think the (OO) word we are looking for is inheritance. If I write a program that is derived from GPL code, then it inherits the license. If it's a new work I can give it any license I choose. ----
-- I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
The GPL license is not viral, and any sense in which you claim that it is becomes mere FUD and is just plain wrong. This is the height of Microsoft marketing trying to associate evil with the GPL.
The so-called viral aspect of the GPL is the one thing that Microsoft rarely regulates -- the ability to link (even dynamically) your application against their copyright protected library for free, whereas the GPL suggests that if you do this, your entire work must then be covered by the GPL. This is one aspect that has, in the past, been misunderstood by a number of developers and is important to recognise.
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
2) Standards: Promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition.
I'd like to know what standards Microsoft has been using to promote interoperability and support healthy competition. It seems like they just try to take something good and make it propriatary so it doesn't interoperate with anyone else. From my list I see BOOTP-DHCP, NFS-SMB, Kerbos(sp?), undisclosed file formats, and I'm sure the list goes on. Unless they mean that by supporting the TCP and IP connection protocols they are supporting standards and healthy competition, but I don't buy it.
I know this is the standard 'Embrace and Extinguish' rant, but the fact that they are trying to claim that they don't follow these incompatibility practices and that shared source won't either is just wrong.
I also wonder what they consider 'healthy competition' to be. They obviously consider Linux to be some sort of competition, and they are trying to squash it even though it has such a small market share on the desktop. I suppose their definition of 'healthy competition' and most business defintitions are a little different. Macs are probably considered competition, and I believe Microsoft ported it's office suite to Mac, but not Linux, why? That probably supported healthy competition, but maybe Linux is considered a threat and Macs aren't, hmmmm, makes you wonder...
An RMS-ske response Re:a dissenting view?
by
thermostat42
·
· Score: 1
(note: obviously I don't speak for RMS.)
Software engineers will still write software, just as musicians will still right music even if they lost all their money because of napster.
The software engineers might won't be making billions like Bill, and musicians won't be making millions like Britteny, but in both cases many people consider that a Good Thing.
Secondly, as long as there is a demand for software, people will be paid to fill that demand. As its been said many times before, Free does not mean free. For software companys, of course, Free is a Bad Thing. They make most of their money selling copies of the same thing, which they don't have control over if its Free. Contractors, OTOH don't (or shouldn't) care about the license, because in most cases they don't own the code, they're selling a service.
So, there would be fewer software engineers, but (theortically) they would be more productive because they would have access to everyone else's idea/implementations.
The way I see it, the GPL is bad for IP based business models, and programmers hoping to get rich, but good for people who love to understand how things work, and socialist idealist who want to create but don't want their creations making $ for the machine.
How do you think accountants, lawyers or architetcts get paid? They are paid for their advice, their professionalism and their knowledge. Do you think you visit your lawyer to "buy" a contract?
The entire software industry needs to get off its buff and become more professional. This is about SAVING your JOBS, should you actually WANT to be regarded as a professional software expert, rather than as a code-monkey. When companies want computer expertise they should know that theere are people who can and will support them. That person is you. Or would you rather be a code-mopnkey. to be retired as soon as cheaper labor comes along.
Put it another way, why should the CEO of a company pay you to code when he could too, having also learnt programming during his college days. Simply becuase you can code better?
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
(void*)
·
· Score: 4
And mderators, how is this insightful? How could one verify that your code is not trojaned simply by inspecting the source, but not being able to compile it?
Guess what? Admission of the "comfort factor" argument is really discrediting yourself. Maybe you'd like to turn around and say "well you didn't check the source for your GPLed programs too". And guess what? I didn't.
Becuase having the source is not just about being paranoid about trojans. It is about having a reference, having the ability to cross-check the code for correctness when I have to. Being able to fix it, and being able to make it better, and give it back.
For any one of these reasons, "Shared Suorce" is not enough. Keep your paranioa to yourself.
Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas as to how we can divert this trend. Maybe suing MS for libel would be a good start.
You'd lose, because truth is an absolute defence. Regardless of whether or not you think the GPL is a good thing, it's obviously viral. That's precisely the right word to use. The GPL is like a grabby child that says "if you play with one of my toys, then I own your toy". No wonder businesses stay away from it.
I'm not slamming the GPL. I think it's a fair deal in many circumstances. As somebody else already said, it's really just a formalized code trade. But there's lots of times when you need to be able to retain control of your original code for business reasons. Or even purely selfish reasons. In those cases, code released under the GPL automatically disqualifies itself from use. Software released under freer licenses like Zope or Squishdot is much more useful because it allows you to retain control over derivative works.
IT rhetoric at it's worst
by
Frizzled
·
· Score: 1
from the FAQ:
There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to a great deal of confusion.
but wait a second... MS has been a huge contributor to this confusion (nevermind the GPL and Open Source nonsense last week). do they plan to muddy the water to a point where all we'll see clearly is their side? by the third paragraph, they smartly mention benefits to open source, but not before letting this fly:
second paragraph Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious.
i think we can expect to hear this kind of language more and more in the MS attacks on open source and the GPL. nevermind, the time saved on projects by using prewritten and tested code, nevermind the fact that "opening" a project up to open source vastly improves the quality of code by increasing the number of people helping to build and test the individual parts...
if you look over the Halloween files which first documented MS's strategy against the open source movement, they (MS) realized that for the first time, it wasn't a product they were fighting but a mind set, a way of thinking, a philosophy. what better way to attack an idea than to simply discredit it, or even better, attach the buzz-word of the year to it.
Well said, I like how you compared the licenses. I agree with everything you said, but would like to especially stress a point that you hinted at that I personally believe is not said enough, if ever. BSD License=more freedom to the immediately direct enduser, but possibly less freedom to the rest of the world. GPL=less freedom to next immediate user, but a guarantee of that same minimal amount of usability to any and all other eventual users. Somebody could take a BSD license thing, mess with it, and re-release it under the BSD license, and that would have more usability then GPL, but they aren't required to. GPL *guarantees* a certain level of usability to absolutely everybody. Basically BSD is more usable, but also more abusable. I'm not advocating one over the other, simply noting the differences...
Isn't Microsoft licenses "viral" in that sense also?
Fact: Any programmers working on Windows 2000 kernel must release his work under Microsoft's license...
Fact: Any programmers working on Linux kernel must release his work under Linux's current kernel license (GPL)...
How is this any more viral?
--
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Look...this isn't funny anymore...
by
Hellburner
·
· Score: 1
The GPL is "infectious"? Windows has better security right out of the box? Open source is "un-American"?
Hey this crap isn't funny anymore. In the last 12 months BallmerCo has gone from "linux is a joke" to "OSS is a threat...hmm...maybe it should be illegal?" How long do you think it will be before the first sub-committee hearings on this garbage? They see that this forced march upgrading path will no longer cut it when linux is a fully developed OS suite supported by a myriad of pay-for-support companies. So, they are prepping the roiling masses for an assault of "open software is communism."
Okay kids, open software is communism, mmmmmkay? And communism is bad, mmmmmkay?
This crap isn't amusing anymore. This is a systematic and orchestrated wave of propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of. The legislature is bought and paid for, so getting hearings and eventual legislation is no problem.
Shrub:"Well, in the interest...uh...of 'Merican prosperity and...uh...'Merican jobs...uh...we need to assure 'lectual properties...uh...'lectually. So 'Merica will stop this open source infectiousness."
Jesus christ I know this is a rant. But look at it. Corporations now have the power to bully thought and freedom into the ground with litigation or legislative electioneering bribery.
How far are we from injunctions against Red Hat, et al? How much longer are we going to get kicked around by liars and bullies?
jesus sorry but it just PISSES ME OFF!
Re:Look...this isn't funny anymore...
by
ryanvm
·
· Score: 1
You've missed the point of free software. It isn't to destroy another company (e.g. Microsoft), for that matter, it really isn't even to compete with another company.
People write open source software because they can't accomplish what they want with existing software. Sometimes the software doesn't exist, sometimes it's prohibitively expensive, sometimes it's not modifiable, and sometimes people just don't like the license agreement. But it's the rare (and usually doomed) free software package that exists simply to compete with another offering.
And because of this, open source authors don't really have to care at all if a corporate entity declares war on them. If Microsoft decides to attack Linux with all the cash it has - who cares? You can't put volunteers out of business. The worst case scenario is that Windows keeps getting better while Linux chugs along in the background.
Of course, I think the future looks even better than that.
Viral is a bad name for describing the GPL
by
Jagasian
·
· Score: 2
Viral is a terminology that will only scare people away from GPL software. A far more descriptive and less inflammatory word would be "inductive" or "recursive". I would encourage all slashdotters to not use "viral" to describe the GPL. Instead, use "inductive" or "recursive", as we want to encourage people to use the software and the license, not scare them away.
Viral would mean that the GPL infects software, and sucks away vitility. "Recursive" would mean that the same license applies to related works and so on ad infinitum.
Re:Viral is a bad name for describing the GPL
by
Demonicbunny
·
· Score: 1
But it does suck away vitality. As soon as you use GPLed source in in your product, you suck away any chance of makeing money off selling the product. Sure you can always sell support, or manuals or what not, but you can't sell the binaries, which can hurt your business.
The GPL sucks away the vitality of selling a commercial product. It does have its place in the world.
Re:Viral is a bad name for describing the GPL
by
Demonicbunny
·
· Score: 1
You can, but not for a signifacant amount of money. People will just download the source and make it them selves. Think about a product like Veritas Volume Manager. If it was gpled, Veritas would not make nearly as much money. People are not going to pay 4 grand for the media, and manuals.
Re:Viral is a bad name for describing the GPL
by
Ig0r
·
· Score: 2
Why can't you sell binaries of GPLed products?
--
-- Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Re:Shared Source == SCSL
by
istartedi
·
· Score: 2
how exactly is Sun threatened by Open Source
At the time the SCSL was introduced, they were still licensing Solaris. Historicly, they weren't exactly open with their Java code either. It just so happened that Sun sells enough hardware and other services that it made sense for them to support OSI compliant licenses. Sun wanted to divide the cake and eat both pieces. They realized they couldn't do that, so they decided to eat the hardware/service piece.
So, if you want Windows source just wait. MS appears to be trying to move towards hardware with Xbox, and towards services with.Net. At some point, MS may end up being more like Sun or IBM, and then it will actually make sense for them to release source in an OSI compliant manner. Desktop operating systems will probably have to be totally commoditized first, and MSFT will have to totally shift its business model away from shrink-wrapped licensing, but stranger things have happened. Those guys aren't dumb. They realize the clock is ticking on their business no matter what.
I guess mindless bashing works better for you.
I usually don't say this, because I think it's pretentious; but I just have to say it: ad hominem.
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Remember Sun's Community Source License? No? Good reason. It was just a lame attempt to respond to the Open Source threat.
The funny thing is that Shared Source, if shared-source.com is to be believed, is worse than source code licenses that MS has used in the past. I'm referring to MFC. There was no prohibition against fixing bugs in MFC and incorporating them into your code. As far as I know, there was no prohibition against telling people how to fix bugs in MFC either. In fact, one of MS's fixes for an MFC bug actually told the user to change the source and rebuild it (although there were several alternatives, and that was listed as the least preferable).
The MFC case just demonstrates that MS, like any other company, will release source to the degree that it makes sense. It just so happens that at this point in time, it doesn't make sense for MS to loosen up their source very much. Let's face it. How many of us, sitting on such a cash cow, would release source?
I'm not suggesting that MS should go OSI compliant. That would be foolish for them. However, it might be a good idea if they made sources available to anyone who wanted them, and made it legal to distribute patches. This kind of distribution doesn't hurt the bottom line of book publishers, who's "source" is naturally open to all. Distributing patches would be analogous to writing reviews. Copyright law is strong enough to protect book publishers, and it would be strong enough to protect MS too.
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The most strict definition is to completly contain the orginial peice. The loosest definition is to take an idea or single line of code from the orginial.
Since GPL hasn't been tested in court, so we don't know where the line is.
But the line is almost certainly not defined by the GPL, per se, but by copyright law, on which the GPL depends. Any use of the GPLed code that doesn't rise to the level of copyright infringement shouldn't constitute a GPL violation, as the user only has to accept the GPL in order to avoid violating copyright. Therefore no copyright violation implies no GPL violation. The fact remains that what constitutes a copyright violation is rather fuzzy and has to be determined in court, but that's a potential problem with any license.
--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
What happened to the LGPL?
by
MongooseCN
·
· Score: 5
A lot of people use the LGPL in their software, this allows people to modify source code and sell the final program, as long as they provide the source code of the original LGPLed source (usually a library). Loki does this with all their games with the SDL library. All their games they port are proprietary closed source programs, but they can sell the games with the SDL library packaged with it as long as they allow people free access to the source code of the library.
Ok now I know that Loki owns the SDL library, but other companies can do this too. They can use and modify the SDL library in their programs, provided they give access to the changes they made to the library. "Intellectual property" is preserved in their proprietary section of code while still being required to release changes to the original source back to the community.
"Over the past 25 years, few people outside of the development community talked about source code and even fewer had access. Today, that is changing as more and more software products offer some access to source code"
With no thanks to Microsoft. They're just trying to
Q: Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
A. Competition is a fundamental motivational force driving innovation and product improvements in many areas of business, ultimately benefiting the end consumer. Linux is one of Microsoft's many competitors.
The issues that we are discussing in relation to the Commercial Software Model and Shared Source are much larger than Linux or Microsoft. There are fundamental concerns relating to the future of the software industry that need to be addressed. One such issue is the GNU General Public License. The wide use of Linux code and its licensing under the GPL presents a real threat to businesses and individuals who wish to obtain value from their intellectual property.
This is far worse than closed source
by
TekPolitik
·
· Score: 1
They're licensing the code free of charge to "top tier ISVs". You can bet any money they're talking about large, closed source shops. Not only is this discriminatory against free software shops, and, of equal importance, is discriminatory against smaller closed source shops.
Even if they allowed the smaller shops to get access with a fee, they're the very ones least able to afford the fees.
The fact of the matter is, their concept as described is highly anti-competitive - it adds an unmittigable barrier to entry for both the ISVs too small to qualify and for open source developers.
Trust Microsoft to come up with a way to release source code in a way that is strategically designed to hurt the concept of open source.
Certainly an admirable position. "There must always be revolution!" as Chairman Mao said.
However, I'm not sure everyone in the community necessarily shares that view of OSS. In fact, it strikes me that OSS is a perfect example of a free-market revolution. When Adam Smith asked a rural French farmer what would be the best thing the government could do for him, the response was, "Laissez faire!" Roughly equivalent, of course, to, "Leave us alone!" It strikes me that the hacker ethos, with regard to most things, is quite libertarian. PHBs are hated, the government is mistrusted, and generally stupid rules are violated without remorse.
Moreover, most OSS contributors seem to want to escape the perception that OSS is a communist idea. The badges would certainly be visually compelling, as the Mozilla artwork is, but the association with communism seems unlikely to engender a great deal of interest.
-- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
Microsoft's political grandstanding...
by
ErikTheRed
·
· Score: 1
...isn't fooling anyone. You have the devoted Microsofties that believe anything out of Redmond is golden, and you have the rest of the world, which ranges from moderately liking Microsoft products to people who won't let them into the house.
Perfect example: At Networld+Interop last week, Microsoft had a pretty good-sized booth set up for their "Freedom To Innovate" campaign. It was staffed by a few really sullen-looking individuals, and was absolutely dead. It was in the middle of the Central Hall, so I must have walked by it 30 times during the show, and at no time saw anybody there who wasn't wearing a Microsoft shirt. And it's not like most of the people at this show are from the Slashdot crowd. Far from it.
I think we're to the point that most of the world is numb to Microsoft's marketing machine. The only people that really pay attention are their core supporters.
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works.
Good lord! I had no idea running open source software was so dangerous! I mean, what with the liberal news media and their anti-microsoft slant you'd think it was good american programs like, oh, say.. Outlook that had 'viral' problems.. VBS must be open source.
I mean, what with the liberal news media and their anti-microsoft slant you'd think it was good american programs like, oh, say.. Outlook that had 'viral' problems..
Mainstream media are not particularly bright at computer stuff. They confused 'being a platform for mobile agents' with 'having viral problems'. And you do, too.
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
Christopher+Chang
·
· Score: 1
int main (){
make_app_look_really_big (active_application);
if (check_crashed = 0) \\ if we haven't crashed
bluescreen (rand);
Methinks there should be a double-equals here. Update Wine as necessary.
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
decesare
·
· Score: 1
The fundamental requirement for the guys who create the competing/replacement/compatible product is that they must never have viewed any of the original source
Does it count if the guys who are creating any replacement product look at the original source, then laugh hysterically and say "what a load of cr@p! Who wrote this pile of junk!?" (a phrase that I'm sure will be repeated very often when M$ does get around to "sharing" their source), and then code the replacement exactly the opposite from the original source?
Another thing M$ is afraid of...
by
sensate_mass
·
· Score: 1
is that the best approach(es) to solving problems will be GPL'd before M$ can get to them itself. Even with all the money in the world and thousands of drones in Redmond, M$ is still no match for the burgeoning ranks of open-source programmers.
More than providing a framework under which an alternative to M$'s products can grow and develop, the GPL takes software out of the domain of corporate IP entirely. And M$ can't buy it, for love (ha!) or money (ha ha!). Slowly but surely, as more software is written and GPL'd, the better avenues for solving problems will be made unavailable to M$, at least theoretically. So long as one hasn't fallen for all the 'shared source' hoo-ha, an open-source programmer is free to use the right method of solving problems, even if he/she happens to stumble onto the same one used by M$.
Reading their licensing 'agreements' always makes me feel like they have you by the nethers!
-- A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
MrBogus
·
· Score: 3
I guess it comes down to what the terms of the source licensing agreement are, and who it's available to. In the past, Microsoft has used source licenses to pick winners in certain product categories and has been sued over that practice.
Excluding "secret API" FUD, your description of Office development are the exact practices that Corel and Lotus have complained about for many years. You can tune your product using OS source, they can't. Will they be able to under "shared source"? Will (say) an IBM developer working on a juicy piece of middleware that MS wants supported on Windows be forbidden to transfer to the Lotus division?
I guess it really comes down to if "shared source" is something new, or just a continuance of MS's existing source license policies.
--
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:I like this quote from the FAQ...
by
kz45
·
· Score: 1
closed source software has always been as "free" as open source software. The fact that billy gates came into the industry has no effect. It's not like he created the idea.
On the other hand, the reason open source software will never become popular, in the corporate world, is because it doesn't bring in any $$$.
what about apple? They would have popularized an even more closed source model. Or IBM. Companies have always been around.
"I hate this Slashdot. This hacker zoo. This prison of ideas. This reality, whatever you want to call it, I can't stand it any longer. It's the open source software, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your filthy free software and every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it."
-- Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
Yes the GPL is viral. And I know that it is going to be sacrilege to say this on Slashdot but if you can put your religion aside for a minute and think it through.... The GPL exploits programmers the same way the RIAA exploits musicians.
Yes I know I might get flamed up and down for this by the people who believe that the GPL is the Holy Writ but I have got to say this. The GPL makes it so that you can't make money from writing code but only from selling CDs or selling support. Middleman stuff. Tedious stuff. Stuff that you don't even need to be a skilled programmer to do. And this is the same thing that the RIAA does to bands! The musicians are lucky if they make any money at all from their music and if they do they have to tour and sweat and it takes years before they earn out their advances and pay off the production costs. But the middleman record label that makes the disks and does advertising makes millions.
This is what the GPL does, and Richard Stallman (who tried to come onto me at a party with my boyfriend there but that's a story for another day) even says so. He says in his GNU Manifesto (look it up and read it on the FSF Web site) that he wants decent pay for programmers to be banned.
That is also why the really good programmers from our former company are out on the street right now looking for new jobs. The VCs wrote us off. They said that writing code was not a good way to make money especially with the GPL.
All this is getting really tired, like the psuedo
homeless person following you around begging for
money, or holding up a sign that says "Will work for food", knowing full well what they really want is for you to just give them money. I once saw some guy do this with such a sign. Some lady gave him an apple. He waited for her to get out of sight and then threw the apple away. I've heard of other ending their day by walking across the street and getting in their mercedes and driving home.
MS wants to open it's source code up, the way they have said, and they want you to fix their bugs by telling them what to do (not doing it yourself) so they can then claim IP rights to it.
How else could MS improve their "Piracy" practice. I mean it was coining "piracy" that give billy his start.
Hell, just send them some money If you really feel sorry for them, and then tell them to go away or you'll call the cops. 3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Where is the download button?
by
fkooman
·
· Score: 1
I am looking for the download button, can somebody point me to it?;)
Microsoft is entirely correct to say the GLP is viral because all derived works...
No. Read that part there. "...all derived works..." It's a bad analogy, because a viral infection is unintentional. Making a derived work is a very deliberate act.
It's more akin to an inoculation where you affect an entire system purposefully. People don't say, "oh no, I'm infected with the polio vaccine; now I can't get polio. Help, I'm being repressed." They took the vaccine because they intended to effect themselves in that way.
-- -- dR.fuZZo
Re:GPL as inoculation
by
haruharaharu
·
· Score: 1
Let's just say that a virus is a bad metaphor for GPL behavior, alright?
As I understand you will not be able to see all the code anyway.
I couldn't care less about the way they process the 'Start' button click, and they will not show me the code they use for HD access in the SQL Server 2000 on corresponding OS.
Just another marketing campaign.
shared source - not really new to ms
by
mark_lybarger
·
· Score: 1
From what i've heard, ms has "shared" their source to companies in the past for a VERY, VERY pretty penny of course. With that, their shared source isn't really a new idea or philosophy, i think they're just trying to inform the CIO/Managerial types with "hey, i know you've heard all the hype about the GPL and open source software, but look, you can get our source code too."
Shared Source: Embrace and Extend
by
LionKimbro
·
· Score: 2
Damn, who would have imagined that the Microsoft would try to, with their own proprietary extensions of course, Embrace and Extend the GPL itself!?!
I think i'll add a property page to the blue screen:
Select blue screen background color:
* Blue - Factory default
* Yellow
* Orange
* White
* Black
* A random color for every crash
I guess that Microsoft's new innitiative...
by
genejockey
·
· Score: 1
Freedom to Inoculate !
It sounds like MTV's new marketing campaign
by
abe+ferlman
·
· Score: 3
Microsoft has a powerful rhetorical sledgehammer with the word "viral", which conjures up images of disease and hacked, crashing computers. Although going by the any press is good press dictum many people will hear this and learn it's not a bad thing, it's still important to formulate a counter-rhetoric to this feint.
How can we extend the analogy? The GPL is to a virus as M$'s EULA's are to shackles? The analogy won't extend properly because it's based on a faulty premise- that virii are all bad by definition.
I propose the following: free software is more like the polio vaccine. When asked if he was going to patent the polio vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk said that would be 'like patenting the sun'. Free software doesn't restrict freedom like a virus that crashes your computer or destroys your body, it preserves freedom by making sure that no one can take away the rights you've got, just as the polio vaccine prevents polio from ravaging the body. So which one's the vaccine and which one's the virus- that's the question we should be asking.
I think the metaphor is apt and ought to embarass Micro$oft a little.
Bryguy
ps- feel free to use this metaphor. It's free as in speech.
If MS licensed someone Windows Souce Code via "Shared-Source"(tm) and they made a dervivative work with the code, even if it wasn't an OS in the end and they wanted to distribute that new product they would have to give MS something. Its called "money".
If I license you my project under the GPL, which is a license afterall and you want to distribute a derivative work you would have to give me, and the world at large, something. Its called "Your new code under the GPL".
As in all "Free Trade" situations, its a trade. Instead of "money for code' its "code for code". It all sounds very fair to me. If you don't want to submit to the license of my orgional code then "innovate it yourself". MS wouldn't give you thier code for a project for free and you won't get my code with out code exchange.
Slashdot readers (should) be/are fairly intelligent and can probably come to their own conclusions without being sent obviously biased articles. (shared-source.com)
Closed mindedness is what most of your are trying to combat, so don't embrace it yourselves.
Slashdot readers (should) be/are fairly intelligent and can probably come to their own conclusions without being sent obviously biased articles.
Oh, please. The shared-source.com web page makes adequate references to sources it cites, unlike non-biased news sites like zdnet or c|net, which rarely if ever give you an outside link to a citation. Readers of shared-source.com are more than free to leave the page and check on the veracity of just about anything stated on that web page.
So, you've gotten just about everything wrong:
You imply that non-biased sources for information on shared source exist, and state openly that shared-source.com is obviously biased. Yet you give no links to or hints as to the existance of these non-biased sources.
Your use of the term yellow journalism is wrong. My dictionary defines yellow journalism as: the use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in newspapers, etc. to attract or influence the readers. I don't consider shared-source.com to be "cheaply sensational" or "unscrupulous". Apparently you do, but you fail to point out the cheaply sensational and/or unscrupulous features of it.
The shared-source.com page, while obviously biased, has features (like links away from itself) that allow fairly intelligent readers to come to their own conclusions. If you'd cited some non-biased sources that contradict shared-source.com's conclusions, I might have given you points for this one, but you didn't.
Slashdot readers (should) be/are fairly intelligent and can probably come to their own conclusions without being sent obviously biased articles. (shared-source.com)
However, it is nice to have some good links to give to our non-slashdot friends
GPL is complex? "Patenting ideas" stuff was silly!
by
Kourino
·
· Score: 1
Okay, first of all... To quote Microsoft, "There is no question that the GPL is a complicated liscense that has led to a great deal of confusion." My first reaction was, "well, Uncertainty and Doubt do tend to lead to confusion". Then I went and read a copy of the GPL for memory refresher. It's not that confusing, as we all know, of course. The terms are basically distribute, modify, use freely with a few conditions that are also simple to understand. The liscense isn't the easiest reading, but that's just because it's (necessarily) in legalese. I find Microsoft's EULAs to be much worse reading. So, this part of the "Shared Source FAQ" is either terribly misinformed, lazy, or simply FUD. Take your pick, none of them are good.
Oh yeah, it comes right out and says that "Linux is one of our many competitors". Nice:)
This is kind of reiterating ESR's comments on the Halloween documents... but it's kind of scary to see that Microsoft realizes the stakes are much larger than itself. The talk about not being able to patent the ideas underlying implementations seems silly. Sure, you may not be able to patent the theory of time travel, but if you're the only one that's made a time machine and it's patented, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from blocking the flow of information about time travel.
Also, they seem to be taking this tack that "Oh, we have a SHARED model, not a closed one, so we're not evil, don't hate us!" They mention their research source liscensing, but also say in big letters at the bottom of that page that "Microsoft retains the right to refuse requests for any reason". Again, nice. ("Hey, no way I'm giving YOU a liscense, you black-haired freak!") Their use of sample code as an example of Shared Source is just a joke, and as for the.NET standards, I hope anybody creating a new service or protocol would release it. The fact that Microsoft follows basically standard (right? I hope so... ) practice says absolutely nothing about them.
No comment on the Mundie speeches, this has done enough by pesons that could probably do it better than me, but anyone interested in totally ripping apart that "Linux in Retail and Hospitality" paper? ^^
Tax benefits of Microsoft Shared Source??
by
Lieutenant+Kije
·
· Score: 1
From the FAQ: "In the year 2000, the worldwide packaged software industry employed 1.35 million people and produced tax revenues of approximately USD$28.2 billion"
I'm sure there was a Slashdot item a month or so ago pointing out that Microsoft had paid NO tax in the last year...
I like this quote from the FAQ...
by
sdo1
·
· Score: 4
The wide use of Linux code and its licensing under the GPL presents a real threat to businesses and individuals who wish to obtain value from their intellectual property
IE, Microsoft. To the end users, it represents a real benefit.
-S
-- ---
What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Re:I like this quote from the FAQ...
by
CTachyon
·
· Score: 1
Makes you wonder what would have happened had someone gone back in time and kept Gates from entering the software industry. Sort of like the "What if someone went back in time and killed Hitler?" question. Would we live in a world where Free software dominated, would programs come with source code under a Sun-style "community license", or would somebody else have popularized closed-source software?
Note: this is in no way an attempt to claim that Gates is as evil as Hitler was.
Re:I like this quote from the FAQ...
by
GearheadX
·
· Score: 1
You know, this sounds a lot like Billy Boy's behavior while he was still in college. If memory serves he was always sitting on the source code for the programs he wrote on those old switch-box computers, refusing to show anyone how he did something.
Berk Watkins
Comparing the MSs license to GNU license
by
RedLaggedTeut
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft
GNU public license
Source licensees can share source or other source-based work with other source licensees.
This means, the license is viral in a similar way to the GPL; in order to give the code to someone else, you have to infect the other person with the MSsl. Welcome to the club of viral licensors. MS:-)
Source is licensed to the requesting organization, not individuals to insure broad internal access. The GPL allows a single person to fulfill the american dream and write great code.
Maybe you, but probably the organization you work for, can use the PARTS and CONCEPTS of the code that you developed yourself commerical. You are DISALLOWED to use parts of the source code of MS commercially or otherwise unless you subscribe to the MSsl.
The GPL allows you to use all of the code source, but to withhold and use none of it commercially(but you still can base a business on it, just not on keeping the source).
Microsoft is unable to ship source code under this program to all countries, due to limited resources.
GNU and other sites are distributing source and binaries to gazillions of users, every one of which is allowed to use the code (Luke).
I think the score is: 0:2 for GPL
Possible weak links of the MSsl
A university could decide to simply accept all living persons on earth as its members, such allowing everyone to look at MS source code.
-- I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Is this the true 'viral' infection (as opposed to the GPL)?
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
update()
·
· Score: 2
When I'm adding parameters in a function dialog box in Excel, have a question and click the help button, I want it to open the documentation for that particualr function. I do _not_ want to have that stupid dancing computer* pop up to ask me if I want basic assistance and forcing me to click through multiple boxes before playing its song and disappearing. Especially since I've already specified in my prefs that I can't stand the thing.
If I had access to the source, I could fix it for myself. Sure, I'd rather be able to distribute the patched version. But as long as there isn't a realistic free alternative (I tried KSpread from CVS last night and it's getting there but not yet there), fixing it on my own box is better than nothing.
Come to think of it, isn't that what RMS wanted to do with that printer driver in the first place?
* Max, Clippy's slightly less annoying MacOS cousin.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Re:Why I LOVE Lunix...
by
Smoking+Joe
·
· Score: 1
I tried, but instead of working commands, I ended up with bunch of "+3 Informative" Slashdot posts.
-- If the lameness filter actually worked, would you even be reading this?
How is MSFT policy going to change?
by
Philbert+Desenex
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft has been allowing some small access to source code for years. A little less than halfway down this page, there's a summary of a discussion called "Do you need source?" The discussion took place in 1997, and indicates that quite a few academic institutions had access to NT source code back then.
So how does "shared source" change Microsoft's policy about source code? That has never been clear from Mundie's verbiage.
The discussion summary includes this little gem:
The conclusion was that Vogels's group used source code only as documentation (there is no other documentation for NT), examples, and to understand the behavior of NT. It turned out to be useful for debugging, and it led to the discovery of interesting APIs that are not documented or available in Win32.
So, their stance is, "Please pay for our expensive licenses so we won't go out of business." Hmmm...that's what I thought the last time I bought a car, "Gee, I want to look for the most expensive place to buy my car so that poor dealership owner won't go out of business."
Microsoft supports BSD licensing?
by
wrinkledshirt
·
· Score: 4
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
A: There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to a great deal of confusion. For the sake of clarity, we wish to reiterate our basic points in regard to the GPL and other OSS licenses.
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license-the GPL-is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify, and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification. Moreover, programs containing code subject to the BSD license are subject to only limited obligations imposed by that license. This type of license gives users freedom to incorporate their own changes and redistribute them, without requiring them to publish the new source code or allow royalty-free redistribution.
Q: We're confused. Does this mean that this is the model that you're going to be using for your own shared source strategies?
A: Ha ha, no. We just wanted to take this opportunity to use certain words like "viral", a word which we unintentionally made popular, against our primary competition.
Q: Oh. So you have no plans to release your source code free for public use for people to take and incorporate into their projects how they please.
A: Of course not! What sort of fools do you take us for?
Q: So your opinion of the GPL and BSD models and licenses is really irrelevent.
A: Er... yes. But don't tell anyone, 'kay?
--
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
However, one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious.
Now, Personally, I'm more of a BSD licence guy, myself, but Microsoft is totally missing the point here. Of course it's viral. It's supposed to be. The GPL's viral properties keep people from being able to steal GPLed code, in the exact same way that MS will try to keep people from stealing their code. MS treats this viral property as if it were a great evil communist conspiracy, and they need to grow up. The GPL prevents code from being reused without a price, the same way that MS will do the same to anyone who uses any of their shared source.
The difference, in fact, is that the GPL will give you the choice to use the code, even with the "Viral" license. MS will not let anyone use their code, instead going for their 'Code Under Glass' philosophy. Obviously, there's no questioning which one leads to true 'innovation'.
--
When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
hillct
·
· Score: 2
This probably is their strategy with regard to the the promotion of 'shared source' amd as much as it pains me to say this, it's almost a halway valid business strategy...
I've tried to find fault with it but it doesn't seem blatently wrong; although perhaps anti-competitive, but not ilegal.
Microsoft Advances the field of Computer Science
by
hillct
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft is now allowing universities to get access to Windows source code. This will allow us to learn how they were able to write an OS that causes programs to run differently each time thay are run; in a completely non-deterministic fashion.
See, Microsoft has contributed to computer science by making otherwise deterministic systems completely non-deterministic. Wait, Isn't that a requirement for true artificial inteligence. See It's a feature. People have been trying to create non-deterministic computing systems for 30 years... And Microsoft has succeeded.
Are they going to continue to tell us that Linux has no effect on them? On one hand it is a major competitor and on the other hand it is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand?
It's funny how competitive Microsoft is, a corporation trying to preserve its bottom line trying to dissuade other corporations from neglecting their bottomlines to purchase (and tether themselves into) their software.
You can't argue with free... no matter how much propaganda money you throw at it.
Care to elaborate, or do you consider that to be an appropriate response? Come on, how about some specific examples of why Gnome is worse. Does it have something to do with actually being able to customize the interface instead of just changing the font and wallpaper? It must be that the OS and interface are two entirely different components so that a kernel upgrade won't force you to learn a brand new interface. Have fun with XP buddy!
They are terrified of it. Linux, Apache, Gnome, Mozilla, etc. is better than anything they can create and their free. The more they fight it the more it destroys them.
--
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
How to read between the lines
by
Water+Paradox
·
· Score: 1
CTH:
With people in Microsoft's position, you have to be careful as you read between the lines. Note the excess word just in this line quoted from their site:
Microsoft views source code and source code licensing as just one component of an umbrella framework that is the Commercial Software Model.
The sentence would mean the same without the value-laden word just. So look closely at that word. What is it doing? It is targeted directly at Open Source folks. It is implying that source code is not only a small portion, but a rather small portion of Commercial Software.
To any programmer, even closed-source ones, this is a slight. And Microsoft knows that the best programmers in the world are ones dedicated to Open Source. Open Source programmers work for joy, not always for money. Microsoft has a case of sour grapes and is trying to malign the whole profession of programmers, knowing that, even doing so, they can buy the average ones for a dime a dozen: give 'em money, and they'll program for ya. It's a weird tactic, but their language is laced with this kind of condescending tone.
No need to evaluate whether they're sensible or not; the DOJ is still breathing down their nostrils at 'em, so of course they're gonna be sensible. What you want to look for is any sense of repentence from past errors. If that is not present, what real value is in what they have to say?
Re:How to read between the lines
by
McSpew
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft has a case of sour grapes and is trying to malign the whole profession of programmers, knowing that, even doing so, they can buy the average ones for a dime a dozen: give 'em money, and they'll program for ya.
If this is indeed what Microsoft is doing, it's extremely ironic. As Robert X. Cringely pointed out in his brilliant book, Accidental Empires, once upon a time, Microsoft understood the truism that one excellent programmer can outperform a dozen average ones. This was something IBM never understood during those heady days when MS and IBM actually collaborated on OS/2.
During that time, IBM insisted on measuring programmer productivity in terms of "K-LOCs". MS programmers seethed because they could re-write a huge, bloated morass of crap in a few dozen lines of code and IBM would view the result as a negative.
Back in those days, MS prided itself on its college recruiting, always seizing the best and brightest graduates, indoctrinating them into the MS cult of personality and putting them to work. Make no bones about it. MS got some hot programmers back in those days. Dave Cutler and Charles Simonyi come immediately to mind, and they didn't even swipe those guys out of colleges.
Even when they bought companies, it was hardly ever for the sake of buying code or products. It was almost always about buying the people at those companies. If MS truly believes that code and programmers have little value, then it is truly an enormous shift in their belief system.
Personally, I have a hard time believing that even the evil empire in Redmond has come to devalue programmers and their work so much. If anything, I think they're hiding their true feelings because they're scared of open source and the GPL and the power they have to destroy Microsoft's OS cash cow and its inherent monopoly leverage.
Hey, its not just TV preachers playing fleece the flock anymore. Now MS wants to get into the act. "Here little sheep (er developer). Come and let me shear off all that hot smelly code." Being MS, they make hot smelly scratchy sweaters out of it and sell it at a boutique for a small fortune. Exploit the developers, torment the user with BSOD's, and rake in the dough. Ah, but it's "the American way". Funny thing is, the very people dictating "the American way" are the ones currently (at least if/until the appeal goes through) found guilty of breaking American antitrust laws. ROFL
Anyway, its not like MS is doing anything new. They've "shared" their code with others for years now. Usually for a hefty price, or bundled with their development packages. They are just trying to hijack the bandwagon and make it go in their direction.
That isn't going to happen. Why? For one thing, because they are dealing with lots of individuals who will stick to their guns, not a business they can buy or destroy. For another, their continual abuse of their users is turning lots of people against Microsoft. Finally, Microsoft may not be able to exist in its present form much longer. That kind of greed is not sustainable. They've pulled down the wrath of the US and other governments on their heads. We keep hearing of new governments tossing out their Windows software. MS is finding new and unusual ways to torment their users (subscriptions, Hailstorm,.Net, XP's broken MP3 support, copy protection, etc.) They are expanding into tons of new markets all at once (.Net, Xbox, etc.) and each has built in competitors that MS may well loose against. It has already been in the news that MS may actually put off release of Windows XP till next year in favor of the Xbox's release. Any new desktop OS would have both the educational and Xmas seasons in which to establish itself unopposed if that happens. OS X is the best candidate, but Linux could be there too if its community dropped all conflicts and really pulled together and put in a monumental effort. I work for a company where everybody hates MS with a fiery passion. I can't believe we are the only ones that feel that way. We need viable alternatives to MS, and we need them *now*. Get them established while MS is distracted, and rip away a huge chunk of their marketshare in their core business. Then Sun, IBM, and all their other "new"-found competitors can do the rest.
Think Apple won't take on MS? Think again! The only thing stopping them before was that five year deal-with-the-devil and Office. With Darwin, Apple now has the potential to have the open source office suites ported. They already have Apple Works reading Word files. The five years is up in 2002. Apple is starting to compare themselves to the PC on their website. I bet you that come 2002 the gloves will come off. Apple alone isn't much of a match for MS, but Apple, IBM, Sun, Sony, and AOL are. Toss in the Open Source movement and hordes of angry users, and MS is going to be fighting a battle on all fronts, a battle it can't win.
"Mothra is attacking New Kirk City!" "Mothra" July 30,1961
I mostly disagree with the M$ view here, as do most folks here. But, there is an issue that I have been thinking about that they may have a point about:
I am a software engineer, so I write software for a living. So the company that I work for sells the software, or uses the software in the product that they sell, thus they pay me. If I work on GPL code in my spare time, I don't get paid for it, thus I call it a hobby.
But what if the only software in the world were GPL or in some other way free? How would I get paid? I understand that there is some money to be made with free software, like support, etc. But what about people that write software for a living? What will I do to pay my house/car payment? If I can get paid more by digging ditches than writing code, will I use my time to write code? nope, I will dig ditches or whatever that will pay the bills. Writing code for GPL projects is fun, but it doesn't pay the bills. The only reason I can afford to do this is because someone else pays me to write other software (non-free software that is).
So now I have no reason to write software all day. I dig ditches instead. That is the death of innovation, nobody (not just me) will write software.
It seems to me that free software only works because non-free software exists. If noone were paying programmers, there wouldn't be very many programmers around, thus noone would be working on GPL-like projects.
Am I way off base here? I have never heard anything that really answered this question for me. Maybe it belongs in "Ask Slashdot".
--
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
>How do you think accountants, lawyers or
>architetcts get paid? They are paid for their
>advice, their professionalism and their
>knowledge. Do you think you visit your
>lawyer to "buy" a contract?
true, because I can't take a contract that one lawyer drew up for me and apply it to another situation. They are written for a particular situation and isn't useful for anything after that. Same thing for an accountant with my taxes, even though it is pretty much the same thing next year, I still have to have an accountant run through it again because it is different.
This is because what you decribe are mostly services. Software is mostly a product. The only way to get paid for a product is to sell it, thus to get money from it. If I am forced to give it away for free, I don't get paid, thus I don't eat.
This is because usually (there are exceptions) software isn't required to be custom, and so it is applicable to other situations. Take a word processor. If it is available on the web for free (and legal), why would anyone pay me to write one for them?
--
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
For instance, when I work on, say, an accounting program for company X, for which I am employed, I am not actually doing accounting work (a service), I am writing a program that allows someone else to do that service.
Thus, I am producing a product that company X uses and counts as an asset. Yes, it may not be externally marketed, but it is still a product.
--
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
I never said that I was defending M$ here, just bringing up what I thought was an interesting topic.;-)
> Well, you'd be surprised how much custom
> software there is.
Probably not. I didn't say there wasn't much custom software, I just said that (IMHO) software isn't *required* to be custom. How many companies have reinvented the wheel and developed their own [fill in the blank] system because they were just too lazy to figure out how an "off-the-shelf" system would fit into their buisness process? I worked for one company in particular that never really seemd to think about "buy vs. build", they always built it. I guess they thought that they were the only buisness in the world that did what they did.
> if I already have a word processor and it does
> everything I need, why would I want to pay for
> it again?
Very true, sorry for the bad example.
--
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
Re:a dissenting view?
by
haruharaharu
·
· Score: 1
Software is mostly a product
Bullshit
Most software is not commercial; it is written for the sole use of a company, by programmers. This is not a product I am describing, it is a service.
-- Reboot macht Frei.
Re:a dissenting view?
by
haruharaharu
·
· Score: 1
This is where we disagree then. I view software as service when my work is billed hourly. Software as product is when the product is produced internally and then sold as a product.
If it isn't sold, then it's not a product. That would require packaging, advertising, and probably different documentation as well.
the Open Source Software (OSS) model used for such software as the Linux operating system.
I suppose RMS will emphasize the OS should be reffered as GNU/Linux, not just Linux...
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
einhverfr
·
· Score: 2
This tactic was mentioned in the halloween documents (href="www.opensource.org/halloween) as a means of competing with brainshare for open source products, back in 1998.
Funny, Microsoft denies that these documents are offician and then impliments every one of the concepts....
Of course what they don't want you to see is something like the following:
This might help my bosses finally "get it."
by
GeneOff
·
· Score: 1
With all the recent media attention to this Open/closed (come on, if it quacks like a duck, then it must be...) source debate, I've found myself in the position of having to explain it to the higher-ups. "If they give it away, how do they make any money?" I'm pretty tired of ducking that one.
But at least, GNU/Linux and it's buddies are finally appearing on more people's radar. A few of them actually want to try it now. 6 months ago it was "PowerPoint rulez." Now they're all: "Microsoft sux".
Open gene plants vs. shared gene ones.
by
GeneOff
·
· Score: 1
Did anyone else notice how silent their Chief Software Architect is on this matter? Linus and RMS spin forth, but Mr. Bill remains elusive. Guess he's too busy gushing over the XBox.
According to their FAQ commercial software is good because it produced US$28.2 billion in tax revenue worldwide in Year 2000. (They have a source for this number and I won't pretend to have any idea whether this is true or not.)
But by this logic wouldn't we all be much better off if Microsoft increased all its prices by a factor of ten, or a hundred, or more? Think of all the extra tax revenue!
I'm no business-as-usual Republican, but even I would agree that the economy improves as goods and services become cheaper. It's true that by using GPL software companies can save lots of money, but that money won't simply disappear, it can be used to expand the business itself or to give employees raises or be paid in taxes as a portion of the increased revenues accruing to owners. I guess all these are bad now.
"But it is true that Linux are actually rapidly increasing their market share in the US also. Doesn't this pose a threat?"
Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media and is destined to fall by the wayside in time. Windows 2000 will gradually overtake the Linux share in the server market. In fact, the advent of Linux has spurred Microsoft's developers to move up a gear. The arrival of new competitors in applications or operating systems development provides us at Microsoft with the driving force to create even better software products.
Taken from :
You Know Where....
And don't forget:
Microsoft Strengths Against this Competitor (Don't forget, all these apply TO M$, not GNU/Linux stuff)
* Thousands of compatible applications
* Better integration and ease-of-use; stronger long-term buy
* Popular, reliable platform; less risk
* Greater depth of channel support as taken from their sales section
And if you've never read Linux myths and you fancy a laugh, check it out now !!
Is it just me, or do I get the feeling that there's a lot of brown trousers in the Redmond camp ?
-- Two wrongs may not make a right, but three....
What are they trying to do?
by
krylan
·
· Score: 2
According to the microsoft webpage there number 1 element for the Shared Source model is:
1.Community: A strong support community of developers.
Sorry, but what a crock of shit. It sounds like they want to take some of the ideals of the OSS and FSF to increase their image to developers. A good example is that this page is not on their developer page, but on there business page. It's good that they are showing some source finally (they probably did a grep -r/mscode/* GNU) however, I think there just trying to reap the benifits of OSS.
The only statement that cannot be questioned, is that every statement can be questioned.
--
...I could be wrong
We 'share', and you grant us back all your 'work'
by
deepfoo
·
· Score: 2
yeah, this is great huh? cool way for the Beast to have us pay them, get improvements from the community and then re-incorporate them back into their property without anyone other than the Beast getting squat.
um, isn't this usury, or at a minimum severe exploitation of the techno-peasantry?
Summary Meme of what Mr. Slippery Said
by
Databass
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft forgot the 6th piece of the "umbrella"
6. Make money by any means necessary.
OH YEAAAAAAAA
At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigotry
by
Flabdabb+Hubbard
·
· Score: 2
For a while I was beginning to think I would never be able to reconcile the need to run quality robust software, with the requirement to see the source code to ensure it wasn't infected with trojans, backdoors and virii. This new initiative from Microsoft while not being as comrehensive as I'd like, is (in time honoured Microsoft tradition) "good enough".
Hell, how many people actually want the source code because they are going to actually compile it ? Not many i'd guess. But plenty of people want the source as a kind of comfort factor. I am one of those people. I could not give a flying fuck about whether it is GPL, LGPL, BSD or whatever (they differ only in technicalities) I just want to know that my software is safe and will not allow me to be penetrated via the backdoor with a trojan.
Anyway, now Microsoft have gone "open source" do we actually need Linux any more ? I mean, sure Windoze costs $$S, but then so does Red$Hat these days...
It's all in the marketing!
by
winchester
·
· Score: 2
So many brilliant people here seem to overlook one thing. What made microsoft big was not their incredible products. Actually the reverse is true... most of the stuff that microsoft made was complete crud. However, they were lucky and they had and still have a brilliant marketing department.
So, why will Linux lose? Not because it is not good enough, but because the marketing behind Linux is not sexy enough. Just look at microsoft. Read about them, learn from them.
Examples:
They have great case studies on their website. Just look at the technet site. Where are the Linux case studies?
Business talk. They have great white papers on their site. Where are the Linux white papers?
Sexy names for "cool new technologies". Linux doesn't have those, and as a result is not sexy enough.
freebies. My boss got a free cdrom with some windows ce junk on it, while he has a nicely working palm. He is looking into windows ce handhelds now...
I am serious. My manager is prepared to throw away his great working palm for a bigger, userUNfriendlier handheld.
This is the problem Linux faces. Marketing. And this is the area in which Linux will lose big time unless something happens. Look at microsoft, study microsoft, learn from microsoft.
Read "The Art of War". I did and learnt a lot from it. The first chapter handles about studying your enemy careful. Microsoft does this, Linux (or the whole OSS community) doesn't. This is logical, 99% of the community is coders. But when you want the suits to accept Linux (remember, the suits make the decisions, not the techs), you have to talk like a suit.
Final note: I have submitted stories like these on here before, but no one listened. I hope this time it will be different (but I doubt it...)
Well, something does need to be said for M$'s wanting to keep their source code closed. They can keep a monopoly on their OS. Then again, Apple did that, and they are a cult brand now, but not as powerful as say, M$, who originally built their source to run all sorts of Intel PC clones. Now WindowsXP is going to validate all the hardware and software I have in my PC and make it harder to upgrade my stuff? Guess what, I'm not going to buy it, even if it does have more features than Linux or Apple OS's. It makes it great for supportability and ease of use by the commoner, but they're not going to win any technophiles that way.
MS Hypocrites demand others souce code!
by
Rick+the+Red
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft demands the source code for every piece of software supplied by outside companies for use in its own
operations, said James Van Dyke, formerly an executive at one such company.
Van Dyke, now a senior analyst for Jupiter Research, said two years ago he was employed as director of product
management for Harbinger Corp., a company producing encryption software and selling it to Microsoft, among other
companies.
"They demanded a copy of our source code if they were to continue to use it," Van Dyke said. "If you're a vendor to
Microsoft, you have to give them your source code. There's no question this policy was in place. If someone says it
never was, I can tell you firsthand that's not true."
-- If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
MwtrV
·
· Score: 1
Flabdabb Hubbard is a well known troll. Infact, every message he posts here is a troll. Please do not feed him.
-- mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
McSpew
·
· Score: 5
Don't forget that the holy grail of reverse engineering is the Chinese wall between the guy who analyzes the original product and writes the spec documents and the guy(s) who then read the spec documents and design the compatible/replacement product.
What am I getting at?
The fundamental requirement for the guys who create the competing/replacement/compatible product is that they must never have viewed any of the original source (if it's software) or viewed the original drawings or workings if it's a machine. This is known as finding "virgins" to do the work. If MS spreads its source code wider via this "shared source" concept, they'll still have all the copyright protection they could ask for and now it will be much harder to find virgins who can work on competing/compatible products.
Since university students are a huge part of the open source community, MS may be intentionally polluting the community by allowing universities (and their CIS or Computer Engineering students) to see the source to MS operating systems.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I have a hard time believing Microsoft wouldn't resort to such tactics if they thought they could get away with them.
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
janpod66
·
· Score: 2
The fundamental requirement for the guys who create the competing/replacement/compatible product is that they must never have viewed any of the original source (if it's software) or viewed the original drawings or workings if it's a machine.
While it is certainly prudent and simplifies a future legal defense, I don't see any such requirement in the law (but IANAL). Sometimes specific source licenses attempt to add clauses that specify this, but it remains to be seen how well the would hold up.
But, still, you are probably right to the degree that Microsoft may see this as a legal advantage. After all, what do they have to lose by "sharing" their source code without giving up any of their commercial rights? Sharing code traps people into copying bits and pieces of it and thereby "infecting" free source code, and it also encourages people to rely on undocumented features, both actions that are very much to Microsoft's advantage.
Re:MS Tactic to end reverse-engineering?
by
wbtotb
·
· Score: 2
ObBackground: I'm a Microsoft developer working in Office.
I doubt that polluting the college population is a large motivation for shared source licensing here at MS, but OTOH, since we're constrained in the same way, it seems perfectly fair to me. Rumor has it that the fastest way to get fired at MS that does not involve breaking the law would be to download Netscape/Mozilla source code.
The major advantage that I see to having read-only access to OS component sources is that you can more easily debug apps that depend on those components when they are more than a (possibly buggy) black box. The best I can do with my own limitted access to OS source code is to diagnose bugs more easily and possibly devise a work around if the bug is in the OS. In extreme cases, I might be able to get the OS bug escalated to get a fix there, which is something a large company with a shared source license would also be able to do.
Even though I could in theory build a custom version of some OS components, as an app developer, there's no way that I would be allowed to check in my changes or distribute my modifications with the app. In effect, any company that get's a shared source license is going to have resources on par with Microsoft's own app developers. IMO, that is a Good Thing (tm).
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program.
And most "shared source" and "commercial" licenses are viral and infectious; that is, if you write your own software using that kind of software, you either have to pay runtime licenses yourself, or your customers will have to purchase the infecting product themselves.
Microsoft's shared source philosophy
by
janpod66
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft doesn't need such a long statement about their philosophy, it can be summed up pretty succinctly: (1) we (Microsoft) take every step we can to make you dependent on our software, including sharing source code with you that encourages you to use undocumented APIs, and (2) given the additional cost that would create if you wanted to switch to a competitor, we can charge you a lot more for our products than we could in a free, competitive market.
Re:We 'share', and you grant us back all your 'wor
by
janpod66
·
· Score: 2
I dunno, that part sounds not too different from some self-proclaimed "open source" companies that "dual license": they give away a free version of their software to non-commercial users, but any improvements that you contribute and want incorporated into their distribution, you have to sign over to them, and the improvements then get sold as part of their commercial product.
GPL is viral ? So Microsoft EULA is too ...
by
OeLeWaPpErKe
·
· Score: 1
GPL -> All derivative works are also GPL
MIC -> All derivative works are also MIC
GPL -> improvements must be released under GPL
MIC -> improvements must not be released, only to us
comments ?
I wonder if Netscape, RealNetworks, Corel, etc. and Micro$ofts other biggest competitors get to see it? Oh never mind...
--
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
Such a transparent argument...
by
glenebob
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's arguments continue to become more and more transparent. The more I think about it, the more 90% of what they've been saying slips away into the realm of 'filler', leaving only one significant point.
From the FAQ :
"...one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify, and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification."
In other words, Microsoft wants your code. They want to continue to use your code to make money without giving you any credit for it. Their business depends on it. The GPL stops that activity cold, they know it, and it scares them.
And that's what all this 'discussion' has been about. --
I've got an idea for the guys at Think Geek regarding this. You know those red and gold (sometimes red and silver) aluminum Chairman Mao badges
(e.g. seen here) the Chinese had back during the Cultural Revolution? Why not make one with the GNU gnu on it instead of Mao? Or what about Tux? Man, that would be cool!
And no I'm not kidding or trolling. I do believe communism, in theory, is a good idea, and that free software is the only example of communist-like principles done right.
that all most of the "facts" on M$ little propaganda page relate to Kernel 2.2?
How old is that site? Has Kernel 2.4 not been out since March???
Plenty of time for M$ to pull more "facts" out of their collective asses.
As far as the RAM issue goes, 2.4 supports 64GB, which is a hell of a lot more than 4 GB like their site says.
I'm certain M$ is quite happy to leave the out-of date info up though, it just scares people off of upgrading (yes, I said upgrading) to Linux.
Seriously, there is no way we should take this lying down, I think a calm, collected, truthful response has got to be composed and put into the media, not just on a site where we all know the truth anyway. I'm really interested in this project, if anyone else wants to help get it done, contact me at dstrct0@hotmail.com and let's fight back!
Hmm, I don't know...shared source...sounds pretty un-American... -----------------------
-- -----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
Random Bull about Random Bull
by
pagsz
·
· Score: 1
The contraction in the dot-com industry over the past few months came about, in part, due to the pervasive model of companies giving away valuable asset, like content, with the hope of making money selling something else later.
Uhh..no. The recent contraction in the dot-com industry was a natural part of the economic cycle. The internet created a vast new opportunity, and tons of people jumped at the chance. Stock prices became inflated. Then the shaking out process began. Companies that couldn't compete (or were never heard of) died, bringing stock prices back to reality. If it weren't for updated rules on the stock market (on speculation, getting stock and paying later), it could have been a repeat of 1929. Besides, industry seems to be entering another R&D cycle, designing the portables that will kick start the economy in a couple of years. It had nothing... I repeat... NOTHING to do with open source.
Shared Source is a balanced approach that allows us to share source code with customers and partners while maintaining the intellectual property rights needed to support a strong software business.
Better stated as "Shared source an approach that lets customers and partners think they're getting the advantages of Open Source, but keeps assloads of money pouring towars us."
Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
Well, duh! This stuff scares the crap out of us! It might bring our profits down to $10 gazillion a year!
Copyright applies to the expression of an idea in a tangible medium, not to the underlying ideas themselves.
I bet the author was laughing his ass off when he wrote that one. That's the way its supposed to be, but that ain't the way it is.
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
I thought that was the point. To keep companines from monopolizing code and then forcing it down the throats of customers. Or am I drunk?
Sounding way smarter than my IQ would indicate,
-- --
If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Interesting take on the "viral" scheme. I didn't know that the GPL was necessarily "viral".
Although, MS is at least sharing *some* of their source code, right? We should at least be happy about that.
Re:At last! now I can ditch Linux and all the bigo
by
gllm34
·
· Score: 1
I personnally doubt that you will actually be able to tell whether or not M$ softwares are safe with this shared source policy.
"Shared Source", on the other hand, gives only some selected (by Microsoft) large companies the permission to view parts of the source code,
I don't really picture M$ giving up it's security layer implementation for IIS (if any;) or any other software they're selling even if they say so and even if THEY DO SO.
You can't just trust people by what they say these days, it's their past actions that matter.
Impending Security Issues
by
karfglab
·
· Score: 1
Everybody knows that opening the source will simply make it easier for hackers to break into my system and steal my PrOn. What the hell is Microsoft thinking?
They'll have to start writing good software then..
by
dr-khong
·
· Score: 1
If they don't like the GPL, well, noone forces them to use code based on it. But if I, as a volunteer, write code in my free time, I have the goddamn right to do with it whatever I want.
Writing code and releasing it to the public doesn't give any benefits in the form of money or sth. to the coder. But if others improve it and help him, or write some other free software, he gets his reward in form of good and free (of both pay and source) software. Thats what the GPL is all about. Its a giving and a taking.
Now if companies were allowed to take the code, improve it but keep their changes the original coder will get nothing. No improved code for sure. He might even see his very own program, written by himself, with only few minor changes, sold by a company, and he would have to pay for it! This would be a "giving" by the coder and a "taking" by the company. Why should anyone keep on writing "free" software then?
If MS is unhappy with the GPL then its their good right. If I was MS, I wouldn't like it either. But saing that the should be allowed to use the software withour crediting the original, unpaid author is painful. If they dont like the GPL then they should finally start writing good software by themselves and stop copying from others.
Slashdot Mirror
At least for end users.
It is communist, you see communist governments rely on shared-government, where all get some.
Good, upstanding, smart, Capitalistic governments rely upon Open-government where you can see what happens and defend your interests.
Therefore shared-source is a threat to democracy, and capitalism!!! Shared Source Must DIE!!!
What is more I have a list of 52 high ranking members of the US government that use shared source, and thus are TRAITORS!!!!
Bonfire at 11
Wow! This shared source stuff is great! I'll go fix that BSOD in NT that's bugging me!
/me hunts on Microsoft site...
Hmm. The source is nowhere to be found.
What's the point of shared source if you're only sharing it with the companies that give you large amounts of money?
Buy your wares from RedHat and keep them in
business. As a responsible ISP, we buy several
copies of RedHat software and have joined their
ISP program. These guys are doing great things
for everyone. Help keep them in business and
show the world that Open Source software can make
business sense.
Trust me, they aren't missing the point. They find magnificent ways to couch ideas that they don't like in a negative or deterring way.
(snip)
It is almost an art the way MS does this stuff.
Yes, but it's not a new art.
There's a great breakdown of MS's use of the fine art of disinformation here. (The analysis is about a third of the way down)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
and your sig is what?
If astro-turf is fake grassroots efforts this is either very poorly done or satiricaly fake astroturf. Its +4 Funny either way!
~^~~^~^^~~^
(Of course I'm sure the source code loan program probably doesn't have the same alliteration and "feel good" tendencies that sharing source code does.)
Is this viral? It seems to me that if we're looking for biological metaphors, it would be more accurate to call it hereditary or heritable. GPLed code doesn't go out and infect your work. Rather, if you choose to "breed" new software from GPLed code, that software inherits the licensing traits of its parent.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note, as you do, that "GPL hasn't been tested in court." Isn't that just another way of saying that nobody has ever been sued over GPLed code? Considering that the GPL has been around since 1984, that's some sort of track record. How many closed-source software companies are there which have been around for sixteen years and have never sued or been sued?
(Furthermore, copyright doesn't have to be registered. It has a de-facto existance, from the moment the work is created.)
Anyone want to sue Microspot?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I just love the way that they disingeniously talk about a software license 'infecting' a program.
[O]ne of the dominant open source license [sic] -- the GPL -- is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL.
Programmer: Here ya go, boss, the latest build of our really important software product...
Manager: [scanning the source code] You idiot! See this line here? 'i++;' That's directly from the Gnu Emacs source! Its GPL License has infected our revision control system! Now we've got to release the whole thing to the world, source and all... there goes the quarter! I *knew* you should have set lawyer traps in the hallways!
Programmer: How DARE they try to take the code I've written and make me give it away for free just because I took code someone else wrote and used it for free!
Man, this is crazy. All of this. Every part.
Linux is an awesome operating system. It's unix background makes it extremely compatiable (across platforms) while it's easy to use interfaces (Bash, Gnome, KDE) allow anybody to use it. It's open source, so I know that people that CARE are working on it, and not some kind of software merc.
Windows is the operating system that all the games I want to play is avaliable on. Everything runs on it, and I can trust that all the companies for my hardware are going to support it to the best of their ability, otherwise the would go out of buisiness. It's closed source, bloated and the same thing from 6 years ago, but none the less, it works.
Microsoft is scared. What are they afraid of? Having to lower the cost of windows to $60. Think about it: If the full version of Windows was $60 retail, microsoft would be loosing half of it's income from OEMs. Linux isn't scaring microsoft int the least. Linux's price tag is. (okay, that's probably not all of it, but it's gotta be haunting MS.)
I like free software. I like Free software too. I also like the software I go out and buy. (Mainly Games, but some other apps as well.) I think that the basic functionality of a computer system MUST be free.
MS: Write a new version of windows: Call it "Windows SS" (SC stands for "Shared Source"). It should be a desktop GUI with a start bar, no free aplications, no utilities, no media players... Nothin'. Just a GUI file loader. Make is avaliabe for download (Source and Binaries) for free to anybody who wants it. Have some kind of crazy License agreement that states that any program derived from this source is Microsoft property. Then sell the "Full" version of windows, with all the bells and whistles.. Charge what ever you want, I don't care.
Arrrrrg.....
That's it! I'm buying a Gameboy Advanced, and forgetting about all my troubles.
</rant>
(parent mod: +1 funny if I had mod points)
;)
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Cool part is I can actually see the campchaos guys doing something like that
We can only hope
LGPL is more free than MicroSoft's libraries because besides the ability to use it in closed programs, you can also make derivative libraries (which must be open source, like GPL programs).
Now not everything is rosey:
1. The LGPL has some strange wording that makes many people think the libraries have to be shared. I personally don't think so, but this belief puts a lot of annoying requirements on the library, and requires "installation" and "dll hell" for programs that use them. Rather than question this we have modified the LGPL to specifically say that static linking is allowed.
2. RMS has a strange idea that putting libraries under the GPL will force people to make the programs under the GPL due to the "virii" nature. This is absurdly untrue, the result is that people don't use the library at all, and they then use a commercial library that runs only on platforms that are made by large Seattle companies whose name starts with M. Putting useful libraries under GPL licenses is seriously hurting the acceptance of Linux as it is stopping the creation of commercial programs that port to Linux. Fortunately most everybody else appears to disagree with RMS and use the LGPL or Berkely licenses for libraries.
You can write all the code you want and not put it under the GPL, and can sell it for whatever you want!
Oh, boo hoo, you can't take the source code with Linux and turn it into your own profit-making program. I'm just so sad for you. Hey, do you think you can take MicroSoft's code and turn it into a profit-making program without MicroSoft having something mean to say to you?
Excellent description of the equivalence. If GPL is "viral" then their own code is "viral". This point needs to be hammered home, there are people here on slashdot that show amazing ignorance of this, you can imagine what people in the real world think!
Microsoft disagrees with you here. They are actively pushing their software as a service initiative. In effect, they give away their software for free but charge you a monthly fee for using their servers where it is hosted. It is only logical for them to do that because there is only so much you can do with a word processor. Other than the funky gizmos (and incompatible file formats), there is no difference between Office 95, Office 97 and Office 2000. I will concede that Office XP is an improvement though -- apparently they killed the clippy ;-) So, in effect, the only way Microsoft can "encourage" you to shell out more and more money for Office is by constantly changing the file formats so that you have to "upgrade" (oh, and you also need to "upgrade" the OS while you're at it. And the database. And...). Enter the services. Now you shell out money to Microsoft automatically if you want to use their services at all. Problem solved -- now Microsoft gets an infinite revenue stream without having to resort to dirty tricks like changing protocols.
Anyway, rantings aside, many business analysts do agree that software industry is a service industry in disguise.
this is because usually (there are exceptions) software isn't required to be custom
Well, you'd be surprised how much custom software there is.
Take a word processor. If it is available on the web for free (and legal), why would anyone pay me to write one for them?
I can ask you a similar question: if I already have a word processor and it does everything I need, why would I want to pay for it again? (see above).
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Actually, there is quite a bit. A lot of software is custom-made to fit a company's needs and it's simply not applicable in any other situation. There is also a lot of work in customization, integration, etc. etc.
How many companies have reinvented the wheel and developed their own [fill in the blank] system because they were just too lazy to figure out how an "off-the-shelf" system would fit into their buisness process?
Oh man... where do I begin? :-) ... BTW, it doesn't help to provide a counter-example next to the argument you are trying to prove....
Very true, sorry for the bad example.
This is actually a great example. It ilustrates that selling software is not a sustainable business model unless you can find some way to force your customers to upgrade.
BTW, I just read 1984 a few weeks ago. It's really really impressive. And scary.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Q: What is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy?
A. We have code. You don't. We make money by selling our code. You don't. We will let you look at the code, but don't touch it. We think this is balanced.
Q: Why did Microsoft decide to highlight the Shared Source Philosophy at this time?
A. We got scared by Open Source.
Q: Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
A. Yep.
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
A. We can't figure out a way to make money with code covered by the GPL.
Q: How is intellectual property (IP) protection related to innovation? Why should society today rely on IP protection to foster innovation?
A. IP protection works because we can make money off of it. If we couldn't make money, that would really piss us off. Society is a better place when we make money. Innovation is very important, as long as we make money. Basically the pattern is money==good.
Others have pointed out that this is indeed a PR/business strategy, not a technology one. MS is not arguing technology, code quality or any of such, they are pushing that the GPL is bad for business.
MSDN does give away great quantities of source, most of which is example code, not core implementations that can be improved.
Oh, and this is just my opinion, but www.shared-source.com needs some web design help. I think the PHB types that this should be aimed need eyecandy to feel good about the opinions stated. I'll try and throw something together this weekend but I'm sure there are more capable designers that could help.
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
Bleh!
Have you tried gnumeric? Very, very good.
Engineering and the Ultimate
The question I have is, if Microsoft thinks I shouldn't use the GPL because of the redistribution terms, what redistribution terms will Microsoft allow me?
It calls the GPL "complicated". However, _any_ use normally allowed by copyright laws is allowable with the GPL. It is MS who makes it complicated by revoking several user rights under copyright. You only get to the "complicated" parts of the GPL for the rights not granted by normal copyright. With MS, you never get extra rights.
It's like saying, they have more features than we do, but on the features that they have that we don't, it's more complicated.
Well, duh.
Engineering and the Ultimate
> If this program allows the company to quickly fix a bug in MS product XXX, then it should be a good deal for the company
;-)?
Except you can't actually change code, so how do you test your fix? How can you be certain it really is a bug? And why would you want to pay for the priviledge of fixing bugs in THEIR code (so they can sell you the fixes in the next update)?
On the other hand, if any Linux developer looks at the code (or works for a company that has the code), MS could claim theft of their IP.
Hm, so what is the real motive
Who rated this as Troll? This is VERY on-topic, and an accurate statement of the GPL.
But it does with Solaris 8 and NS 4.75...
I work for investment banks in the UK, and I've tended to work for the Europeans rather than the US banks, but sure, I can fill you in.
If want background on investment banking, read Liars Poker by Michael Lewis (for the culture/anecdotes/jargon/bullshit) and An Introduction to Global Financial Markets by Valdez for an intro to how global financial markets work.
There are loads of other books, but these 2 are cheap, timeless and everyone in the City knows them. If you can't at least mention them in passing then it marks you as a newbie.
As for the banks, in short, the money's good, the technology is stupid (every snake-oil system ever sold), the bullshit is thick and fast, the politics is somewhat stupid, and the average quality of staff is incredibly low, but they'll be pretty good at pushing you into corners. Oh, and the banks all think they're bleeding edge, they think they're doing the most complex tasks in the world, and they think they're working in "real-time" because they've just dropped overnight batch processing.
We can move this to an Ask Slashdot, or if you want to mail me I'm happy to discuss more offline... you can guess my email address from the slashdot name and the URL quoted above.
T
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
... when Win2K came out, and was breaking all sorts of software, a guy I met from one of the big US investment banks bent my ear for ages about how great Win2K was and how they had no problems with it at all. This seemed a little strange as most investment banks that I've been at run huge amounts of really badly-hacked, badly-behaved, poorly documented in-house programs (you pay big money, you attract every wide-boy for miles around).
When I quizzed him in detail he finally admitted that this was because they had the FULL source code from Microsoft and were patching (or at least flagging) their own fixes as they hit problems and giving these back to MS to integrate.
But he wouldn't trust Linux, or any Open-Source model, and neither would MS....
Seems some people can have their cake, and eat it, and deny there was any cake there anyway
T
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
To play devil's advocate for a minute. Most companies don't care how a software problem gets solved. If this program allows the company to quickly fix a bug in MS product XXX, then it should be a good deal for the company. It is unfortunate that individual users are excluded from this arrangement, but that is Microsoft's perogative (sp?).
I wouldn't worry too much because:
a) in their own way, Microsoft has acknowleged the power of open source/free software.
b) if nobody thinks it is a good idea to contribute fixes back to Microsoft, it won't happen. It's not as if Microsoft is forcing its users to "fix X bugs or we yank your license".
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Yes, yes, you can go on endlessly about the advantages of open source, and on the whole I'll agree with you.
But where Linux loses is marketing. And that, alas, is exactly where Microsoft excels. MS could sell ice to the Inuit.
The people who really count --that is, the people who decide to spend several million dollars on an operating system for their business: we're talking banks and big business, and the cumulative bijillion little businesses--are going to buy Microsoft Windows.
Not because it's the best, but because they are businessmen, not computer geeks. They don't know how Linux can be to their advantage, they don't understand how Microsoft products have high cost-of-ownership, and they don't see any good business studies that prove Linux is going to save them an order of magnitude in costs.
Indeed, what really drives them to buy are the glossy full-page advertisements with simple words. All the technical, moral and philosophical arguments in the world aren't going to make a dent.
If Linux is to dominate, it needs to be marketed.
It also needs a few missing killer apps, but, hey, that'll happen.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
And mderators[sic], how is this insightful?
The moderation you refer to is an example of the very sort of astroturfing this post and an anonymous rebuttal to an astroturfer's empty denial referred to. Microsoft paid lackeys are here, in force, doing exactly what they are paid to do, undermining the public fora of the open source and free software movements, attempting to sow discord, etc.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Come on. The GPL a complicated liscense? The intent of the GPL is clearlt spelled out in terms even a non-lawyer can understand, is rather short as liscenses go, and is fairly non-obfuscated. Has whoever wrote the FAQ even read the GPL vs. your average MS EULA? Most people (IMNSHO) never get past the first paragraph in the EULA, because the obfuscation sets in almost immediately, even if they bother to read it at all! Sheesh...
Microsoft is entirely correct to say the GLP is viral because all derived works must also have the code to given away - so the orignal code infects any following work. Whether this is good or bad is left to the debate that is occurring now.
No. But keep in mind that the "Chinese wall" is astrategy, not a requirement. You can look at the competitor's source and then either laugh at how bad it is, or salute in admiration, and either way, you still might not be guilty of copyright infringement when you write a competing implementation. Alas, while you might be safe, you're less safe than before. The wall strategy is just way of increasing the predictability of judges' decisions so that they are more likely to result in your desired outcome.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The GPL doesn't require you to release your source code unless you distribute/sell it, at which point you must give it up to your distributees/customers.
Internal use requires no source code release. But then, that's not gonna make M$ any money from other peoples work...
---
>strings c:\winnt\system32\drivers\tcpip.sys > aha!
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Largely, I think, because Slashdot really just points to other news stories. Occasionally they'll actually point to the source of a story (in this example, if they pointed to just the M$ webpage, then it would be a new story) but if you look over the archives and such, 90% or so of the "news" stories (not Katz's review of TMR or anything) are pointers to other news sites. And remember that it's users who submit stories to slashdot, so of course it's going to have some lag time.
I think it's great, personally.. even if I get the news a few days late, it's rarely important that I get the info right away and this way I don't have to watch 20 news sites.
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works.
The correct response to this is:
All Microsoft licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Microsoft licenses do notvary in how infectious they are, allprograms are derivative works.
An obvious troll, but what the heck...
Using MFC is not creating a derivative product. You are linking against a library that MS provided for you. You have no access to the source at all and I'm not sure but I doubt that MS would let you get away with selling copies of the MFC libraries.
Direct quote from the faq:
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs.
So I guess if you simply disallow derivative works, your license is not "viral" ? Seems kind of like whining to me, "Some open source licenses are protective of the developer's rights. That is they prevent MegaCorp Inc. from using the software without giving back to the community."
Anyway, when was the last time a derivative of an MS product was made and licensed by someone besides MS ?
If you don't compile it yourself how do you know that the binary that you're running actually came from the source code you're looking at? You'd have to trust the distrubutor of the binary code, which is exactly where you were at before you looked at the source.
Am I the only one that noticed that they're missing a number 1 on their little list of "key resources"?
Perhaps they edited that one out. I know what it read anyway:
1. Monopoly power: The ability to convince people to develop for our platform because we have a monopoly and it's the only way to get a peice of the pie. Thus; allowing us to maintain our monopoly.
--------------------------
-Riskable
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
I love this question:
Q. Why did Microsoft decide to highlight the Shared Source Philosophy at this time?
Highlight? You mean they've been doing this all along? I don't think so, but it's obvious that they've got some talented spin doctors crafting everything about this campaign.
Does anybody else see this a partial victory for the open source movement? Okay, so you can only look, but the free software movement got Microsoft to open it's code for outside peer review.
Think about that! How likely was this a few years ago?
Hehe, I like it. If they meant "their own" they should have said "their own".
The GPL is viral in that the program takes on a life of its own, independent of original and subsequent authors. As long as anyone is interested, the program will survive, regardless of any actions or inactions of the original developers. This is actually very good for business, in that nobody can cut off their air supply.
Better? If they aren't, they are catching up and surpassing awfully fast. Actually, no single source can be competitive. Two desktops, Gnome and KDE may waste a few resources, but the competition will drive both and more important, force both to "play nice". I would tend to trust something like NSALinux because there are a few paranoids who will go looking and will scream their heads off if they find anything suspect.
Oh, and getting RH7.1 along with SGI's XFS installation image cost me nothing but download time and a few CDs. Just like the source costs me nothing for those products. I think you missed a few $s when you spelled Micro$$$$$$oft and gave an extra to RedHat.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Microsoft are petrified... totally.
;)
The thing that has them scared the most, is that they've got no way of measuring exactly 'how' scared they should be.
Open Source is a juggernaut that has built up and started moving at an incredible speed over many years. It has it's roots in the origins of computing itself (ie. academia).
The problem for Microsoft is, how do you judge the threat from free software? You can't simply look at the financial performance of it to judge whether it's a threat like you can any other company.
It's the fact it's an intangible threat that's got Microsoft so scared and paranoid they'll resort to shit like this.
The Open Source juggernaut has changed the rules of the game.
Monopoly is a bit harder for the traditionalists to play when you can win by sitting on 'Free Parking' the whole game!
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
Anyway, now Microsoft have gone "open source" do we actually need Linux any more ? I mean, sure Windoze costs $$S, but then so does Red$Hat these days...
Ahem.
www.redhat.com for all your l337 0-day Linux w4r3z.
Now, how is the above "Insightful" again?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
'K folks, lets not allow Microsoft to perpretrate another Big Lie and get away with it. The term "Shared Source" is nothing more than a smokescreen. Call it what it is, "poison source". The source will be no more "shared" than, say, the demolition plans for Arthur Dent's house. You won't be able to use the code you see for yourself. You won't be able to compile it. You'll be able to look at it and perhaps suggest "improvements." Hell, MS might be magnanimous enough to let you, Mr. Independent Developer, write patches - but don't even try to distribute them without MS' approval, because that would mean others might try to - *gasp* - compile MS' proprietary, "shared" code!
Why "poison source"? Quite frankly, I think "Shared source" might have a more dangerous viral aspect than some people claim of the GPL. Do you really think a developer will ever be allowed to work on an open-source project again, never mind a GPL one, after agreeing with MS' terms for looking at their source? If they do within at least eighteen months (what I believe current NDAs from MS are written for), you can bet MS will immediately launch legal action to have that project shut down due to "potential" copyright infringement. In this case, the virus doesn't even come from using the code, but just by looking at it.
Hey, maybe MS will be nice and not force developers to sign an NDA and a no-compete in order to look over the code. However, MS has given me no reason to trust them before, and they certainly haven't done anything recently to get me to trust them now.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
But I can tell you what I feel:
Whenever I read Microsoft News, I feel like a rape victim.
(my apologies to any real rape victims but it's the closest thing I can think of).
Acknowledging Linux as a competitor means that it has an effect on the buissness. However Linux isn't GPL (binary only modules and some LGPL, etc) and Linux isn't all the software under GPL. Also the parts of disccussion that apply to open source rather then just GPL include alot more code and software.
The trick is the word "derived".
The most strict definition is to completly contain the orginial peice. The loosest definition is to take an idea or single line of code from the orginial. Since GPL hasn't been tested in court, so we don't know where the line is.
Hence, you might be asking for legal problems if you have a developer contributes to GPL code at home, and writes closed source during the day, since he might have taken derived ideas to the work code. It's enough for a lawsuit, and the stakes can be very high. Hence the term viral. It's like breathing around someone with a cold and taking it to work, you contaminate EVERYTHING. (Also losing any IP that is part of your closed source project, hence the IP destroyer comment)
The core of Microsoft's anti-GPL argument is, if you are a buissness, do you really want this type of risk?
redundant. more trolling from microsoft.
No, the GPL is not viral. It does not leap from unwilling host to unwilling host; your code will not suddenly come down with GPLitis out of the blue.
If a genetic metaphor for creating a derived work is desired, consider the GPL as a dominant gene. It takes a deliberate propagative act to create a "child" that's GPLed; but having decided to "mate" your code with GPLed code you know the result will be GPLed - just as someone who carries two recessive genes for a trait and mates with someone carrying two dominant genes knows that the child will inherit the dominant trait.
For example, if a blue-eyed woman mates with a man whose ancestors have been brown eyed for umpteen generations back, if I recall my biology correctly she's going to have a brown-eyed baby. (Barring mutation, crossover, etcetera, which is beyond the scope of this metaphor, okay?) If she doesn't want a brown-eyed kid, she's free to seek out another father. If you don't want your result to be GPL'd, you're free to seek out other code to derive your program from.
The metaphor is not perfect, in that such a child would still be a carrier of the recessive gene, however it's a damn sight closer than "viral".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
My favorite quote was this, from the front page of the Shared Source website:
Over the past 25 years, few people outside of the development community talked about source code and even fewer had access.
Never mind that closed source is actually a relatively new thing...programmers started out by giving away source, because the hardware to run it on was what was important... As I recall, IBM used to more or less give away the source to OS/360 because what the customer was really paying for was the big iron to run it on. Ah, great MS FUD...defend your own business model by claiming it has a long, distinguished history, and make it sound as though these "open source" lunatics are some kind of crazy group of upstart hippies. Never mind the actual truth of the history of computer programming...
Open source could be considered software communism...
Once again, Open Source and Free Software has been confused. Microsoft discusses the GPL as an Open Source license, allowing them to conveniently ignore the fact that the GPL is the legal embodiement of a philospophy the describes software freedom.
--Nuff Said.
More Caffeine. NOW
Dunno 'bout Microsoft shared source but Microsoft shared libraries make me barf...
AFAIK the main reason you need this kind of protection is if you are attempting to avoid voilating contracts, such as NDA's or similar things you might sign to look at the code. I know if my university required me to use the code to windows, I would sign absolutely nothing giving any rights up to microsoft
We're one of those "self-proclaimed" open-source companies, so let me set some things straight.
First, we *do* require that contributions to the project be "signed over" to the project owner (us). This avoids several legal issues of ownership and is something that most open source projects (commercial or otherwise) do once you have more than a few developers. It isn't always about money, it's usually about more practical issues such as "do I have the right to release this code?".
Now, clearly there is a difference between open source and shared source. Not having looked at the MS license yet, I can't comment much, but my guess is that the MS license is a "look but don't touch" type of license, which doesn't meet the OSI definition/requirements for open source. The reasons for using this license point to a clear desire to NOT share and NOT promote code reuse and innovation.
A company that releases their product as open source is going out on a limb - there are no guarantees that people will help fund or contribute to the continued development, and many people assume that the company is there to support people for nothing in return. Also, there is always the risk that someone will take the code and create a competing application that puts the original company out of business.
Our CUPS software is used by many Linux distributors, but we don't see a penny or contribution from many of them. There are a few really good vendors, SuSE and Caldera come to mind, that have done audits, submitted feature enhancements, etc., and Mandrake has contributed GUIs and support to the picture.
Sometimes releasing a free open-source version and a pay closed-source version of a product is the only way to make money. Sometimes that choice is forced on the vendor because of NDA information (that is the case for our ESP Print Pro product).
In any case, I think that any vendor that does make the effort to open-source all or part of their products is truly participating in the open source process. Having a commercial version of a product is the price you pay (literally) to get a supported open-source product.
I print, therefore I am.
The Fud in this FAQ is extremely subtle. I confess that I have, in the past, referred to the GPL as "viral" in a joking fashion, but Microsoft has taken the analogy *way* too far. "Viral", "Infects", this document is intended for people who don't know anything about the GPL. It is designed to create a *negative* first impression of the GPL. It is very effective. Most people would not be inclined to find out more information about GPL if this was the first time they read about or heard of it. It is designed to make GPL supporters sound like Back Orifice Supporters. (You know, the program that's a legit administrative tool, even though there is no good reason for admistrative tools to run in complete stealth).
Imagine the impact if in a few months from now, Anti-virus software packages include the text of the GPL license as a virus signature. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas as to how we can divert this trend. Maybe suing MS for libel would be a good start. It needs to be stressed in mainstream media that the GPL is not viral, it is a legitimate copyright provision. Developers would not copy GPL licensed code into applications that were not meant to be GPL any more than they would copy Microsoft Shared Source into a Program without Licensing the code from Microsoft for use. In either case, you would be in violation of Copyright law.
'nuff said.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Commercial Software Model. Five key elements make up this model:
... that's not a community
1. Community: A strong support community of developers.
slaves chained to their seat rowing to the drum beat
2. Standards: Promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition.
propriatery file formats do not promote collaboration and interoperability. Imitation is not innovation. Healthy competition implies products win on merit. Aint none of that going on here.
3. Business model: Promote the growth of a profitable business.
That business is called Microsoft. That technology is called Windows.
4. Investment: Level of research and development investment drives resources for future innovation.
If R&D means sitting back and watching someone else innovate and then buying the company and slapping your logo feces on it
Licensing model: Provides product and source access without jeopardizing the intellectual property rights of those who create or use the software.
Before there was MS Word there was MacWrite. Before there was MS Excel there was Lotus 123. Before there was MS Powerpoint there was Cricket Draw. Before there was MS Access there was DBase. Before there was Visual Basic there was Turbo Pascal. You stand on the shoulders of those who went before you, cut their heads off, and shit down their neck.
Prisoners Dilemma...Tit for Tat...
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Dude, you have got to be trolling. But assuming you aren't... Communism is forced sharing ("to each according to his need"), open source is voluntary. Also, the approach of western academia, sharing ideas and peer review, which underlies open source is hardly "communist."
Community and communism are not the same thing.
--LP
You know this is FUD, and I know this is FUD, but that's not the point.
As far as the general populace is concerned, computers didn't exist before the information superhighway (haven't heard that term in a few years have you?). Therefore, to them, we are a crazy group of upstart hippies.
Crap of not, the public is used to being spoonfed (some of them even enjoy it!).
Cheers
-Ben
Say what you mean, mean what you say! But please know what #$@% you are talking about!
I don't like the GPL personally either... however the lisence that most commecial software developers nee to know about is not the GPL... It's really not relevent to them. The lisence they need to know about, is the LGPL, which gives them complete freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't change the library they link too.
The LGPL is a much much better lisence than the GPL, imho, and is completely ignored by microsoft in this sence.
All i have to say about thier shared-source mess is: whatever.
They're missing the whole point of why developers bother... it's because they know thier code will always be out there.
If the shared source lisence made a provision that all the source it was held under would ALWAYS be availabe... then it would be interesting.
The short of it however is, that if you work on shared source programes you 1) will still have to PAY for the software you write and work on, and 2) you are not garountee'd the ability to work on that software in perpetuity...
Use the LGPL. Forget Shared source, it's an unimport waste of marketing time.
-T
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
---
They SHOULD STFU because they are senselessly complaining. That has nothing to do with freedom, it is simply my opinion. Obviously if they want to complain about nothing they can.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
If GPL code is virus-like, what does that mean about M$ code?
No one can force you to use GPL code, so the virus analogy doesn't really stand up anyway. I guess you could say that the GPL is like a non-communicable virus.
Anyway, that's a pretty ridiculous argument from MS anyway, while you CAN use GPL code (with the limitations the GPL provides), you _CAN'T_ get access to Microsoft code at all. Well, you can if you pay out the ass for it I guess, but you can pay a GPL developer to license their code to you under a different license too.
So, MS argument == NULL
That's my take on it anyway...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
An AC sends in a LinuxToday story and shared-source.com. Discuss.
Worst summary ever. What a hoosier michael is.
The parent is a very insightful comment on copyrights that often get overlooked when thinking of pedagogical terms like "Freedom" and "Business". It's really important to ground yourself in the core substance of the medium. Copyright. GPL gives you freedom to use copyrighted material if you agree to free your derivative copyrighted material. What results is a virtuous circle of contribution, innovation, and community.
Microsoft can't compete with this. Their community in the early nineties was an open Dos and windows platform that businesses could profit from. They soon realized that Microsoft is hostile towards "middleware" businesses and many went out of business. In the Free Software community there is no monopolizing impulse, and businesses can happily coexist, peddling their proprietary middleware. Microsoft shut out IBM, and now IBM finds extraordinary value in linux. Other once profitable software companies that were shut out from windows by microsoft are also finding value in linux. Software companies dont want to compete with MS on their own monopoly platform. Internet companies dont want to pay licensing fees to microsoft to run their busines, avoiding draconian EULA's.
Expect more of the exodus from windows to free software. A small taste of freedom is addictive. An intravenous injection of freedom is downright intoxicating.
If you visit Microsfot's shared source page, and link to it, and talk about it, you are giving them power. For example, if you link to the site from your own web site (or via Slashdot) then Google will rank the page higher in their search results. Thus, you hand over power to Microsoft. Second, since Slashdot pointed to the page, other news and media freaks will pick up on the story and give Microsoft even more mojo. It was foolish to point directly to the Microsoft site.
;-)
Let's take a look at the reverse of the power flow. First, assume that Slashdot is anti-Microsoft and pro Open Source. I hope we all agree this is basically true. Next, think about how Slashdot has pointed to Microsoft, directly no less. This, as I described above, gives them a bunch of juju and augments their position. It gives them credibility. Finally, think about this: Microsoft never points to Slashdot and rarely (if ever?) points to Open Source web sites.
They are not powerful and rich for nothing. The folks here are foolish to think they have power through hacking and technology and fighting the good fight. Wrong! Many of the folks here wouldn't understand advertising mojo or marketing juju if it bit them on the ass with big, sharp, bunny teeth.
Look folks, I'm not a total troll. I hope you are actually listening... Marketing, media, and propoganda, oh yes, all weapons of Microsoft. Slashdot is playing exactly into the hands of Microsoft. You are sheep! Nothing but sheep. (OK, that last bit about sheep was definitely out of line.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Interesting thoughts. I think people really should be worried. Imagine that Open Source really does become a target. If that is the case, and it could happen, then what would that mean? Here's what I think: Sites like SourceForge, Slashdot, Freshmeat, and so on start to feel intense heat, perhaps to the point of getting their asses kicked.
Web sites can be shut down, folks. We are not very powerful compared to companies, or the government. To make matters worse, the community is not united. The community is fragmented. Why? I'm not sure because I am not close enough to it. I don't program and I don't hack. However, I do see that there are many egos. There are leaders, but there is no centralized power. Without centralized power (i.e., money, captial, intellectual resources) I don't think it will be possible to slow down the growing wave of Anti-Open Source. Think about that.
So, here is where I start to really think. What is the true purpose of the Open Source Community? Is it for fun? Adventure? Because it is a small, exclusive club of smart people? Is it because you feel ownership? Do you have a giant itch to scratch?
BULLSHIT to all of that. Bullshit, I say. You are going up against a company with over $25 BILLION in cash. What is the Open Source community worth? All of you? All of your work? All your effort? Pah! It ain't worth shit comared to that. And don't start telling me that the internet is driven by Open Source. That doesn't mean a thing. At this point in time, I would state that you could build the internet using commercial products. People would live with that. People would still have the internet, now, without Open Source. They'd pay if they needed to, to support their habits. It wouldn't be the same, but it would work.
But back to my point about power and money. Microsoft, UNLIKE the Open Source community has a very clear goal: BILLIONS. They are driven by money, and they know how the system works. What are you driven by? Will your love of coding, or your developmental scratch, or your minor rebellion be enough to fight the BILLIONS backing Microsoft? I want to know what you plan. I'd LOVE to back Open Source if it had a battle plan.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Thanks for the clarification. However, I could still see how powerful companies and the government could crack down on volunteers. You can volunteer to smoke crack, for example, but you would get in trouble for using it. I know that is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you catch my drift.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Um, is that a good thing?
How to Download YouTube Videos
Gee, whiz. Where have I been for the "past several months" while "people have been talking about source code." This new-fangled technology gets my head in a spin, glad Microsoft could explain it to me.
bugger.net | MunkAndPhyber.com
You sound like you have lots of experience working with investment bank IT -- can you tell me a bit about it?
I recently accepted an offer to work for Morgan Stanley as a equity trading systems developer, and I'm wondering how stuff is going to be once I start.
Thanks a lot!
willis/
there is no thing
what else could you want?
Now before someone jumps on my case for being anti-Microsoft, I am, and I have a right to be. I sat through this on Team OS/2, as well, and I'm seeing a lot of the same tactics (Almost word for word press releases etc) for Linux. While I don't think they can kill the system, they can make it much more difficult to find hardware that will work with it. And I like being able to use Linux at work if I want to. It's very clear to me that in Microsoft's world, I would not be able to do that (Or even work without one of their stupid certifications.) So if I'm very vocally against them, it's because I know they're not trustworthy and I know that they will do everything in their power to force me to use their products.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1) Discover something that someone else is doing that looks like it might make money.
2) Implement a less featureful version of it, give it away for free and start charging around version 5.0 once we've eliminated the original company.
From gdict:
1. The act of innovating; introduction of something new, in customs, rites, etc. --Dryden.
I think we're closing in on the disparity between the MS definition of Innovation and the one the rest of the world uses. (So yes, what I could stomach of their shared source FAQ was somewhat insightful.)
As a side note I didn't notice them enumerating what source would be shared, nor what you could do with it, but the meaty parts of the page may have come after the gag reflex kicked in. Next time I hit a MS web page I'll be sure to take a dramamine first.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
but Microsoft is totally missing the point here
Trust me, they aren't missing the point. They find magnificent ways to couch ideas that they don't like in a negative or deterring way.
For example, if you want to rip a cd using windows media player, it defaults to having that security encryption crap turned on--meaning you can't play the ripped music on other computers (without breaking the encryption).
If you go through the help and the menus, looking for some way to turn it off, you are going to have to look pretty carefully. It is in there, but they disguise the meaning. You turn it off by turning off "License Managment". The help file description of this is (paraphrased): "If you turn off license managment, and try to download a song to a portable player, Windows Media won't copy the license file over."
While this is true, it won't copy the license file over, it is only true because the music file is not encrypted anymore and doesn't need a license! Whereas the helpfile text sort of implies that you still need a license to play the music, but now you have to manually copy said license over to the portable player.
It is almost an art the way MS does this stuff.
Indeed. Sounds like someone over at Something Awful needs to whip up another of those war posters:
"When you download Microsoft,
you're downloading COMMUNISM!"
[er, warning, attention: humor attempted above.]
You have no intrinsic rights to distribute derivative works of someone else's copyright. None. Nada. They do not exist.
The only circumstances under which you may make and distributge a derivative work is with the blessing of all authors of copyright.
The GPL provides this blessing as long as the works are licensed under the GPL. This means you have more rights than copyright law would allow, if you use GPL software.
The GPL also has the effect of making the distributed works the intellectual property of the community of free software users, in that they may be distributed only as free software. This thing that Microsoft claims is worth so much, the intellectual property, belongs to all free software users.
And that scares Microsoft to death, and leads them to a clever marketing campaign in which the GPL is called viral. It is not. The only perspective from which it may even SEEM viral is the perspective of a BSD license. And that could not be further from Microsoft's perspective.
The so-called viral aspect of the GPL is the one thing that Microsoft rarely regulates -- the ability to link (even dynamically) your application against their copyright protected library for free, whereas the GPL suggests that if you do this, your entire work must then be covered by the GPL. This is one aspect that has, in the past, been misunderstood by a number of developers and is important to recognise.
There is indeed much confusion over this one. I, for one, would argue that a library by definition defines an API, and that anything that uses that API is NOT a derivative work, since the entire purpose of a library is to define and export an API for other applications to use. RMS believes that something that dynamically links against a library IS a derivative work. This belief is absolutely critical to TrollTech's business plan. They provide QT under the GPL, or you can buy a more standard copyright arrangement if you wish to incorporate QT code with your proprietary apps.
But the GPL has a proviso that: If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. This proviso would seem to apply specifically to programs using an exported API. Others may argue that the linking program still must include the header files at compilation time, but again, it is the intent of a library to provide public headers and APIs.
And also consider, a program dynamically linking to a library is analogous to ANY program running under linux. All system calls dynamically link to the kernel, which is GPL licensed.
As far as I know, this aspect of the GPL has never been challenged legally, and it would seem to me that RMS is quite wrong in his assertion.
The GPL license is not viral, and any sense in which you claim that it is becomes mere FUD and is just plain wrong. This is the height of Microsoft marketing trying to associate evil with the GPL.
Under copyright law you have no intrinsic rights to distribute anyone else's copyright. If you make a derivative work, you have no intrinsic right to distribute that derivative work. You may only distribute derivative works if all authors of copyright agree on terms.
Under the GPL, the situation is substantially improved. You can distribute someone else's copyright. You can make and distribute a derivative work, with the added proviso that all the work must be released under the same license.
Basically, Microsoft calls this viral because they would rather the author of a derivative work have ALL copyrights to the derivative and the original work. This is the BSD license. This is even more rights to the recipient of a copyrighted work.
But please remember that GPL programs still give you as a software user MORE rights than you have intrinsically. The GPL has some protection for the community that would prefer if everything were open source, because it restrains any open source (GPLd) program from becoming proprietary. It in effect assigns the intellectual property to the open source (or free software) community. This is what Microsoft is attacking.
The crown jewels for Microsoft are its intellectual property. It is fighting like mad because the GPL gives the free software community the same protection of its intellectual property that Microsoft has of its own. It is not a business model - it is a community software model.
Just because M$ discontinues a product, doesn't necessarily mean that I or my customers want to. I've watched DOS, Windows 3.1, QuickBASIC, and a dozen other things just vanish from the shelves and from tech support. Some people have their businesses dependent on these technologies. If the business changes, and the technology is no longer there... then what? It's expensive to change. Now we watch as NT 3.5, NT 4.0, and Windows 2000 are vanishing to XP. There are far more shops depending on these technologies. Frankly the attitude I'm seeing is "if I have to switch, I'm switching to Linux so this won't happen to me again."
... When I talked with a represanative in Microsoft's security group, they were using Linux internally. ... The begs the question about where would Microsoft be without OpenSource? (Guess you could steal it, but hey... wasn't that how GW-BASIC got started?)
There's the old argument of "if I need support or someone to sue, at least I have Microsoft" -- ask yourself this, when was the last time you got decent support from them? When you needed a new feature or reported a real defect, was it your business model or theirs which was given priority? And if you went to sue Microsoft, and were 100% in the right, given the deep pockets there... could you survive battle the court costs? With the source you can fix it or hire someone to fix it.
The fact of the matter is, business doesn't like to ride technology waves. They want something that gets the job done, works right, and is reliable and as maintanence free as possible. As long as Microsoft misses this point, they're going to alienate customers.
It still amazes me that even IE's about box reports that it stands on the shoulders of NCSA Mosaic.
The big attraction of the GPL is the assurance that if you contribute to GPL'ed code you will always be able to use/compile a derivative work. What a great way to leverage your productivity. It's like "cast your bread onto the water and it will return n-fold". If you contribute to a GPL'ed work your return is perpetual access to the improvements made by others. You can't say the same about those other licenses.
Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify, and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification. Moreover, programs containing code subject to the BSD license are subject to only limited obligations imposed by that license. This type of license gives users freedom to incorporate their own changes and redistribute them, without requiring them to publish the new source code or allow royalty-free redistribution.
wake up people.. we have been divided in the middle by GPL and BSD . we have all stood for a long time to remove intellectual property and give away our thoughts and efforts to others who may need it for free. but now they are attempting to divide us between "viral" and "non-viral" groups. i'm sure that some of the BSD guys are going to accept this, and i'm sure some of the GPL guys are going to go against the BSD guys. but then we would have all lost our battle. To share our source and give away our efforts for the rich and the poor, and help humanity in general.
I was really unhappy that the other day BSD was not included in the document by Bruce Perens. Particulary because it was all about GPL. This is more than that. This is about keeping intellectual properties or not. This is about the freedom to code without thinking about stepping on somebody's one-click patent.
I'm sure the BSD guys would agree with this. but are they on the other side now ?? what is the response ?? the world is waiting..
Okay, so you think that the "Linux myths" article is good for a laugh. Well, where's the response? I want to see an articulate response to the points that Microsoft brings up. I'm willing to bet that they funded the "independant" tests. I know that they're lying about the cost of tech support - Microsoft charges more for tech support than anyone. I'm amazed that they can claim that IIS is a better web server than Apache. So, if Linux is so great, where's the response to this? I mean, everyone keeps bitching about FUD, about how Microsoft is using words like "virus," and wow, that's really going to change public perception! But, hey - here's a list of things that Microsoft claims is FACTUAL EVIDENCE that Linux sucks. Let's refute these claims in an organized manner, okay? I want to see a response to all of Microsoft's points. Let's admit defeat, if it's true that Microsoft knows how to PRINT faster than Linux. But when they say that Linux can't support x amount of memory, doesn't do Journaling File Systems, Apache is slower and less efficient than IIS - let's refute those claims if we can! Okay? I don't have the time, resources, or energy to do this - but I think it's an important thing to do!
Education is the silver bullet.
Capitalism is viral - it's how the USSR lost the cold war - they couldn't compete with our markets and efficiency.
Democracy is viral - almost every form of government that has tried to resist it has fallen. (With a few exceptions, and I'd argue that it's only a matter of time.)
Brilliant ideas transform society in a way that cannot be opposed, cannot be ignored, and they have a way of making life better. The GNU GPL is a brilliant idea - and it's only a matter of time, Microsoft.
We can do it better, cheaper, faster. What leg do you plan to stand on? Oh, right - legislation and name-calling. Sorry, I forgot.
Education is the silver bullet.
I think the (OO) word we are looking for is inheritance.
If I write a program that is derived from GPL code, then it inherits the license. If it's a new work I can give it any license I choose.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
The so-called viral aspect of the GPL is the one thing that Microsoft rarely regulates -- the ability to link (even dynamically) your application against their copyright protected library for free, whereas the GPL suggests that if you do this, your entire work must then be covered by the GPL. This is one aspect that has, in the past, been misunderstood by a number of developers and is important to recognise.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
2) Standards: Promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition.
I'd like to know what standards Microsoft has been using to promote interoperability and support healthy competition. It seems like they just try to take something good and make it propriatary so it doesn't interoperate with anyone else. From my list I see BOOTP-DHCP, NFS-SMB, Kerbos(sp?), undisclosed file formats, and I'm sure the list goes on. Unless they mean that by supporting the TCP and IP connection protocols they are supporting standards and healthy competition, but I don't buy it.
I know this is the standard 'Embrace and Extinguish' rant, but the fact that they are trying to claim that they don't follow these incompatibility practices and that shared source won't either is just wrong.
I also wonder what they consider 'healthy competition' to be. They obviously consider Linux to be some sort of competition, and they are trying to squash it even though it has such a small market share on the desktop. I suppose their definition of 'healthy competition' and most business defintitions are a little different. Macs are probably considered competition, and I believe Microsoft ported it's office suite to Mac, but not Linux, why? That probably supported healthy competition, but maybe Linux is considered a threat and Macs aren't, hmmmm, makes you wonder...
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
(note: obviously I don't speak for RMS.)
Software engineers will still write software, just as musicians will still right music even if they lost all their money because of napster. The software engineers might won't be making billions like Bill, and musicians won't be making millions like Britteny, but in both cases many people consider that a Good Thing.
Secondly, as long as there is a demand for software, people will be paid to fill that demand. As its been said many times before, Free does not mean free. For software companys, of course, Free is a Bad Thing. They make most of their money selling copies of the same thing, which they don't have control over if its Free. Contractors, OTOH don't (or shouldn't) care about the license, because in most cases they don't own the code, they're selling a service.
So, there would be fewer software engineers, but (theortically) they would be more productive because they would have access to everyone else's idea/implementations.
The way I see it, the GPL is bad for IP based business models, and programmers hoping to get rich, but good for people who love to understand how things work, and socialist idealist who want to create but don't want their creations making $ for the machine.
----------
no comment
The entire software industry needs to get off its buff and become more professional. This is about SAVING your JOBS, should you actually WANT to be regarded as a professional software expert, rather than as a code-monkey. When companies want computer expertise they should know that theere are people who can and will support them. That person is you. Or would you rather be a code-mopnkey. to be retired as soon as cheaper labor comes along.
Put it another way, why should the CEO of a company pay you to code when he could too, having also learnt programming during his college days. Simply becuase you can code better?
Guess what? Admission of the "comfort factor" argument is really discrediting yourself. Maybe you'd like to turn around and say "well you didn't check the source for your GPLed programs too". And guess what? I didn't.
Becuase having the source is not just about being paranoid about trojans. It is about having a reference, having the ability to cross-check the code for correctness when I have to. Being able to fix it, and being able to make it better, and give it back.
For any one of these reasons, "Shared Suorce" is not enough. Keep your paranioa to yourself.
You'd lose, because truth is an absolute defence. Regardless of whether or not you think the GPL is a good thing, it's obviously viral. That's precisely the right word to use. The GPL is like a grabby child that says "if you play with one of my toys, then I own your toy". No wonder businesses stay away from it.
I'm not slamming the GPL. I think it's a fair deal in many circumstances. As somebody else already said, it's really just a formalized code trade. But there's lots of times when you need to be able to retain control of your original code for business reasons. Or even purely selfish reasons. In those cases, code released under the GPL automatically disqualifies itself from use. Software released under freer licenses like Zope or Squishdot is much more useful because it allows you to retain control over derivative works.
from the FAQ:
... MS has been a huge contributor to this confusion (nevermind the GPL and Open Source nonsense last week). do they plan to muddy the water to a point where all we'll see clearly is their side? by the third paragraph, they smartly mention benefits to open source, but not before letting this fly:
...
There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to a great deal of confusion.
but wait a second
second paragraph
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious.
i think we can expect to hear this kind of language more and more in the MS attacks on open source and the GPL. nevermind, the time saved on projects by using prewritten and tested code, nevermind the fact that "opening" a project up to open source vastly improves the quality of code by increasing the number of people helping to build and test the individual parts
if you look over the Halloween files which first documented MS's strategy against the open source movement, they (MS) realized that for the first time, it wasn't a product they were fighting but a mind set, a way of thinking, a philosophy. what better way to attack an idea than to simply discredit it, or even better, attach the buzz-word of the year to it.
_f
phear the open source virus!
Well said, I like how you compared the licenses. I agree with everything you said, but would like to especially stress a point that you hinted at that I personally believe is not said enough, if ever. BSD License=more freedom to the immediately direct enduser, but possibly less freedom to the rest of the world. GPL=less freedom to next immediate user, but a guarantee of that same minimal amount of usability to any and all other eventual users. Somebody could take a BSD license thing, mess with it, and re-release it under the BSD license, and that would have more usability then GPL, but they aren't required to. GPL *guarantees* a certain level of usability to absolutely everybody. Basically BSD is more usable, but also more abusable. I'm not advocating one over the other, simply noting the differences...
Sometimes it takes days for the story to appear here.
You make a dam good point.
Isn't Microsoft licenses "viral" in that sense also?
Fact: Any programmers working on Windows 2000 kernel must release his work under Microsoft's license...
Fact: Any programmers working on Linux kernel must release his work under Linux's current kernel license (GPL)...
How is this any more viral?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
The GPL is "infectious"? Windows has better security right out of the box? Open source is "un-American"?
Hey this crap isn't funny anymore. In the last 12 months BallmerCo has gone from "linux is a joke" to "OSS is a threat...hmm...maybe it should be illegal?" How long do you think it will be before the first sub-committee hearings on this garbage? They see that this forced march upgrading path will no longer cut it when linux is a fully developed OS suite supported by a myriad of pay-for-support companies. So, they are prepping the roiling masses for an assault of "open software is communism."
Okay kids, open software is communism, mmmmmkay? And communism is bad, mmmmmkay?
This crap isn't amusing anymore. This is a systematic and orchestrated wave of propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of. The legislature is bought and paid for, so getting hearings and eventual legislation is no problem.
Shrub:"Well, in the interest...uh...of 'Merican prosperity and...uh...'Merican jobs...uh...we need to assure 'lectual properties...uh...'lectually. So 'Merica will stop this open source infectiousness."
Jesus christ I know this is a rant. But look at it. Corporations now have the power to bully thought and freedom into the ground with litigation or legislative electioneering bribery.
How far are we from injunctions against Red Hat, et al? How much longer are we going to get kicked around by liars and bullies?
jesus sorry but it just PISSES ME OFF!
Viral is a terminology that will only scare people away from GPL software. A far more descriptive and less inflammatory word would be "inductive" or "recursive". I would encourage all slashdotters to not use "viral" to describe the GPL. Instead, use "inductive" or "recursive", as we want to encourage people to use the software and the license, not scare them away.
Viral would mean that the GPL infects software, and sucks away vitility. "Recursive" would mean that the same license applies to related works and so on ad infinitum.
how exactly is Sun threatened by Open Source
At the time the SCSL was introduced, they were still licensing Solaris. Historicly, they weren't exactly open with their Java code either. It just so happened that Sun sells enough hardware and other services that it made sense for them to support OSI compliant licenses. Sun wanted to divide the cake and eat both pieces. They realized they couldn't do that, so they decided to eat the hardware/service piece.
So, if you want Windows source just wait. MS appears to be trying to move towards hardware with Xbox, and towards services with .Net. At some point, MS may end up being more like Sun or IBM, and then it will actually make sense for them to release source in an OSI compliant manner. Desktop operating systems will probably have to be totally commoditized first, and MSFT will have to totally shift its business model away from shrink-wrapped licensing, but stranger things have happened. Those guys aren't dumb. They realize the clock is ticking on their business no matter what.
I guess mindless bashing works better for you.
I usually don't say this, because I think it's pretentious; but I just have to say it: ad hominem.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Remember Sun's Community Source License? No? Good reason. It was just a lame attempt to respond to the Open Source threat.
The funny thing is that Shared Source, if shared-source.com is to be believed, is worse than source code licenses that MS has used in the past. I'm referring to MFC. There was no prohibition against fixing bugs in MFC and incorporating them into your code. As far as I know, there was no prohibition against telling people how to fix bugs in MFC either. In fact, one of MS's fixes for an MFC bug actually told the user to change the source and rebuild it (although there were several alternatives, and that was listed as the least preferable).
The MFC case just demonstrates that MS, like any other company, will release source to the degree that it makes sense. It just so happens that at this point in time, it doesn't make sense for MS to loosen up their source very much. Let's face it. How many of us, sitting on such a cash cow, would release source?
I'm not suggesting that MS should go OSI compliant. That would be foolish for them. However, it might be a good idea if they made sources available to anyone who wanted them, and made it legal to distribute patches. This kind of distribution doesn't hurt the bottom line of book publishers, who's "source" is naturally open to all. Distributing patches would be analogous to writing reviews. Copyright law is strong enough to protect book publishers, and it would be strong enough to protect MS too.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
But the line is almost certainly not defined by the GPL, per se, but by copyright law, on which the GPL depends. Any use of the GPLed code that doesn't rise to the level of copyright infringement shouldn't constitute a GPL violation, as the user only has to accept the GPL in order to avoid violating copyright. Therefore no copyright violation implies no GPL violation. The fact remains that what constitutes a copyright violation is rather fuzzy and has to be determined in court, but that's a potential problem with any license.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
A lot of people use the LGPL in their software, this allows people to modify source code and sell the final program, as long as they provide the source code of the original LGPLed source (usually a library). Loki does this with all their games with the SDL library. All their games they port are proprietary closed source programs, but they can sell the games with the SDL library packaged with it as long as they allow people free access to the source code of the library.
Ok now I know that Loki owns the SDL library, but other companies can do this too. They can use and modify the SDL library in their programs, provided they give access to the changes they made to the library. "Intellectual property" is preserved in their proprietary section of code while still being required to release changes to the original source back to the community.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
With no thanks to Microsoft. They're just trying to
Q: Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
A. Competition is a fundamental motivational force driving innovation and product improvements in many areas of business, ultimately benefiting the end consumer. Linux is one of Microsoft's many competitors.
The issues that we are discussing in relation to the Commercial Software Model and Shared Source are much larger than Linux or Microsoft. There are fundamental concerns relating to the future of the software industry that need to be addressed. One such issue is the GNU General Public License. The wide use of Linux code and its licensing under the GPL presents a real threat to businesses and individuals who wish to obtain value from their intellectual property.
Emphasis added.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Even if they allowed the smaller shops to get access with a fee, they're the very ones least able to afford the fees.
The fact of the matter is, their concept as described is highly anti-competitive - it adds an unmittigable barrier to entry for both the ISVs too small to qualify and for open source developers.
Trust Microsoft to come up with a way to release source code in a way that is strategically designed to hurt the concept of open source.
Certainly an admirable position. "There must always be revolution!" as Chairman Mao said.
However, I'm not sure everyone in the community necessarily shares that view of OSS. In fact, it strikes me that OSS is a perfect example of a free-market revolution. When Adam Smith asked a rural French farmer what would be the best thing the government could do for him, the response was, "Laissez faire!" Roughly equivalent, of course, to, "Leave us alone!" It strikes me that the hacker ethos, with regard to most things, is quite libertarian. PHBs are hated, the government is mistrusted, and generally stupid rules are violated without remorse.
Moreover, most OSS contributors seem to want to escape the perception that OSS is a communist idea. The badges would certainly be visually compelling, as the Mozilla artwork is, but the association with communism seems unlikely to engender a great deal of interest.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
...isn't fooling anyone. You have the devoted Microsofties that believe anything out of Redmond is golden, and you have the rest of the world, which ranges from moderately liking Microsoft products to people who won't let them into the house.
Perfect example: At Networld+Interop last week, Microsoft had a pretty good-sized booth set up for their "Freedom To Innovate" campaign. It was staffed by a few really sullen-looking individuals, and was absolutely dead. It was in the middle of the Central Hall, so I must have walked by it 30 times during the show, and at no time saw anybody there who wasn't wearing a Microsoft shirt. And it's not like most of the people at this show are from the Slashdot crowd. Far from it.
I think we're to the point that most of the world is numb to Microsoft's marketing machine. The only people that really pay attention are their core supporters.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works.
Good lord! I had no idea running open source software was so dangerous! I mean, what with the liberal news media and their anti-microsoft slant you'd think it was good american programs like, oh, say.. Outlook that had 'viral' problems.. VBS must be open source.
air and light and time and space
int main (){ make_app_look_really_big (active_application); if (check_crashed = 0) \\ if we haven't crashed bluescreen (rand); Methinks there should be a double-equals here. Update Wine as necessary.
The fundamental requirement for the guys who create the competing/replacement/compatible product is that they must never have viewed any of the original source
Does it count if the guys who are creating any replacement product look at the original source, then laugh hysterically and say "what a load of cr@p! Who wrote this pile of junk!?" (a phrase that I'm sure will be repeated very often when M$ does get around to "sharing" their source), and then code the replacement exactly the opposite from the original source?
Somebody mod this up as Funny as a MothaFucka!
More than providing a framework under which an alternative to M$'s products can grow and develop, the GPL takes software out of the domain of corporate IP entirely. And M$ can't buy it, for love (ha!) or money (ha ha!). Slowly but surely, as more software is written and GPL'd, the better avenues for solving problems will be made unavailable to M$, at least theoretically. So long as one hasn't fallen for all the 'shared source' hoo-ha, an open-source programmer is free to use the right method of solving problems, even if he/she happens to stumble onto the same one used by M$.
The balance is tilting, even as we speak.
--- Submission is feudal.
check out their licensing page too...l t.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/business/licensing/defau
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
I guess it comes down to what the terms of the source licensing agreement are, and who it's available to. In the past, Microsoft has used source licenses to pick winners in certain product categories and has been sued over that practice.
Excluding "secret API" FUD, your description of Office development are the exact practices that Corel and Lotus have complained about for many years. You can tune your product using OS source, they can't. Will they be able to under "shared source"? Will (say) an IBM developer working on a juicy piece of middleware that MS wants supported on Windows be forbidden to transfer to the Lotus division?
I guess it really comes down to if "shared source" is something new, or just a continuance of MS's existing source license policies.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
closed source software has always been as "free" as open source software. The fact that billy gates came into the industry has no effect. It's not like he created the idea.
On the other hand, the reason open source software will never become popular, in the corporate world, is because it doesn't bring in any $$$.
what about apple? They would have popularized an even more closed source model. Or IBM. Companies have always been around.
"I hate this Slashdot. This hacker zoo. This prison of ideas. This reality, whatever you want to call it, I can't stand it any longer. It's the open source software, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your filthy free software and every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it."
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
In fact Microsoft marketing is Viral, because it precludes the options of other solutions, where GPL allows for as many solutions as you desire.
Correctly identifying the infection verse the AntiBodies is very important
GPL acts as an AntiBody against certain infections.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
All this is getting really tired, like the psuedo
homeless person following you around begging for
money, or holding up a sign that says "Will work for food", knowing full well what they really want is for you to just give them money. I once saw some guy do this with such a sign. Some lady gave him an apple. He waited for her to get out of sight and then threw the apple away. I've heard of other ending their day by walking across the street and getting in their mercedes and driving home.
MS wants to open it's source code up, the way they have said, and they want you to fix their bugs by telling them what to do (not doing it yourself) so they can then claim IP rights to it.
How else could MS improve their "Piracy" practice. I mean it was coining "piracy" that give billy his start.
Hell, just send them some money If you really feel sorry for them, and then tell them to go away or you'll call the cops.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
I am looking for the download button, can somebody point me to it? ;)
It wasn't me! | MySQL rulez!
Microsoft is entirely correct to say the GLP is viral because all derived works...
No. Read that part there. "...all derived works..." It's a bad analogy, because a viral infection is unintentional. Making a derived work is a very deliberate act.
It's more akin to an inoculation where you affect an entire system purposefully. People don't say, "oh no, I'm infected with the polio vaccine; now I can't get polio. Help, I'm being repressed." They took the vaccine because they intended to effect themselves in that way.
-- dR.fuZZo
As I understand you will not be able to see all the code anyway. I couldn't care less about the way they process the 'Start' button click, and they will not show me the code they use for HD access in the SQL Server 2000 on corresponding OS. Just another marketing campaign.
I imagine you probly' meant "WOO" them back, but in this case I think "Woe" could work too..
"Woe is me, this VBS script just deleted my pr0n collection!"
-
Starsucks
From what i've heard, ms has "shared" their source to companies in the past for a VERY, VERY pretty penny of course. With that, their shared source isn't really a new idea or philosophy, i think they're just trying to inform the CIO/Managerial types with "hey, i know you've heard all the hype about the GPL and open source software, but look, you can get our source code too."
Damn, who would have imagined that the Microsoft would try to, with their own proprietary extensions of course, Embrace and Extend the GPL itself!?!
I think i'll add a property page to the blue screen: Select blue screen background color: * Blue - Factory default * Yellow * Orange * White * Black * A random color for every crash
Freedom to Inoculate !
I'm Itchy. Do I have GPL?
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Microsoft has a powerful rhetorical sledgehammer with the word "viral", which conjures up images of disease and hacked, crashing computers. Although going by the any press is good press dictum many people will hear this and learn it's not a bad thing, it's still important to formulate a counter-rhetoric to this feint.
How can we extend the analogy? The GPL is to a virus as M$'s EULA's are to shackles? The analogy won't extend properly because it's based on a faulty premise- that virii are all bad by definition.
I propose the following: free software is more like the polio vaccine. When asked if he was going to patent the polio vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk said that would be 'like patenting the sun'. Free software doesn't restrict freedom like a virus that crashes your computer or destroys your body, it preserves freedom by making sure that no one can take away the rights you've got, just as the polio vaccine prevents polio from ravaging the body. So which one's the vaccine and which one's the virus- that's the question we should be asking.
I think the metaphor is apt and ought to embarass Micro$oft a little.
Bryguy
ps- feel free to use this metaphor. It's free as in speech.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
If MS licensed someone Windows Souce Code via "Shared-Source"(tm) and they made a dervivative work with the code, even if it wasn't an OS in the end and they wanted to distribute that new product they would have to give MS something. Its called "money".
If I license you my project under the GPL, which is a license afterall and you want to distribute a derivative work you would have to give me, and the world at large, something. Its called "Your new code under the GPL".
As in all "Free Trade" situations, its a trade. Instead of "money for code' its "code for code". It all sounds very fair to me. If you don't want to submit to the license of my orgional code then "innovate it yourself". MS wouldn't give you thier code for a project for free and you won't get my code with out code exchange.
Slashdot readers (should) be/are fairly intelligent and can probably come to their own conclusions without being sent obviously biased articles. (shared-source.com)
Closed mindedness is what most of your are trying to combat, so don't embrace it yourselves.
Okay, first of all ... To quote Microsoft, "There is no question that the GPL is a complicated liscense that has led to a great deal of confusion." My first reaction was, "well, Uncertainty and Doubt do tend to lead to confusion". Then I went and read a copy of the GPL for memory refresher. It's not that confusing, as we all know, of course. The terms are basically distribute, modify, use freely with a few conditions that are also simple to understand. The liscense isn't the easiest reading, but that's just because it's (necessarily) in legalese. I find Microsoft's EULAs to be much worse reading. So, this part of the "Shared Source FAQ" is either terribly misinformed, lazy, or simply FUD. Take your pick, none of them are good.
Oh yeah, it comes right out and says that "Linux is one of our many competitors". Nice :)
This is kind of reiterating ESR's comments on the Halloween documents ... but it's kind of scary to see that Microsoft realizes the stakes are much larger than itself. The talk about not being able to patent the ideas underlying implementations seems silly. Sure, you may not be able to patent the theory of time travel, but if you're the only one that's made a time machine and it's patented, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from blocking the flow of information about time travel.
Also, they seem to be taking this tack that "Oh, we have a SHARED model, not a closed one, so we're not evil, don't hate us!" They mention their research source liscensing, but also say in big letters at the bottom of that page that "Microsoft retains the right to refuse requests for any reason ". Again, nice. ("Hey, no way I'm giving YOU a liscense, you black-haired freak!") Their use of sample code as an example of Shared Source is just a joke, and as for the .NET standards, I hope anybody creating a new service or protocol would release it. The fact that Microsoft follows basically standard (right? I hope so ... ) practice says absolutely nothing about them.
No comment on the Mundie speeches, this has done enough by pesons that could probably do it better than me, but anyone interested in totally ripping apart that "Linux in Retail and Hospitality" paper? ^^
www.fucksharedsource.com
From the FAQ: ...
"In the year 2000, the worldwide packaged software industry employed 1.35 million people and produced tax revenues of approximately USD$28.2 billion"
I'm sure there was a Slashdot item a month or so ago pointing out that Microsoft had paid NO tax in the last year
IE, Microsoft. To the end users, it represents a real benefit.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
GNU public license
Source licensees can share source or other source-based work with other source licensees. :-)
This means, the license is viral in a similar way to the GPL; in order to give the code to someone else, you have to infect the other person with the MSsl. Welcome to the club of viral licensors. MS
Source is licensed to the requesting organization, not individuals to insure broad internal access.
The GPL allows a single person to fulfill the american dream and write great code.
Maybe you, but probably the organization you work for, can use the PARTS and CONCEPTS of the code that you developed yourself commerical. You are DISALLOWED to use parts of the source code of MS commercially or otherwise unless you subscribe to the MSsl.
The GPL allows you to use all of the code source, but to withhold and use none of it commercially(but you still can base a business on it, just not on keeping the source).
Microsoft is unable to ship source code under this program to all countries, due to limited resources.
GNU and other sites are distributing source and binaries to gazillions of users, every one of which is allowed to use the code (Luke).
I think the score is: 0:2 for GPL
Possible weak links of the MSsl
A university could decide to simply accept all living persons on earth as its members, such allowing everyone to look at MS source code.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Is this the true 'viral' infection (as opposed to the GPL)?
If I had access to the source, I could fix it for myself. Sure, I'd rather be able to distribute the patched version. But as long as there isn't a realistic free alternative (I tried KSpread from CVS last night and it's getting there but not yet there), fixing it on my own box is better than nothing.
Come to think of it, isn't that what RMS wanted to do with that printer driver in the first place?
* Max, Clippy's slightly less annoying MacOS cousin.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
I tried, but instead of working commands, I ended up with bunch of "+3 Informative" Slashdot posts.
If the lameness filter actually worked, would you even be reading this?
Microsoft has been allowing some small access to source code for years. A little less than halfway down this page, there's a summary of a discussion called "Do you need source?" The discussion took place in 1997, and indicates that quite a few academic institutions had access to NT source code back then.
So how does "shared source" change Microsoft's policy about source code? That has never been clear from Mundie's verbiage.
The discussion summary includes this little gem:
Will "shared source" allow people to suss out the Microsoft secret APIs? How is Microsoft going to deal with that? Won't previous receipiants of secret APIs get a little steamed when others get hold of them?Prove me wrong, Microsoft. I dare you.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
So, their stance is, "Please pay for our expensive licenses so we won't go out of business." Hmmm...that's what I thought the last time I bought a car, "Gee, I want to look for the most expensive place to buy my car so that poor dealership owner won't go out of business."
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
A: There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to a great deal of confusion. For the sake of clarity, we wish to reiterate our basic points in regard to the GPL and other OSS licenses.
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license-the GPL-is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify, and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification. Moreover, programs containing code subject to the BSD license are subject to only limited obligations imposed by that license. This type of license gives users freedom to incorporate their own changes and redistribute them, without requiring them to publish the new source code or allow royalty-free redistribution.
Q: We're confused. Does this mean that this is the model that you're going to be using for your own shared source strategies?
A: Ha ha, no. We just wanted to take this opportunity to use certain words like "viral", a word which we unintentionally made popular, against our primary competition.
Q: Oh. So you have no plans to release your source code free for public use for people to take and incorporate into their projects how they please.
A: Of course not! What sort of fools do you take us for?
Q: So your opinion of the GPL and BSD models and licenses is really irrelevent.
A: Er... yes. But don't tell anyone, 'kay?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
However, one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious.
Now, Personally, I'm more of a BSD licence guy, myself, but Microsoft is totally missing the point here. Of course it's viral. It's supposed to be. The GPL's viral properties keep people from being able to steal GPLed code, in the exact same way that MS will try to keep people from stealing their code. MS treats this viral property as if it were a great evil communist conspiracy, and they need to grow up. The GPL prevents code from being reused without a price, the same way that MS will do the same to anyone who uses any of their shared source.
The difference, in fact, is that the GPL will give you the choice to use the code, even with the "Viral" license. MS will not let anyone use their code, instead going for their 'Code Under Glass' philosophy. Obviously, there's no questioning which one leads to true 'innovation'.
When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
This probably is their strategy with regard to the the promotion of 'shared source' amd as much as it pains me to say this, it's almost a halway valid business strategy...
I've tried to find fault with it but it doesn't seem blatently wrong; although perhaps anti-competitive, but not ilegal.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Microsoft is now allowing universities to get access to Windows source code. This will allow us to learn how they were able to write an OS that causes programs to run differently each time thay are run; in a completely non-deterministic fashion.
See, Microsoft has contributed to computer science by making otherwise deterministic systems completely non-deterministic. Wait, Isn't that a requirement for true artificial inteligence. See It's a feature. People have been trying to create non-deterministic computing systems for 30 years... And Microsoft has succeeded.
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
It's funny how competitive Microsoft is, a corporation trying to preserve its bottom line trying to dissuade other corporations from neglecting their bottomlines to purchase (and tether themselves into) their software.
You can't argue with free... no matter how much propaganda money you throw at it.
With people in Microsoft's position, you have to be careful as you read between the lines. Note the excess word just in this line quoted from their site:
The sentence would mean the same without the value-laden word just. So look closely at that word. What is it doing? It is targeted directly at Open Source folks. It is implying that source code is not only a small portion, but a rather small portion of Commercial Software.
To any programmer, even closed-source ones, this is a slight. And Microsoft knows that the best programmers in the world are ones dedicated to Open Source. Open Source programmers work for joy, not always for money. Microsoft has a case of sour grapes and is trying to malign the whole profession of programmers, knowing that, even doing so, they can buy the average ones for a dime a dozen: give 'em money, and they'll program for ya. It's a weird tactic, but their language is laced with this kind of condescending tone.
No need to evaluate whether they're sensible or not; the DOJ is still breathing down their nostrils at 'em, so of course they're gonna be sensible. What you want to look for is any sense of repentence from past errors. If that is not present, what real value is in what they have to say?
information is immaterial
If GPL is a Virus, than Microsoft's Shared-Source is Death!
Use GPL and contribute to the community. Use Shared-Source and go to jail!
Nice soundbite material, stuff the press can easily understand. Doesn't have to be inherently true, just argueable so.
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
Hey, its not just TV preachers playing fleece the flock anymore. Now MS wants to get into the act. "Here little sheep (er developer). Come and let me shear off all that hot smelly code." Being MS, they make hot smelly scratchy sweaters out of it and sell it at a boutique for a small fortune. Exploit the developers, torment the user with BSOD's, and rake in the dough. Ah, but it's "the American way". Funny thing is, the very people dictating "the American way" are the ones currently (at least if/until the appeal goes through) found guilty of breaking American antitrust laws. ROFL
.Net, XP's broken MP3 support, copy protection, etc.) They are expanding into tons of new markets all at once (.Net, Xbox, etc.) and each has built in competitors that MS may well loose against. It has already been in the news that MS may actually put off release of Windows XP till next year in favor of the Xbox's release. Any new desktop OS would have both the educational and Xmas seasons in which to establish itself unopposed if that happens. OS X is the best candidate, but Linux could be there too if its community dropped all conflicts and really pulled together and put in a monumental effort. I work for a company where everybody hates MS with a fiery passion. I can't believe we are the only ones that feel that way. We need viable alternatives to MS, and we need them *now*. Get them established while MS is distracted, and rip away a huge chunk of their marketshare in their core business. Then Sun, IBM, and all their other "new"-found competitors can do the rest.
Anyway, its not like MS is doing anything new. They've "shared" their code with others for years now. Usually for a hefty price, or bundled with their development packages. They are just trying to hijack the bandwagon and make it go in their direction.
That isn't going to happen. Why? For one thing, because they are dealing with lots of individuals who will stick to their guns, not a business they can buy or destroy. For another, their continual abuse of their users is turning lots of people against Microsoft. Finally, Microsoft may not be able to exist in its present form much longer. That kind of greed is not sustainable. They've pulled down the wrath of the US and other governments on their heads. We keep hearing of new governments tossing out their Windows software. MS is finding new and unusual ways to torment their users (subscriptions, Hailstorm,
Think Apple won't take on MS? Think again! The only thing stopping them before was that five year deal-with-the-devil and Office. With Darwin, Apple now has the potential to have the open source office suites ported. They already have Apple Works reading Word files. The five years is up in 2002. Apple is starting to compare themselves to the PC on their website. I bet you that come 2002 the gloves will come off. Apple alone isn't much of a match for MS, but Apple, IBM, Sun, Sony, and AOL are. Toss in the Open Source movement and hordes of angry users, and MS is going to be fighting a battle on all fronts, a battle it can't win.
"Mothra is attacking New Kirk City!" "Mothra" July 30,1961
I mostly disagree with the M$ view here, as do most folks here. But, there is an issue that I have been thinking about that they may have a point about:
I am a software engineer, so I write software for a living. So the company that I work for sells the software, or uses the software in the product that they sell, thus they pay me. If I work on GPL code in my spare time, I don't get paid for it, thus I call it a hobby.
But what if the only software in the world were GPL or in some other way free? How would I get paid? I understand that there is some money to be made with free software, like support, etc. But what about people that write software for a living? What will I do to pay my house/car payment? If I can get paid more by digging ditches than writing code, will I use my time to write code? nope, I will dig ditches or whatever that will pay the bills. Writing code for GPL projects is fun, but it doesn't pay the bills. The only reason I can afford to do this is because someone else pays me to write other software (non-free software that is).
So now I have no reason to write software all day. I dig ditches instead. That is the death of innovation, nobody (not just me) will write software.
It seems to me that free software only works because non-free software exists. If noone were paying programmers, there wouldn't be very many programmers around, thus noone would be working on GPL-like projects.
Am I way off base here? I have never heard anything that really answered this question for me. Maybe it belongs in "Ask Slashdot".
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
This tactic was mentioned in the halloween documents (href="www.opensource.org/halloween) as a means of competing with brainshare for open source products, back in 1998.
Funny, Microsoft denies that these documents are offician and then impliments every one of the concepts....
Of course what they don't want you to see is something like the following:
Secret Windows 98 code:
#include "dos.h"
#include "w311.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "Oldstuff.h"
#include "EvenMoreStuff.h"
#include "bluescreen.h"
int main (){
make_app_look_really_big (active_application);
if (check_crashed = 0) \\ if we haven't crashed
bluescreen (rand);
sleep (5);
create_gpf (rand);
sleep (5);
bluescreen (rand);
sleep (5);
leak_memory (rand);
bluescreen (rand);
}
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
With all the recent media attention to this Open/closed (come on, if it quacks like a duck, then it must be...) source debate, I've found myself in the position of having to explain it to the higher-ups. "If they give it away, how do they make any money?" I'm pretty tired of ducking that one.
But at least, GNU/Linux and it's buddies are finally appearing on more people's radar. A few of them actually want to try it now. 6 months ago it was "PowerPoint rulez." Now they're all: "Microsoft sux".
Mr. Bates is spreading more disinformation.
Yuk-yuk.
Did anyone else notice how silent their Chief Software Architect is on this matter? Linus and RMS spin forth, but Mr. Bill remains elusive. Guess he's too busy gushing over the XBox.
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
I'm sure they get asked this question all the time. Good thing they thought to put it in their FAQ.
The REAL American dream is ... freedom of speach, freedom of the press...
Microsoft... should just STFU.
Oh.
According to their FAQ commercial software is good because it produced US$28.2 billion in tax revenue worldwide in Year 2000. (They have a source for this number and I won't pretend to have any idea whether this is true or not.)
But by this logic wouldn't we all be much better off if Microsoft increased all its prices by a factor of ten, or a hundred, or more? Think of all the extra tax revenue!
I'm no business-as-usual Republican, but even I would agree that the economy improves as goods and services become cheaper. It's true that by using GPL software companies can save lots of money, but that money won't simply disappear, it can be used to expand the business itself or to give employees raises or be paid in taxes as a portion of the increased revenues accruing to owners. I guess all these are bad now.
"But it is true that Linux are actually rapidly increasing their market share in the US also. Doesn't this pose a threat?" ....
Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media and is destined to fall by the wayside in time. Windows 2000 will gradually overtake the Linux share in the server market. In fact, the advent of Linux has spurred Microsoft's developers to move up a gear. The arrival of new competitors in applications or operating systems development provides us at Microsoft with the driving force to create even better software products.
Taken from : You Know Where
And don't forget:
Microsoft Strengths Against this Competitor (Don't forget, all these apply TO M$, not GNU/Linux stuff)
* Thousands of compatible applications
* Better integration and ease-of-use; stronger long-term buy
* Popular, reliable platform; less risk
* Greater depth of channel support as taken from their sales section
And if you've never read Linux myths and you fancy a laugh, check it out now !!
Is it just me, or do I get the feeling that there's a lot of brown trousers in the Redmond camp ?
Two wrongs may not make a right, but three
According to the microsoft webpage there number 1 element for the Shared Source model is:
/mscode/* GNU) however, I think there just trying to reap the benifits of OSS.
1.Community: A strong support community of developers.
Sorry, but what a crock of shit. It sounds like they want to take some of the ideals of the OSS and FSF to increase their image to developers. A good example is that this page is not on their developer page, but on there business page. It's good that they are showing some source finally (they probably did a grep -r
The only statement that cannot be questioned, is that every statement can be questioned.
yeah, this is great huh? cool way for the Beast to have us pay them, get improvements from the community and then re-incorporate them back into their property without anyone other than the Beast getting squat. um, isn't this usury, or at a minimum severe exploitation of the techno-peasantry?
So,The GPL isn't "viral", it's "genetic".
It seems to me that Microsoft is already off the hook under the dubya regime.
Jesus saves and takes half damage.
Microsoft forgot the 6th piece of the "umbrella" 6. Make money by any means necessary. OH YEAAAAAAAA
Hell, how many people actually want the source code because they are going to actually compile it ? Not many i'd guess. But plenty of people want the source as a kind of comfort factor. I am one of those people. I could not give a flying fuck about whether it is GPL, LGPL, BSD or whatever (they differ only in technicalities) I just want to know that my software is safe and will not allow me to be penetrated via the backdoor with a trojan.
Anyway, now Microsoft have gone "open source" do we actually need Linux any more ? I mean, sure Windoze costs $$S, but then so does Red$Hat these days...
So, why will Linux lose? Not because it is not good enough, but because the marketing behind Linux is not sexy enough. Just look at microsoft. Read about them, learn from them.
Examples:
I am serious. My manager is prepared to throw away his great working palm for a bigger, userUNfriendlier handheld.
This is the problem Linux faces. Marketing. And this is the area in which Linux will lose big time unless something happens. Look at microsoft, study microsoft, learn from microsoft.
Read "The Art of War". I did and learnt a lot from it. The first chapter handles about studying your enemy careful. Microsoft does this, Linux (or the whole OSS community) doesn't. This is logical, 99% of the community is coders. But when you want the suits to accept Linux (remember, the suits make the decisions, not the techs), you have to talk like a suit.
Final note: I have submitted stories like these on here before, but no one listened. I hope this time it will be different (but I doubt it...)
Well, something does need to be said for M$'s wanting to keep their source code closed. They can keep a monopoly on their OS. Then again, Apple did that, and they are a cult brand now, but not as powerful as say, M$, who originally built their source to run all sorts of Intel PC clones. Now WindowsXP is going to validate all the hardware and software I have in my PC and make it harder to upgrade my stuff? Guess what, I'm not going to buy it, even if it does have more features than Linux or Apple OS's. It makes it great for supportability and ease of use by the commoner, but they're not going to win any technophiles that way.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Flabdabb Hubbard is a well known troll. Infact, every message he posts here is a troll. Please do not feed him.
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
Don't forget that the holy grail of reverse engineering is the Chinese wall between the guy who analyzes the original product and writes the spec documents and the guy(s) who then read the spec documents and design the compatible/replacement product.
What am I getting at?
The fundamental requirement for the guys who create the competing/replacement/compatible product is that they must never have viewed any of the original source (if it's software) or viewed the original drawings or workings if it's a machine. This is known as finding "virgins" to do the work. If MS spreads its source code wider via this "shared source" concept, they'll still have all the copyright protection they could ask for and now it will be much harder to find virgins who can work on competing/compatible products.
Since university students are a huge part of the open source community, MS may be intentionally polluting the community by allowing universities (and their CIS or Computer Engineering students) to see the source to MS operating systems.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I have a hard time believing Microsoft wouldn't resort to such tactics if they thought they could get away with them.
Perhaps they meant to add the phrase "in Redmond" at the end of each one?
---
And most "shared source" and "commercial" licenses are viral and infectious; that is, if you write your own software using that kind of software, you either have to pay runtime licenses yourself, or your customers will have to purchase the infecting product themselves.
Microsoft doesn't need such a long statement about their philosophy, it can be summed up pretty succinctly: (1) we (Microsoft) take every step we can to make you dependent on our software, including sharing source code with you that encourages you to use undocumented APIs, and (2) given the additional cost that would create if you wanted to switch to a competitor, we can charge you a lot more for our products than we could in a free, competitive market.
I dunno, that part sounds not too different from some self-proclaimed "open source" companies that "dual license": they give away a free version of their software to non-commercial users, but any improvements that you contribute and want incorporated into their distribution, you have to sign over to them, and the improvements then get sold as part of their commercial product.
GPL -> All derivative works are also GPL
MIC -> All derivative works are also MIC
GPL -> improvements must be released under GPL
MIC -> improvements must not be released, only to us
comments ?
I wonder if Netscape, RealNetworks, Corel, etc. and Micro$ofts other biggest competitors get to see it? Oh never mind...
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
From the FAQ :
"...one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify, and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification."
In other words, Microsoft wants your code. They want to continue to use your code to make money without giving you any credit for it. Their business depends on it. The GPL stops that activity cold, they know it, and it scares them.
And that's what all this 'discussion' has been about.
--
And no I'm not kidding or trolling. I do believe communism, in theory, is a good idea, and that free software is the only example of communist-like principles done right.
--
"Fuck your mama."
that all most of the "facts" on M$ little propaganda page relate to Kernel 2.2? How old is that site? Has Kernel 2.4 not been out since March??? Plenty of time for M$ to pull more "facts" out of their collective asses. As far as the RAM issue goes, 2.4 supports 64GB, which is a hell of a lot more than 4 GB like their site says. I'm certain M$ is quite happy to leave the out-of date info up though, it just scares people off of upgrading (yes, I said upgrading) to Linux. Seriously, there is no way we should take this lying down, I think a calm, collected, truthful response has got to be composed and put into the media, not just on a site where we all know the truth anyway. I'm really interested in this project, if anyone else wants to help get it done, contact me at dstrct0@hotmail.com and let's fight back!
Build boards not bombs
Hmm, I don't know...shared source...sounds pretty un-American...
-----------------------
-----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
The contraction in the dot-com industry over the past few months came about, in part, due to the pervasive model of companies giving away valuable asset, like content, with the hope of making money selling something else later.
... I repeat ... NOTHING to do with open source.
Uhh..no. The recent contraction in the dot-com industry was a natural part of the economic cycle. The internet created a vast new opportunity, and tons of people jumped at the chance. Stock prices became inflated. Then the shaking out process began. Companies that couldn't compete (or were never heard of) died, bringing stock prices back to reality. If it weren't for updated rules on the stock market (on speculation, getting stock and paying later), it could have been a repeat of 1929. Besides, industry seems to be entering another R&D cycle, designing the portables that will kick start the economy in a couple of years. It had nothing
Shared Source is a balanced approach that allows us to share source code with customers and partners while maintaining the intellectual property rights needed to support a strong software business.
Better stated as "Shared source an approach that lets customers and partners think they're getting the advantages of Open Source, but keeps assloads of money pouring towars us."
Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
Well, duh! This stuff scares the crap out of us! It might bring our profits down to $10 gazillion a year!
Copyright applies to the expression of an idea in a tangible medium, not to the underlying ideas themselves.
I bet the author was laughing his ass off when he wrote that one. That's the way its supposed to be, but that ain't the way it is.
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license--the GPL--is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
I thought that was the point. To keep companines from monopolizing code and then forcing it down the throats of customers. Or am I drunk?
Sounding way smarter than my IQ would indicate,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Although, MS is at least sharing *some* of their source code, right? We should at least be happy about that.
"Shared Source", on the other hand, gives only some selected (by Microsoft) large companies the permission to view parts of the source code, I don't really picture M$ giving up it's security layer implementation for IIS (if any ;) or any other software they're selling even if they say so and even if THEY DO SO.
You can't just trust people by what they say these days, it's their past actions that matter.
Everybody knows that opening the source will simply make it easier for hackers to break into my system and steal my PrOn. What the hell is Microsoft thinking?
If they don't like the GPL, well, noone forces them to use code based on it. But if I, as a volunteer, write code in my free time, I have the goddamn right to do with it whatever I want. Writing code and releasing it to the public doesn't give any benefits in the form of money or sth. to the coder. But if others improve it and help him, or write some other free software, he gets his reward in form of good and free (of both pay and source) software. Thats what the GPL is all about. Its a giving and a taking. Now if companies were allowed to take the code, improve it but keep their changes the original coder will get nothing. No improved code for sure. He might even see his very own program, written by himself, with only few minor changes, sold by a company, and he would have to pay for it! This would be a "giving" by the coder and a "taking" by the company. Why should anyone keep on writing "free" software then? If MS is unhappy with the GPL then its their good right. If I was MS, I wouldn't like it either. But saing that the should be allowed to use the software withour crediting the original, unpaid author is painful. If they dont like the GPL then they should finally start writing good software by themselves and stop copying from others.