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.
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!
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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!
... 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
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.
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.
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
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.