Ballmer Calls Linux "A Cancer"

davidebsmith writes: "In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says that Linux and the open source movement is "good competition" because it will "force [Microsoft] to be innovative," but calls Linux "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." He also says that the inclusion of IE in Windows has been "great ... for innovation in the software industry" (except for Netscape) and that MS's new copy protections are just "bumps in the road" to "help customers understand when they are crossing the line . . . so they can't do the wrong thing." And he says a few more amusing things, also."

Comments

Re:This word

[Anonymous Coward]

I just looked up "innovate" in my handy-dandy MSWebster dictionary and got:

in-no-vate (IN no vait) vt. - to take an idea from another company (cf. Apple)

Re:Damn...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding right?

There's plenty that's "free" about the GPL just not what some people want to be free (i.e. free to exploit).

You are free to read the source code.

You are free to wall-paper your house with the source code.

You are free to recite the source code.

You are free to compile the source code.

You are free to copy to source code to another media.

You are free to give a copy of the source code as a Christmas present.

You are free to modify the source code.

You are free to learn from the source code.

You are free to tinker with the source code.

You are free to charge a fee for transfering the source code. Now this of course does not mean that you are free to do these things in anyway whatsoever. (i.e. you may not be allowed to recite the source code over an illegal FM transmitter. Nor are you violate the terms of the GPL). Nonetheless, only a shabby miscrosoft-like absence of logic would allow the conclusion that there is nothing free about the GPL'ed software.

What's funny is that the napster-kid mentality and the anti-GPL mentality seem to be essentially the same. "I deserve to be able to profit from someone else's work."

Re:This word

[Wakko Warner]

The word has become quite arbitrary at Microsoft.
I'm hungry. I think I'll go innovate a sandwich.

--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

Let's not jump to hasty conclusions

[alewando]

Chances are, it's a quote taken out of context or a wholesale fabrication by a reporter. Microsoft didn't get where it is today by putting its collective foot in its mouth like that, so when you hear a quote as absurd as "Linux is a Cancer" (which Microsoft itself knows to be a falsehood), take it with a grain of salt.

FUD is your enemy, but don't compound the problem by restorting tooFUD yourself. Microsoft still deserves the benefit of the doubt, and we should always take a careful investigatory approach whenever we wish to report news that may be damaging to the reputation of either party. That's the approach Microsoft has historically used (see mindcraft and others), and it's the least we can do too.

Re:Let's not jump to hasty conclusions

[mikej]

Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to Microsoft?

A: Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works.


I gave him the benefit of the doubt as well, and was rewarded with this :) He's saying that any company that uses open source software must give away all of their software, which is true only as long as "use" means "incorporate source code from". He's implying that anybody using linux to run a print server or somesuch is going to be forced to give away every line of code they've ever written. It's very well worded, extremely effective, and completely dishonest.

Re:Let's not jump to hasty conclusions

[MillMan]

A: Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works.

It doesn't look that way. He's referring to how the GPL works, so in Microsoft's view he's correct. If you think open source is a good thing, however, his argument doesn't really hold.

I don't know where this "government funded research" thing comes from...maybe unix back in the 60's? That's an incredibly arrogant statement coming from an executive at a big corporation anyway. Look at how much nearly free research companies get by giving a few bucks (relatively speaking) to Universities. The public doesn't see any of the return on that money....is that fair?

You know, normally I don't get worked up by whatever crap Microsoft exec's are currently spewing out, but this really bugs me from a philosophical standpoint. For me they are really starting to represent everything that can go wrong with capitalism in the information age.

Maybe they really ARE that terrified of linux, even on the desktop where it isn't currently much of a threat. No one to sue, buy, or threaten. Thats tough for a modern day corporation to deal with.

Re:From the interview

[Nugget]

"Public domain" makes it available only to the first generation of people that touch it. It allows corporations to turn it into "Proprietary Software", which in effect means that the from that point on, the software is no longer "freely available to all".

The problem here is that the "it" you're talking about no longer exists at that second generation. If a developer takes public domain code and uses it as a foundation of or a component of their own work then I don't understand how you can expect to have a claim to free access to the work they did. Any value that a developer is able to add to or extract from a piece of public domain code should be theirs to license as they see fit. He who does the work (or funds the work) should have the freedom to set the license. The GPL eliminates this freedom by requiring GPL on both derivative works and work which incorporate even small portions of GPL'd code into their codebase.

Public domain is, and always remains public domain and "freely available to all". There's no way to remove something from the public domain.

I want publicly funded software to remain publicly available and free to all. I don't want Microsoft or any other corporate entity to swallow it and never let it see the light of day again.

Please explain how using code makes it unavailable.

I do not believe that we, the people, our government, should be obliged to give anything for free to corporations.

I have no idea what your mini-rant on coporations has to do with this. GPL code is equally inaccessable to anyone who wishes to do non-GPL development. That can mean a multi-billion dollar corporation and it can also mean me in my bedroom trying to develop software as a sole proprietorship. Hell, it can even refer to a non-profit organization or an open source developer like the Apache Foundation.

I think your distaste for corporations is clouding your judgement on this issue.

Re:From the interview

[Nugget]

If you accept the incorrect usage of "open source" to mean "GPL'd code" then this statement makes perfect sense.

I presume that what Ballmer meant to say was "The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds GPL'd work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody."

This is an understandable viewpoint. GPL'd code is not accessable to everybody. It is only accessable to developers who are willing to release their code under the GPL license which excludes large portions of the community. Government-funded GPL code is inaccessable to the Apache Foundation, it's inaccessable to the OpenBSD developers, and it's inaccessable to any commercial developers who are working on closed-source products.

If tax dollars are funding a project, then the results of that development should be available to everyone and not just people who use one particular license. This is the rationale behind the laws which prevent the government from enjoying a copyright on the data it produces.

Government code should be public domain, not placed under a restrictive license like the GPL.

Outlook Express

[mattkime]

I heard you can't get catch cancer from computers unless you have Microsoft Outlook installed.

Sue for defamation

[Angst Badger]

If another company was lying about my product in order to hurt my business, I'd sue them for defamation.

Microsoft is lying about Linux in particular and GPLed software in general, and the FSF ought to haul them into court over the issue. Sure, the GPL is viral, but simply writing software to run under Linux does not compromise your IP rights unless you use GPLed code to do it, which is certainly not necessary.

The other thing that strikes me, as it usually does when the GPL comes up, is how distributors of closed software are quite insistent that you must respect the terms of their licenses, but bitch like spoiled children when an open developer insists that they respect the terms of his. Closed source developers need to clue into the fact that they can't have it both ways. If you want to protect your own intellectual property, you must refrain from stealing others. It's like arguing that because some women are prostitutes, it's okay to treat all women like prostitutes, and it reflects pretty much the same personality type.

Nuff said.

--

Say the same lie often enough...

[lar3ry]

And people start to believe it.

This propoganda tactic was in use before World War II, and apparently, it still works.

Even in politics, say the same lie often enough and it gets believed. President George Bush (Sr.) would dismiss civil rights legislation as a "quota bill." Now, President Junior does the same thing, saying that his "Lets Give Lots Of Money To The Rich Guys" tax policy as "favoring the poor."

In the high-tech area, we're hearing Allchin, Mundie, and now Ballmer repeating that "open source is not available to commercial companies."

This is a lot of horseshit. It's available to anybody and everybody. However, if you don't want to use it, then don't.

The GPL license (which the GNU folks will repeat over and over is NOT OPEN SOURCE), is a license to use a piece of software. It is no different than the license in which a person runs Windows, Office, or any other Microsoft product. One can say that using the same reasoning, Microsoft software is not available to commercial companies. Of course, that is, commercial companies that do not wish to abide by Microsoft's licenses, which is much more stringent with regard what you can and can not do than any interpretation that I've ever heard of the GPL.

If you don't like the license, don't use it. Microsoft has that right with regard to the GPL. However, Microsoft is not every commercial company. There are many companies, including IBM, Sun, RedHat, and others, that are only too happy to abide by the GPL.

But you have to give the Microsoft flaks du jour credit for continuing to play the "most so-called journalists are so f*cking stupid that they don't know the GPL from TNT" card.
--

Only a slight twist on the truth...

[Mr. Flibble]

The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works

Open source is not available to commercial companies. Hmm. Linux is Open Source right? I use Linux here at work - for a commercial company.

The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. Maybe I read the GPL incorrectly, but, um... Isn't that the point? (On another note, our company uses Linux, but releases closed-source binarys of our primary product. No problems with that!)

Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. Again, thats rather the point, but it does not "attach" itself to everything it touches, Q3A is not GPL'ed but it runs on Linux just fine.

But then who am I kidding right? This is Slashdot. We all know this (Apart from the newbies and trolls). I am just preaching to the Choir. What I am interested in is the exact gist of these comments. What is Balmer trying to accomplish here?

We know he mentions competition (to keep the Justice Dept. off of his back) and Microsoft is consistantly trying to poison the GPL, but not Linux... I think MS is more afraid of the GPL than anything else, if they can disparage the GPL, they can (they believe) damage the free software movement. I don't think that they will be sucessful, but they will through this strategy keep Linux off of the desktop (but not servers) for some time to come. (At this stage, IMO Linux is not ready for the mainstream desktop user, and maybe it never will be, thats not a bad thing though.)

Anyone else have a take on what they think Microsoft is up to?

Re:Only a slight twist on the truth...

[DarkProphet]

I think Microsoft is setting the stage for a real grandiose event.

M$ has been on the warpath about the GPL lately (and spreading Open Source == GPL fallacies), and this is to fool the public. Why would the public care, you ask?

They don't, and M$ knows this. (And really, is living proof that people don't read licenses, or M$ would go belly-up real quick, but I digress) What I think M$ is doing is harping about the GPL, because sooner or later, the GPL is gonna have to be tested in court. Guess who is going to be doing the testing? M$. They will try to show that the GPL is counterproductive to the software industry, and its mere existance is stifling the software industry's ability to make comparable products at a competitive price. They will argue that Open Source software stunts thier IP rights via "infection". This is not the first time that M$ lackeys have referred to Open Source/Free Software/Linux as some type of incurable virus that permeates anything it comes in contact with.

Though, M$ has made a mistake which may prove to be quite crippling to them in a few years. They are fighting on _WAY_ too many fronts. They have *XP, they have .NET, they have xBox, and they are fighting Open Source. Any battle fought wrongly by M$ stands to bite them in the ass later. Its possible that an action they take on one front will affect them negatively in another. The consumer will be affected as well. Its getting to the point where even Joe Sixpack is becoming aware that they have alternatives to having a BSOD everyday. (I thought W2K was supposed to cure that... it doesn't on my box at least).

M$ is fighting the GPL, because it offers a strong alternative to the masses. The general public can't quite grasp what GPL (or other Open Source) software means to them, because its still a bitch to get an alternative OS installed, much less use it for daily work.

In the case of Linux anyway, we've made good progress in this department, but any Linux distro I've used (RH, Debian, Mandrake) are all still a pain in the ass to install and get set up. Don't expect the general public to really warm up to anything besides M$ until you can simplify things. Apple is very aware of this, and thats how come OS X exists. The problem with Open Source software is that we don't fucking need 15 different text editors. I think development energies could be focused in more productive ways. Don't get me wrong, its nice that there is so much choice, but it might be a better idea to concentrate on the OS that that software will run on first instead.

From the consumer prospective, Windows came first, and beget windows software later. In the case of Linux, it looks more like the software is a higher priority than the OS. Thats cool, but dammit, Linux needs a SIMPLE installer, and a stable standard GUI (or two). Tell me why it is that Mandrake 8.0 (or RH 7.x)_CRASHES_ for no apparent reason! Not just X, but the whole damned system. Maybe its the 2.4.x kernel. RH 6.1 was a helluva lot more stable for me.

Don't get me wrong, its just that I consider myself to be good with computers, and even I have a helluva time. Do you expect Joe Sixpack to put up with it? No sir. Meanwhile, M$ is going to try to destroy the GPL/Open Source so that the day Joe Sixpack can say "Hey, this Open Source stuff really works well" never comes.

Its the same tired old game M$ has been playing for years to ensure thier survival. Its the same principle they used when bundling IE with windows to kill off Netscape. You can tell M$ tried hard, because IE works WAY better for me than any version of Netscape/Mozilla does, sorry.

It won't work that way this time around though. Open Source software is the only thing that can provide healthy competition for M$, and if they destroy it, I doubt any other corporation is gonna be able to compete with the demons in Redmond.

Letter I Sent To The Sun-Times

[weston]

I take issue with several sophisms that Steve Ballmer attempted to promulgate during his interview with the Sun-Times, printed on June 1st.

Ballmer claims that "Open Source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source." This is an out-and-out mistatement of what open source licenses do. In order to keep Sun-Times readers well-informed, perhaps an examination of the essentials of the two most popular open source licenses would be in order.

The BSD license, originally created to cover software released by UC Berkeley, essentially requires only that you retain a notice attributing the original source of the software. Thus software under the BSD license is very close to the public domain -- all you have to do to use it in any way you wish is to appropriately credit the original author. You don't even have to post this credit in a prominent place (like the about box or documentation of a program). It only has to go in the code, and users might even remain unaware that a program uses BSD licensed software.

One good example of this can be found in Microsoft's own Windows NT and Windows 2000. The IP stack -- an essential portion of the networking code -- is actually taken from code released under the BSD license. Microsoft has thus taken open source software and succesfully incorporated it into one of their flagship products -- all without resulting in any loss of intellectual property on Microsoft's part.

The GNU Public license, originally created at the Free Software Foundation, is stricter in its requirements than the BSD license, but nowhere near as restrictive as Ballmer suggests. It is true that if you take code from
a piece of GPL'd software and release a derivitave work based on that code, then you must release that derivitave work, with source code, under the GPL.
The GPL makes this requirement in order to ensure people will always be able to freely use, inspect, and modify software released under the GPL. Software released under the GPL cannot be made proprietary.

However, there is NO provision in the GPL that states you must release ALL your software under the GPL. Non-derivative works may be released under any license the copyright owner please. Thus, a company such as Corel can distribute their own version of the popular GPL'd operating system Linux and simultaneously sell their Word Perfect Office Suite in the traditional proprietary manner. They are not required to open source all of their products -- not even their version of Word Perfect that runs on Linux -- because these products are not derived from GPL'd software. This example neatly refutes Ballmer's assertion that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." The GPL applies to and affects only software that is derived from other GPL'd software, allowing companies handle the distribution and licensing of their proprietary software in any way they see fit.

It's worth noting that Corel and Microsoft itself are only two of many corporations and small businesses who are succesfully incorporating open source software into their operations. AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Sun have long used similar strategies. AOL, EBay, Red Hat, VA Linux, and others are among the growing powerhouses that have learned to harness and profit from the increasing popularity of open source. Far from being a cancer that is unfit for business use, open source has proved to be a boon for those who understand it.

The verity of these points is obvious to anyone who has spent suffecient time familiarizing themselves with the essential facts about various types of open source software. Either Ballmer is simply uninformed about his competitors, or he is taking advantage of his opportunities in public forums such as the Sun-Times to intentionally mislead people about software which is competing (quite effectively) with Microsoft's own products. Given Microsoft's history, which do you beleive?

Sincerely,


--

Re:Interesting philosophy...

[Pope]

MS liscensed Spyglass Mosaic with the terms that Spyglass get a percentage of the profits of selling IE.
MS gave away IE for free.
Profits to Spyglass? $0.

Well, the CEO is supposed to say things like that

[scotpurl]

Let's take a look around at the other big companies. Oracle has an egomaniac for a CEO. Apple, yeah, ditto for their CEO (or whaver Jobs' title is these days), whom it's apparently not safe to be with in an elevator.

The companies that have the biggest following of loyalist fans also have these sort of banana-republic dictator personalities running the company. In order to gain new territory, you sometimes have to rally the troops (employees) and your allies (investors) by making bold, outrageous statements. Usually it's limited to something like, "we're going to make a lot of money this year," or "our new product is The Next Big Thing."

CEO's are really politicians. And like everyone in power, they know a little secret: the masses don't want to hear the truth. People enjoy being lied to, and deluded, and misled. There's so much evil, selfishness, and contempt in the world that the masses don't want to hear it. An investor doesn't want to hear that another stock they own is going to tank. They want to hear that their stocks have all gone bullish. Customers don't want to know that they've purchased another mediocre product. They want to beleive that it will actually work as advertised, and cure the common cold.

Repeat after me. It's propoganda. It's not the truth.

Linux shifts the economy from product-based to service based (since the product is free + your time). IBM sells services, and they like Linux. Microsoft sells products, and feels their bottom line is being threatened. They have a right to make a product, and people have a right to buy, or not to buy, their product.

heh

[GoNINzo]

Just remind him what Denis Leary said...

No cure for cancer.

--
Gonzo Granzeau

Since when are 9x and NT forks?

[throx]

Win95, Win98, WinNT, Win2000, WinXP are forks? I don't think so. This is pretty much the same as saying:

FreeBSD 3.0, FreeBSD 4.0, Linux 2.0, Linux 2.2 and Linux 2.4 are forks. If you are going to respond to him then you could at least get YOUR facts straight!!

Win9x has never been a fork on the NT project. While the FreeBSD analogy above is a little out, Win9x is really a version of Win3.0 with a whole stack of 32 bit junk tacked in wherever possible. You'd be much closer calling Warp and NT forks of each other, or even OpenVMS and NT forks. Hell, even Linux+Wine is probably closer to NT/2000/XP than Win9x is!!!

Sad

[EasyTarget]

Clever set up. First he complains that people don't respect Intellectual property enough and need reminding. Then he whinges about his (totally false) lie that open source makes all other software open source due to Intellectual property issues.

Nice example of telling a bare faced lie for spin purposes though, pretending that he does not understand there are -different- types of open source licence. Almost makes me believe he realli -is- stupid.

EZ

Real Life imitates the Internet

[underwhelm]

Haven't we learned not to feed trolls? I hope that the Free Software luminaries give this guy the response he deserves this time: none at all.

By stooping to his level, we're playing their game. It is obvious to me, at least, that when you play Microsoft's game, they win. Instead, the good team should be pondering a way to force Microsoft to play a different PR game--probably one that starts off with "we don't think his ideas merit a response. He is clearly another empty mind pursuing another of Microsoft's intense PR campaigns that sound newsworthy but don't move forward the debate over intellectual property in this country one iota. We'll let our software do the talking."

Re:Real Life imitates the Internet

[$hotgun]

The answer to bad speech is lots of good speech.

MS was able to dis OS/2 with a smear campaign which IBM chose to ignore. MS is trying to do the same to Linux. We will not ignore them. Every time they lie or mislead, we will cry to truth loudly from every roof top.

MS: The GPL is bad for business.

Linux: Tell them who's business it is bad for!!

MS: The GPL is a cancer that will eat up your IP.

Linux: Only if you distribute a derivative. You are free to take and use a GPL program for your own purposes!!

MS: Linux is not a stable, supported solution for corporate infrastructure.

Linux: Tell that to IBM, Burlington Mills, The Home Depot and others who are using it as a stable, supported solution for corporate infrastructure!!

MS: Linux will fork.

Linux: Win95, Win98, WinNT, Win2000, WinXP...

MS: Linux will require retraining staff.

Linux: Win95, Win98, WinNT, Win2000, WinXP...

Anytime we let them get away with a misleading statement or outright lie, we suffer and our society suffers. If they tell the truth, so be it. But do not let lies stand unchallenged.

That said, our best response is to point out the hypocrisy of thier statements. That is something that resonates. Linux

Interesting philosophy...

[miguelitof]

...that corporations have some type of right to modify someone else's software and then sell the results. I still don't understand the argument. "Well, I want to be able to use your code, but then sell what I've created." Why not just start from scratch?

One part I like

[rograndom]

It's hard to find a computer that doesn't run a Microsoft product, particularly in Chicago. Microsoft's Chicago-based Midwest district office, which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin...

Then, a little later the interviewer uses this statement in a question:

in Chicago we do seem to have an inferiority complex about our place in the tech world. Rankings frequently put us toward the bottom among major cities in terms of our tech presence.

draw your own conclusions. :-)

--
andy j.

From the interview

[cjpez]

"The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody."

Ur?

Re:From the interview

[Jetifi]

The parent of this was moderated as a troll, and while his opinion is probably not the same as the majority here, it does require a better response than "troll", even if it was a troll. So:

If you accept the incorrect usage of "open source" to mean "GPL'd code" then this statement makes perfect sense.

I presume that what Ballmer meant to say was "The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds GPL'd work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody."

This is an understandable viewpoint. GPL'd code is not accessable to everybody. It is only accessable to developers who are willing to release their code under the GPL license which excludes large portions of the community. Government-funded GPL code is inaccessable to the Apache Foundation, it's inaccessable to the OpenBSD developers, and it's inaccessable to any commercial developers who are working on closed-source products.

There is one major example or government funding GPL'ed code: NSA Secure Linux. And this is probably what MS is scared of. They can make a sales pitch about how MS is secure, but any PHB can point and say 'this is done by the guys at the NSA! We can trust them, right?'*

To which MS has no answer. My opinion: the US government, and for that matter any other .gov, should want to work on GPLed/OSS projects because they want control over their own infrastructure, something that is denied to them if they run closed-source, restricted source, and licensed binaries on their own computers.

A government might also want to work on GPLes/OSS software because it is a public service. The work they have the capability to do could do more to estabilish ubiquitous computing for the masses than Microsoft has ever done. By removing one of the elements of the so-called "digital divide", i.e. price (both in licensing costs and the cost of hard-ware required to run Microsoft software), the government does more for it's citizenry.

*Ignoring the NSA-paranoia - don't forget there are two sides to the NSA, the code-making and code-breaking depts

Re:From the interview

[TOTKChief]

If you accept the incorrect usage of "open source" to mean "GPL'd code" then this statement makes perfect sense.

Yeah, here I think he's using the "dominance" of the GPL to stand for all open/free licensing. It's clever: remember, most folks can only stand two things in opposition. Why do you think there are just two major US political parties, eh? We like to think in terms of two exclusive choices, so Microsoft is taking the most extreme example to their cause--the GPL--and making it the standard-bearer. From their viewpoint, it's startingly good spin.

I presume that what Ballmer meant to say was "The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds GPL'd work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody."

This is an understandable viewpoint. GPL'd code is not accessable to everybody. It is only accessable to developers who are willing to release their code under the GPL license which excludes large portions of the community. Government-funded GPL code is inaccessable to the Apache Foundation, it's inaccessable to the OpenBSD developers, and it's inaccessable to any commercial developers who are working on closed-source products.

Wait now...that depends on how you term accessibility. If you're thinking from a programmatic angle--"I want to run GNUCash to balance my checkbook"--then the software is accessible to anyone that wants to use GNUCash on a standalone basis. [Barring weird system calls, etc.] But you're right--in a developer's standpoint, it is inaccessible for those who don't choose to develop under the GPL.

The difference here in my mind is this: most folks aren't developers and won't care about the licensing. [Look at how people break M$FT licenses now.] Those who are--and they'll be the loudest--will yell. Most of the rest of us [I'm more user than coder] won't much care.

If tax dollars are funding a project, then the results of that development should be available to everyone and not just people who use one particular license. This is the rationale behind the laws which prevent the government from enjoying a copyright on the data it produces.

On a standalone basis, it is: you can enjoy the benefits of whatever the code does no matter what license you use. Now, of course, if you want to build upon that code, that's where it gets hairy.

I'm close to this on a personal level, as a friend of mine does work for the Army, some of which is patentable. He, not the government, would own the patent. It's interesting how it works.

Government code should be public domain, not placed under a restrictive license like the GPL.

This is a legitimate argument; my only concern is that M$FT will use the GPL/BSD argument [again, I couch in terms of two exclusive choices] to muddy the waters--"people on the inside of the 'Open Source' movement even say the GPL is bad!" I don't want to not have the discussion; I'd rather have it after M$FT loses some market share.

Ballmer drank the free coffee

[sdprenzl]

When I worked at MS ('94-'95) I was told in a bathroom in a whisper not to drink the free house coffee. Otherwise I'd wind up like Steve Ballmer: a babbling, brain damaged moron! Nasty stuff!!

Doublespeak! Doublespeak! FUD!

[Junior J. Junior III]

My favorite quote has got to be:

The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody.

Ballmer justifies this belief by saying that "open source software is not available to companies." The hell it isn't! They can look at the source (and even use it!) just like anyone else can! They just can't take GPL'd code and add their own stuff to it without sharing those additions.

What a bunch of bull.

Honorable fights only work when...

[Mtgman]

Both parties are honorable. I remember reading a story not long ago in Brill's Content(even though it's an old story) about Microsoft's PR group and the tricks they pulled on IBM when they were their "main threat" because of OS/2. Here is a little excerpt.

The evangelists were charged with proselytizing as many independent software developers as possible to write for Windows, not OS/2. IBM had a corporate policy at the time that barred any IBM employee from disparaging a competitor's product. Microsoft had no such restriction and exploited the situation masterfully. "We took maximum advantage of it," says Rick Segal, who led a 15-member evangelical team. As his group lobbied the developers and the forums, IBM had no idea of the strategic importance of these groups, he says, and the behemoth was vulnerable to the evangelists' attacks. "The issue that mattered most to me was how to make sure OS/2 never got a foothold to take over our operating system, our franchise."

Today it's the judges, technology managers, and legislators that Microsoft is focusing on. Linux geeks don't "get it" when it comes to legal, or managerial matters. This is a war, make no mistake about it. Microsoft, even if they're smart enough to not out and out say "Linux is a cancer" they most certainly think it and will attempt to persuade others to think that as well. When one person fights and the other just stands there taking punches, well, the person taking punches may be more "honorable" but that doesn't mean they'll win. Like it or not, Ghandi died without accomplishing his goals(even though he did win India's independence from Britan, his real goal was religious tolerance between Hindus and Muslims).

Now, weather or not we should stoop to that level in our own retaliations is another issue. But we can't afford to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt in everything they do. They have proven, time and again, that they will use any methods they feel will be effective. Up until now they have been very effective, let's not forget that.

Steven

Government funded linux

[Phillip2]

The interview is interesting, because Ballmer seems to think that all GPL software is generated in the US, which is of course far from the truth. The simple fact is that a lot of GPL software is not produced in the US by US government sponsered research.

Now given the nature of the GPL people working for the US government have little choice when they work on the GPL software than to write more of it. It seems clear to me that M$ is going to push hard to prevent university staff from using or contributing to the GPL code base. I think that if they succeeded they would essentially cripple large parts of the computer using research sector in the US.

Of course in the end both US and other research sectors have benefitted from the GPL. It makes collaboration a lot easier, because the GPL is irrevocable. You know that collaborators can not later withdraw data or source code on you. In the days of NDA's this is a welcome relief.

There is also a fascinating manifesto from one researcher explaining why he choose to release his software under GPL. Well worth reading.

Phil

Iocaine powder

[abe ferlman]

Ballmer: Ever hear of Stallman? de Icaza? TORVALDS?

Dread Pirate Roberts: yes.

Ballmer: Morons.

Bryguy
"I've been slowly building up an immunity to proprietary software for the past 5 years"

More insight to Microsofties think...

[TOTKChief]

It's really interesting to watch how Microsoft higher-ups use words. It's almost as much as watching politicians of any stripe, but specifically American politicians in the two major parties, snipe at each other with shadings of words.

Examplia gratis:

The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows has been absolutely great ... for innovation in the software industry.

Note: The ellipsis used is directly from the original article; I'm curious to know what was left out!

If I could completely ignore the ellipsis--though I can't--you'd get to thinking that "innovation in the software industry" == "whatever improves M$FT's bottom line". The comments about competition are similar--they like competition that they can beat the snot out of, not that pushes a better product.

The use of the cancer thing is interesting...M$FT is shifting its attack from the license to the OS, while noting that the OS is licensed in a matter that makes it "a cancer". It's a carefully crafted use of hyperbole, and it'll hit home.

But I think it'll end up being a boomerang strike. I continue to expect back-end systems to merge to modern *nix systems, including Linux and the *BSD's. I think that's good from an overall push-the-ends-of-the-free/open-movements, and probably good for business in the long run, too.

How about a letter to the Chicago Sun-Times?

[sdo1]

While we're all here preaching to the choir and bitching about what Mr. Ballmer said, how about instead directing some of that energy towards CORRECTING him? I'm sure the Sun-Times would be happy to print a rebuttal. Failure for us to do anything except talk to eachother about it means that Microsoft has won this battle and that those who are not in-the-know will take the statements made in the interview as facts.

http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html and
http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/email.html have contact info. I couldn't find the contact info for the interviewer or info on snail-mail (always the BEST way to make your comments), but perhaps someone with access to the physical paper rather than the website can post those.

-S

Re:Damn...

[mikethegeek]

"The challenge is that he's right. There's nothing "free" about the GPL if you're a developer that doesn't have the same views as RMS and the rest of the free software movement.
I'd love to see someone on slashdot actually prove his statement wrong."

Why? Do you believe that Microsoft, et all, have some RIGHT to code that they had no part in writing? And have no obligation to allow the original authors the same right to MS code?

The GPL does NOTHING to prevent Microsoft or any other closed-source company from developing anything they want. For that matter, MS if completely free to reverse-engineer and release their own *NIX variant if they so wish.

It's MICROSOFT here who is playing the role of a whiner wanting more and more "handouts", not the GPL backers.

What the GPL DOES do is prevent a closed source company from taking your code, using it for their own purpose, then not allowing YOU to benefit from what they added to your code. It says "here, use what you want, the only catch is you have to give the next guy the same freedom YOU had".

Microsoft fears the GPL because it prevents them from taking code, and extending it in proprietary ways so as to break compatibility, then deny even the original author access to these changes. Had Keberos been GPL instead of BSD, MS coudld never have pulled their "embrace and extend" rape of what was a universal open standard when they used it in `Doze 2000.

True, the BSD license gives you absolute freedom to do with the code as you wish, in any way you wish. In and ideal world, the BSD license would be the best one. However, the GPL is more pragmatic and practical, it FORCES people to behave in an ethical manner, whereas the BSD license relies on morals and ethics of each and every user.

Microsoft fears the GPL because they cannot use GPL code without being assimilated by it. The GPL is merely a sling that is the weapon that allows David to defeat Goliath.

Linux is a cancer

[modernz]

Linux is a cancer that is eating away at M$ profit margins.

This word

[jhill]

To Microsoft: This word you use...Innovative...I do not think it means what you think it means.