Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Says GPL Is Like Pac-Man
wrinkledshirt writes: "Bill Gates has finally spoken his mind on the GPL here. Interesting that he calls the GPL a PacMan-like entity considering that's how many of us view him and his company, but I digress ..." According to Gates, GPLd software "makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work. So what you saw with TCP/IP or Sendmail or the browser could never happen." Or the development of a full Free operating system either, I guess. Perhaps he should issue a company memo to the folks running Microsoft's stats.zone.com, who seem to be using GNU/Linux and Apache happily without donating MS Office to the FSF. Wacka wacka.
Apache isn't GPL, It's released under the Apache License
All these programs are freely distributable and their source code is open. Therefore they form a system which anybody can improve. Why would you want to spend your time doing that? Its a hobby, you make your system better and you enjoy other people's changes. Well, geeks...
This logic forms an evolutional model of open creativity. Whether this is good or bad time will tell since the process of evolution is selective. Now the word "Linux" is used to describe this phenomenon and has become a synonym for this system (don't debate "linux" vs. "BSD", most people refer to that when they ask "so.. can you see WWW pages from the Linux thing ?"). Its like after 200 years people will be using the expression "Its a Linux!" to describe open creativity systems (if mankind hasn't extinct because of pollution though..).
There is one thing to realize. "Linux" can't be destroyed. Unless all these millions of lines of code are deleted from all the storage systems of the planet. "Linux" is only loosing if nobody is improving it, yet if for 10 years nobody touches it and then some kid edits 2 lines of code, you have "Linux" again.
On the other hand Microsoft can disappear.
That will happen if the profits can't cover the expenses.
So MS attitude is excused. In fact if you don't want Microsoft to disappear, or Microsoft emploees to lose their jobs for the survival of the company, I prompt you to buy their products. "Linux" does not lose if you buy commercial software.
I like having MS arround. It makes us more innovative!
Just, thinking how to reply to the unfair MS FUD wastes our time.
Now let this message be lost in the noise
You know, I know this is more than a little off topic, but I hear this subject come up so often, that I feel like I have to respond. Yes, I work for IBM maintaining OS/2 source (notice the AC moniker). No, it will _NEVER_ be open sourced. People in the community seem to believe that we have some kind of obligation to open up the OS source since it's no longer much of a power in the mainstream desktop market, and since it's their hobby, why not. What no one seems to quite grasp is that we have contractual obligations to some pretty big customers to provide support until at least 2006, possibly later (I believe that the idea is to migrate these people to Linux when the MCP and ACP products finally go out of service, believe it or not, but I digress...). There are millions and millions (and millions...) of dollars still being generated via support contracts and service extensions for the older flavors. This is still a highly profitable source of revenue, believe it or not, with very little cost to maintain (we're maybe a 10th of the size we were when the first OS/2 products shipped). Open sourcing the product is going to do more than piss a few people off - we're talking potential HUGE lawsuits and more than a few people (like me) would be out of a job. The sad truth is, that most of the developers that are still here keeping OS/2 alive have as much disdain for the GPL as ole Billy G does. I'm sorry, and I'm as much of a supporter of open source when I can be (I happen to believe more in the BSD approach), but this is not going to happen in our lifetimes. Get over it.
As applied to (Power) Pill Gates, right?
Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
Or, in MS's case, they could just buy out (assimilate) the company and get their code.
That said, it's a very valid argument; both the GPL and proprietry license prevent code re-use. What is galling to Bill et al is that they can see the code, but they can't use it...
--
>There's nothing novel about it anymore, and
>we're long past being surprised.
Actually, the reason it got posted was the escalation. From some nobody middle manager, to vice president mundie, to ballmer, and now to Gates. The thing is, nobody listened to mundie, they laughed at ballmer, and now gates is reminding people of his trial testimony. Microsoft's screming bloody murder and everybody's going "sucks to be you, doesn't it"?
Who do they escalate to afer this when people still don't believe them?
And once again, they're pointing out that the GPL is their real enemy, not free software. They're still happy to grab BSD code and embrace/extend/fork it to death. They're throwing a tantrum because the GPL won't let them fork off a proprietary version of other people's code.
Rob
What struck me about the CNET article was not Gate's analogy, but what percentage of the article was spent explaining free (and Open Source) licenses, and rebutting (by way of VA Linux's CEO, Larry Augustin) what Gates said.
Either we've got some friends out there, or Gates is really coming off as pointy haired. Or both.
P.S.: Yes, Richard, they blew the distinction between free software and Open Source software.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Erm... actually the quotes in the actual interview which is here.
/. post takes things out of context quite a bit.
Read it, the article in the
Hell, n. - The state of being the richest man in the world and knowing something exists that you can't buy.
Have a kleenex, Bill.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Gates: I noticed that your web server is running on Linux.
PHB: Hey, Bill, cut me some slack, we don't have to use your software for everything!
Gates: Sure, but do you understand the GPL?
PHB: Well, I guess I've never studied it myself, but it just means it's free, doesn't it?
Gates: No, unfortunately if you use any open source product anywhere in your company, it makes it illegal for you to sell any software at all.
PHB: You're kidding, right?
Gates: No, seriously, believe me, I have to know about these things.
PHB: Yeah, I guess so. Well, thanks for the warning, Bill. I'll make sure my techies take the Linux off our web server first thing on Monday morning!
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
/*Sheer desperation. */
Not necessarily. If you go back and read the halloween documents and various other texts from Microsoft, you can clearly see that THIS is what they've been building up to. MS knows it can't compete on price points. MS knows it can't just buy Linux outright. So, what has it done?
It must sow the seeds of doubt to the people that make the purchasing decisions in their companies. They want these IT managers to say "well, we could go linux and save $xxx, but I might lose my job if all that new-fangled Open Sauce stuff doesn't work as well as SQL Server. I can spend $1000 and keep my job because no one ever got fired for buying MS, or I can do it myself and I barely know how to eject the damn floppy."
MS is going to spread more and more FUD against the GPL and against Open Source in general (although they do seem to grok BSD style licenses), just so that IT managers begin to associate Linux = GPL = I dunno about that. It's that slight hesitation that will put MS on their servers and not Linux.
And you know what? It doesn't matter how much screaming and hollerin' you do on slashdot, none of those guys are geeks and none of them read slashdot (okay, there may be a few of you, but you're clued in, right?). With no central FUD fighting agency in the Linux/GPL world with a large enough mouth to fight MS at their own game (if that's even desired). So, MS takes a cheap, invalid shot at the GPL, a bunch of retorts come out, but they go to slashdot, or some Linux.advocacy mailing list. These retorts are not going to Jennifer IT Manager. Jennifer just read in some IT magazine that Bill Gates and MS don't like Linux and the GPL and that's that; another server lost to MS.
Back to the original point, first MS attacked Linux directly by saying "Oh, Linux is slower than NT (see mindcraft)." Thousands of linux advocates cried foul while a few hundred went back and realized that it was true, and FIXED the problem. Then they tried saying "Well, you can't get support for Linux." And that brought about literally hundreds of fly-by-night Linux support companies, but also proved that you CAN get linux support. And with Compaq, Dell, and IBM jumping on the support band wagon (along with RedHat, SuSE, Caldera, etc), well, that pretty much cut off that line of attack.
So, realizing that the community can respond within hours of a MS FUD attack against *linux*, they devised a somewhat new approach: Attack the licensing scheme. We can't change the GPL, nor would most of us want to (there's always BSD). Get management's confidence in the GPL (that's not even the Operating system, that's not even an application.. There are no benchmarks to run or dispute, there is no business model that can be created specifically for a license (although there are business models that take advantage of GPL software, that's different)). Gates & Co has just put the OSS community in check and we don't realize it even yet. Again, they are sowing the seeds of doubt in the IT Professional world. "I don't know what this GPL is, but I want it the hell away from my software! It sounds unAmerican and unBusiness-like." will be the reaction from boardroom directors. And, geeks or not at the mid-bottom layers, that's the line you have to toe up to.
And, don't think about changing your software to BSD style licensing just to satisfy some bizarre need to sell to corporations. MS wants you to do that. See BSD TCP/IP and such. They understand that Open Source software has advantages. Do you think a company with 40 billion in the bank doesn't realize that if they can get something for free, they won't take it?
Think about it.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
No, the GPL is bad because developers who wish to make money from their efforts can't use it.
.. but neither you nor Bill Gates nor Bozo the Fucking Clown has any right to dictate the terms of somebody else's development.
.. well, nobody forced you to download the software, did they? Gates wants proprietary software to be closed up tight so that he controls it all and he wants open-source software to be purely public domain so that he can steal it at will.
Then if you are developer who wishes to make money from your efforts, I would offer you the following piece of advice: Don't release your code under the GPL. This would seem to be particularly obvious, but apparently you haven't grasped it. If you want to develop under a different license, then knock yourself out
It is even more infantile to complain that the GPL does not allow commercial software companies to come in and incorporate somebody else's work against their wishes and desires. Well, piss up a flagpole, Bill; I don't work for you. If you don't like the license, or if you think it's too restrictive
In short, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. The GPL allows authors to prevent him from doing this.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
What no one ever mentions in anti-GPL rants (and let's face it, MS is tredding well worn ground, here) is that the GPL removes NO rights from you. In fact, if you just want to use GPL'd software you can ignore the GPL and it never applies to you.
What the GPL does is gives you a way around having to be restricted by copyright law, if you want it. Since Microsoft gives you exactly 0 ways to get around such restrictions (in fact their licenses restrict you BEYOND what copyright law gives them), this is high hipocracy.
But, then who expected any more out of Gates at this point.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
And so on. I don't think this places Microsoft in very good company...
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
-
Contact the author of the library and arrange for a special license.
-
Release your application under the GPL.
-
Don't use the library. You're no worse than you would have been if the library had never existed.
I fail to see what the big deal is. It pays to consider what the alternatives would be:-
Everyone should make their software public domain so I can use it. Well, why doesn't that apply to you?
-
Everyone should sell their software under a non-GPL license so I can use it. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing this, even if they have already released the software under the GPL.
So please, someone explain to me again, exactly what has the GPL cost us? What is the alternative that would be so preferable?--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
You can be sure that Microsoft isn't doing the business community a public service. They're not standing up to ring the klaxon to warn their peers of the dangers lurking hidden ahead. The GPL means little to them. Except that its a convenient pawn. A handle. A toe-hold. A way to attack the amorphous phenomenon that is Linux.
We've always said you can't attack Linux like the usual corporate entity. Microsoft knows this. And so they've changed their methods; they attack the concepts that are available with all the usual Microsoft tenacity.
If the GPL is just a pawn - what is the real game about? Cnet (all bashing aside) has an interesting writeup (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6291224.html ?tag=rltdnws). Its all .NET.
To make Microsoft's biggest, most aggressive gamble in its history (or at least what industry analysts like to portray it as) pay off - its going to take Windows servers. Sure, Microsoft will play the "compatibility" card and offer some .NET services on competing platforms. There's even noise about Linux being included. But dollars to donuts, in true Microsoft fashion, the full feature set... all the bells and glossy-pamphlet-gushing whistles will only live within Win2K servers.
Increased popularity in Linux (and *BSD - go, team, go) does not help generate the homogeneous Windows environment that'll make .NET a winner. Open source OS' are also providing an escape route from Microsoft's recent pricing squeezes (also mentioned in the referenced article). Sure, Microsoft may have nobody else but themselves to blame for that. But if you look at their motives a bit closer, you'll see its not marketing dollars they're after but a forced upgrade to technology that closer ties to .NET. The fact that this same squeezing makes *BSD and Linux more attractive is just an ugly side effect. It is also a route that they plan to cut off with smoke and mirrors.
So as a community, the Open Source folk can pat themselves on the back. We've arrived - we're a gen-u-ine threat. A big one. And for all the right reasons (functionality, freedom, etc, etc). But that just means the game now involves higher stakes.
Individual community members can argue / jihad over the finer points of licensing (and whatever will be Microsoft's next move on the board). But eventually all that'll get you is a square and a pawn. If we don't look up from the board once in awhile, we're going to miss the fact that we've been maneuvered out of the game entirely.
I strongly disagree. The GPL is free as in speech.. That is to say, you can't stifle people from being able to see, or distribute, the source to a GPL product. On the other hand, it is not free as in beer. It has a very real cost to it.
The cost of the GPL is that, if you modify the code, you can't keep it proprietary and sell only the object code. This is a cost that some companies (e.g. Microsoft) are not willing to pay. For people who are not willing to pay the GPL 'price', it sort-of reduces itself to a pseudo-closed source model, in that you can use the object code (in a free-beer way), but you can't modify it if you want to produce a proprietay version (what it really comes down to is that you can't steal the code).
If you start from the premise that the openness of any derivated code is the 'price' of GPL, then it becomes quite enforcable. If a commercial entity attempts to 'embrace and extend' a piece of GPL code, then you can demand both penalties, as well as payment of the 'price' (release of the priprietary wannabe code).
If you start from the premise that GPL is beer-free then you may run into a legal quagmire when you try to enforce it in court. If you try to treat the GPL like a shrink-wrapped contract on software that is free, then someone like MS can ask you to produce proof of the contract (though this might lessen the strength of their own shrink-wrapped contracts).
As for MSIE being no-cost.. It is only no-cost if you have purchased a windows or Mac operating system -- then it's price is really hidden in the cost of the OS. By the same token, the program is not modifiable by you. Unless you sign away you r life to get access to the source code, you can't even see the source to see if it's worth editing. Once you do see it, my understanding ia that the MS license is look-don't touch. Even if it wasn't, they often hold back key pieces needed to compile a full product, anyways.
This is where the GPL shines. It is fully modifiable, and fully redistributable. The 'cost' is that it's not stealable. You can't close the source and only sell the object. You can't limit future distribution. If you're not willing to pay that price, then you're still free (beer) to use the object code for yourself as if it were an MS-like license.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
"There are people who believe that commercial software should not exist at all--that there should be no jobs or taxes around commercial software at all," Gates said. While that's a small group, "the GPL was created with that goal in mind. And so people should understand the GPL. When people say open source, they often mean the GPL."
I bet he was just itching to say "communism" instead of GPL.
Are you now, or have you ever been an Open Source developer?
You are an id10t! Companies that are failing becuase of bad business plans deserve to fail. If that biz plan is that they sell software that anyone can get for free, well that's a bad biz plan. It doesn't add any value, and value is what people pay for.
Nevertheless, GPL'd software can be used by companies who are profitible, and it won't prevent them from staying profitible. I work for a bank. Your argument is akin to saying that since my company can't effectivly resell the toilets that it has, that it shouldn't install and use toilets for fear of going out of business!
GPL'd software is a tool. It's a free tool. It's a tool that can be used to help make businesses profitible.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Which, of course, the GPL does not preclude. It's always fair game to approach a GPL developer and offer to buy a non-GPL'd licence. Most developers (obviously not FSF members, but others) would probably do it, for the right price. Some developers, like Troll Tech, might even offer such a deal up front.
What Microsoft will never concede is that the GPL is just like any other software licence in this respect. The only thing you can't do is use the vendor's code in GPL-violating ways without their permission. Nothing prevents you from seeking permission, and offering money or other consideration for the privilege, just like you would with a proprietary vendor.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
fun to play with, gets attacked by evil entities, but can sometimes fight back and win?
---
Now tell me, since when could a commercial company use proprietary code from another commercial company and build on it?
OK, maybe one of the few companies that regularly build on other's work (or just buys them out) is MS itself. Does Bill even know what goes on in MS nowadays? He sounds kinda like a misinformed layman.
---
If I paid someone to write code for me, I'd expect to be given the source as well as the binary.
The only reply I have to this (and don't get me confused....I'm a large advocate of the open-source movement) is from the perspective of a small software company, the idea of open source can be very scary.
Here's my example: I work at a small-town Iowa computer firm. We create software in the health industry where competition is tight and our tiny company is certainly overshadowed by many 'big dogs'. We have many good, new ideas on how to make our software do the job for our clients cleaner and better. However, if we don't watch it, we could release a product and one of our larger competitors could easily and quickly copy our idea, exploit it, and make a fortune.
Yes, I hear you out there. Sue! Copyright law! Patents! I agree. And, in theory, that would work. But we're so small of a company that legal action against one of our major competitors would drain company resources to the point of bankruptcy. If a larger company were to infringe on our rights and we took them to court, all they would have to do is some legal filibustering for awhile and it would drain us dry, even if they didn't win.
To that end, then, open source is still a scary idea for us. If we were to publish our code, it would instantly be snatched up and exploited. So, we stick to writing proprietary code and avoiding GPL'ed software altogether. This is fine, we've been doing it for years, but obviously there are a lot of good GPLed ideas out there and my own ethics would LOVE to go open source.
How does this interfere with business? OH, WAIT A MINUTE. It interferes with Mr. Bill Gates's business and profits! Oooops. This must be legislated away!
Certainly I don't think that Mr. Gates' monstrous company would suffer from a little dose of code sharing, but on a smaller scale, I can sympathize and say that yes, sometimes that's the only way we can make profits is to stay closed source.
Blog,Twitter
Funny. These Guys don't seem to be having any problem with it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Microsoft owns the copyrights to many of the bits of OS/2. You don't want the bits that are left, believe me. pmshell was cool and all but an object going haywire could screw up your entire desktop and force you to reinstall it. Linux already has HPFS and it wouldn't be too hard to implement extended attributes on any of the supported filesystems. The problem with EAs is, if you depend on them too much, you're pretty much hosed if they get damaged. Same as pmshell. And if the GUI were released, you'd end up with a single-system-queue hunk'o dung with an API that's so Microsoft it's actually painful. No, releasing the source to OS/2 wouldn't do anyone a whole lot of good (Except maybe the European banks that still use it fairly extensively.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The GPL is like Pac-Man. People using it can eat me.
Odd how two people can come up with such radically different intrepretations of a statement, isn't it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
--
Free Mac Mini
I spent two years of my life (10-11) playing and mastering PacMan. If Bill Gates would speek sooner, I could have put this on my resume as Linux related skills.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
So what did Bill do when everyone else had a better communications stack? He put one for "free" in his system, then there was the browser threat and "free" internet explorer was born. He has systematically bundled free things with his operating system to kill the competition. Now here is a for real free operating system and a long line of free things to ride on top of it. If anyone can see the pattern it is Bill.
As of June 20, 2001 There are 14304 projects under OSI compliant license on SourceForge. Of those, 11981 are under the GNU GPL or GNU LGPL. That's 83.8 percent.
Plainly, GPL/LGPL has a monopoly in the category of Open Source licenses. Nevermind that there is other software under other licenses. None of them have more than 10% of the market. The closest competitor, BSD has only 6.2% of the market. They are really just a niche player with a loyal dedicated following and therefore don't count as competition.
We recommend that the GPL/LGPL licenses be broken up into several smaller licenses. To prevent the monopoly from re-forming after the breakup, all of these licenses should be mutually incompatable and they should be allowed to follow competing philosophies. Perhaps one could be "academic use only", another could be closed source freeware, another EULA'd and another BSD-like. The GPL/LGPL community would be allowed to keep a few core programs, perhaps GCC and the Linux kernel, but not any applications.
So, how do you like it? It's fair, it's justice; right?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Microsoft would be made to distibrute software containing GPL'd components. It'd undermine their intellectual property, doncha know...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I have never been addicted to the GPL.
I have never waited at the big dot for ghosts to eat
I have never put a quarter in a slot gor the GPL
I don't believe I have ever amassed 240 points for reading the GPL
As near as I can tell thery are nothing alike.
---
This
With GPL code, you cannot use the GPL library without giving up options. Specifically, you accept limitations on your future behavior because the terms of the license, to which you have agreed, include not selling the derived work. You've surrendered some flexibility and have thus paid an opportunity cost, since you no longer have some options available.
Personally, I don't see how the GPL is any more "evil" than the company with the proprietary library. Is that company evil because you can't use its library without paying a cost? At least with the GPL, you get some unusual advantages: Complete access to the source and complete assurance that, at least, your competitor will not be able to take your code and drive you out of business with it.
Is GPL the be-all, end-all? No. Is it evil and a threat to the very fundaments of the God-fearing, freedom-loving blessed Republic? No. It's just a license.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Though, to be fair, schools are not businesses. Nonetheless, what Microsoft seems upset about is that GPL forces you to find new business models...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
No, you guys are wrong...
Gates Says Linux Best OS Ever
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Seriously. I think this summarizes the situation perfectly! It's like divorce court: what's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine.
GPL prevents such behavior, which is why MS is so eager to fight it. Fuck 'em.
sulli
RTFJ.
Articles that reveal that Microsoft thinks the GPL is bad, evil, and opposed to everything that is good about capitalism is no longer News. You don't need to post them here anymore. Add them to Slashback instead. There's nothing novel about it anymore, and we're long past being surprised.
I mean I build on Microsoft source all the time, because its so easy to get a licence to use the code, and incorporate it into other apps.
Next, I'd expect Billy to be up on the podium, giving one of those 'Fire and Brimstone' kind of messages.
--
'It's evil, and of the devil', he yells shaking his fist towards the heavens. 'Repent now, and let the light of microsoft fill your lives'
He moves quickly toward the front row pointing a microphone at on the the bearded programmers in the front row.
'Forgive, Billy, for I have sinned, I'd programmed on a free operating system, and have released code under the GPL!!!'
'I've seen men for more gone then yourself, turn to see the light...' Billy quickly moves his hand towards the programmers forhead, pushing him back, 'I rebuke the GPL!!! I rebuke the GPL!!! I rejuke the GPL!!! Can I get a witness??!?!'
'Praise microsoft,' the crowd shouts back.
He's saying, in effect:
Thanks, Bill, for showing us your true colours so clearly.
According to Gates, GPLd software "makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work.
erm.. and in what aspect is that different from the stuff Mr Gates is making himself?
Absolutely nothing at all, unless you count the fact that it's actually possible to take GPL'd work and use it for yourself. The funky rules apply only to distribution.
The real problem here is that Bill is making a drastic generalization. He's confusing a "company" with a "software company." Make the proper substitution in his statement (and also change "impossible" to "very difficult") and it makes perfect sense.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Gates does not like the GPL because he cannot incorporate GPL software in Microsoft's for-profit products. He likes free software -- but only if, by "free", we mean "free for Microsoft to take, modify, and sell without compensation to the original authors." That's his idea of how "free software" licenses should work.
And this is exactly what the GPL license prevents: Companies cannot incorporate GPL source code while not giving something back to the GPL community. It forces a barter system.
Gates won't even release a Linux version of Office as a for-profit commercial product, but he's mad that the GPL prevents him from raiding the free software repositories to create Microsoft's commercial products.
It's unacceptable! We are like Pacman? You mean we all eat pills in the darkness while listening to electronic music?
/. /    |\/| |\/| |\/| / Run, Bill!
Oh wait.
 _
"People who have seen shared source will have problems working on other projects."
...despite the obvious fact that it's really the other way around.
I think you have a great point there... Going after the freelance and spare-time developers who work on the kernel and various other GPL projects is probably the ONLY conceivable way M$ can cut off Linux's air supply.. After all, M$ can't (openly) steal the code, and they can't BUY Linux (even if they tomorrow bought EVERY Linux company).
M$ may bring, or even more sinister, THREATEN to sue coders, using hte fact that they have (comparatively) infinite resources to pay souless lawyer types and to "Kaplan" the courts.
It is, after all, hard to impossible to PROVE a negative. The best defense would be the outright poor stability of most M$ code compared to the stability OS/Linux apps...
"Shared source" is a direct attack upon the GPL because they're going to claim that we've used their code to make ours,
I think you are VERY close to the mark here. One common thing unimaginative/uncreative people do when attacking someone else is to ACCUSE their target of things they (the accuser) are already guilty of. It's very easy to fall into the trap of projecting your OWN ethos and vices onto others, and I think this is ALL OVER some of many of M$'s more draconian practices.
Microsoft is inarguably the master imitator, never the innovator mostly because THAT is the mindset (and ability) of Gates, Ballmer, and the other powers that be who are in charge and shape the corporate culture. Not that imitating is necessarily a bad thing, taking something out there and refining it to perfection is almost as admirable as inventing it. But that is NOT what M$ does.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"So far we've heard Microsoft describe Linux and the GPL as a cancer, Pac Man, and numerous other things. But while these comparisons may have some sort of PR or "scare" value, they only serve to mislead the public."
These asinine accusations also have the effect of undermining MS's argument, reducing it to the level of childish playground name calling.
The first insult hurled is a confession that the insulter has run out of reason and is admitting defeat.
And there are enough out there, particulary in the corps (stupid people do NOT run major businesses), and in some parts of the media (at least the more clueful business media) who ARE seeing these increasingly pitiful attacks for what they are:
Sheer desperation.
Look at it from M$'s perspective:
Linux is a product that:
1. They can't buy
2. They cannot "embrace and extend" (this is their main reason why they fear the GPL, as it certainly allows M$ to borrow, improve ANYTHING they want, but requires them to give back in return)
3. They can't imitate it's strength (openness)
4. They can't "give away" a `Doze add-on to cut off it's air supply (ala Internet Explorer).
5. They can't undercit in price (free or very cheap)
Linux already has captured a VERY sigificant share of the server market, M$ is very VERY afraid of this eventually happening to the desktop.
Despite all their noises to the contrary, M$ is still very much a desktop bound company, as most of their revenue comes from desktop apps and OS's. To them the server is merely a tool to lock customers even more into the M$ desktop, which may be one reason why they've never really had the same success in servers that they had with the desktop.
As I've said before, I'll say again, the day Linux gets enough share of desktops (I'd say around 5-10%), it will FORCE M$ to release desktop apps for Linux. For this reason:
A 5-10% share of the market is small compared to Windows, but STILL large enough to "fund" Microsoft's competition. In order to keep their monopoly, MS MUST prevent any competitor from getting too much air.
This is largely why M$ is in the Mac market, to ensure that whatever Office Mac users run, it's a M$ Office, not WordPerfect or Lotus, etc.
However, it will be the death of Windows. The MINUTE Microsoft releases Office for Linux, Windows is irrelevant. Microsoft knows this, which is why it will likely NEVER happen, unless some competitor of theirs makes enough off Linux apps to threaten them (by having sufficient funding to develop) in Windows. Microsoft CANNOT port apps to a non-M$ x86 OS without severely wounding Windows.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I think it's really important for the Free Software/Open Source communities to make sure that everyone knows that merely USING GPL'd software exposes you to zero risk. It only comes into play when you start to modify it. And if it's licensed under the LGPL, you can link to the library, and keep your application proprietary. Most of the comments MS has made about the GPL is pure BS.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Becaise goin open source would add to the headaches of maintaining the code. Now, instead of a stable code base that they can manage and understand, they have one that anyone can change. Now, when a customer has a problem with program X, they have a new set of potential problems - i.e. did something somebody do in the code cause the problems, or is it soemthing else. companies need a stable OS on which to build their applications, one that they can ship knowing problems ought to be replicatable in their test rigs, or that at least outside hacks are not introducing new, unforseen bugs. I would guess most OS/2 apps are specific to particular customers (i.e. POS terminals, reservations systems, etc.) where the of the OS is a small part of teh TCO, so any savings from open source is insignificant compared to the potential headaches. Customers don't want to here that a problem is casued by Joe/Julie in Somewhere, Idaho and go talk to him/her about the issue - they'll simply buy someone else's product.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
According to Gates, GPLd software "makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work.
erm.. and in what aspect is that different from the stuff Mr Gates is making himself?