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.
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.
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...
--
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
/*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.
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
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
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
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
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.
"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
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?