Microsoft and the GPL

rleyton wrote in to tell us about yet another Microsoft related GPL story. He says "The Linux Journal has an interesting article analysing why Microsoft is attacking the GPL. It makes for interesting reading, and ends with a comment on the possibility that Microsoft will be seeking to pursuade the U.S. Government to forbid distribution of federally funded software under the GPL."

Comments

Read the article, and...

[isaac]

I do agree with the author's conclusion - I think a serious lobbying effort is now or will soon be underway to bar institutions receiving federal funds (read: universities) from releasing GPL'ed code.

Significant kernel and userland code has and continues to come from coders under gov't employ or grad students. Most of the Linux network drivers were written by Donald Becker of NASA, and the copyright is in fact assigned to the US Gov't, administered by the NSA (!).

It's true that currently, most code produced directly by the Federal gov't must be released without copyright. But it's also true that this code can be relicensed and distributed under the GPL (it's public domain, remember?), and it's also true that not all institutions that recieve federal funds are required to release code to the public domain (think universities).

Now, MSFT doesn't have a prayer of getting a bill blocking the GPL passed on its own, but it might be able to slip in a rider on some other bill.

My nightmare is MSFT sweet-talking the gov't on the issue with the siren song of licensing revenue. You know, sort of like how universities already do with patents, where they take public cash for research and sell to the highest bidder?

Watch out.

-Isaac

didn't read the article

[DarkClown]

just curious...
does anyone actually believe that microsoft attacking gpl could have any impact whatsoever, besides making them look like a whiney gorilla?

Bill's Quote

[PatientZero]

So sayeth Bill Gates,

But the GPL "breaks that cycle--that is, it 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."

Yet I'm quite sure that if RMS uttered the following, Microsoft would be crying Communism.

"But commercial software breaks that cycle--that is, it makes it impossible for free software developers to use any of that work or build on any of that work. So you will never see GnuWindows, Red Hat Explorer, or LookOut Express."

It's not what Microsoft executives say that surprises me anymore. It's that most media just print it as if it was coherent.

Peace PatientZero

That's spot on...

[Greyfox]

I'd take his statement on the government one step farther though. The government should be required to justify the cost of licensing any given piece of software they use vs. hiring an application team to develop or extend a suitable GPLed replacement. Unless they can prove that the proprietary piece of software is cheaper, it should be mandatory that they contribute to the GPL pool. If a suitable GPLed product is available, its use should be mandatory.

Furthermore, storing or distributing any files in a proprietary file format should be forbidden for all government offices. They should only be allowed to use a given file format if full specs for the format are publically and freely available and are unencumbered in any way by patents or other IP law.

Game Theory vs Drama Theory

[magi]

Microsoft's arguments for the proprietary software business are, in a way, rational and sound. Companies have benefited and will benefit from the proprietary model, possibly more than from the "service business" model of the open source. Attaching Microsoft's leach in your neck may give you profit, in some cases. GPL doesn't fit everywhere, true. It may, in some cases, be harmful also to certain software businesses and forms of innovation generally. Perhaps true.

What Microsoft doesn't want you to understand is that by playing their rational game, you lose, they win.

Doing business is much like playing games. No wonder some praise Go or other strategy games for learning business tactics. It's not just business, but all competition, such as evolution, is much based on "games".

Game theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with identifying winning strategies and situations in games, such as business.

Drama theory is a generalization of the game theory that takes into account irrationality. Irrationality, in this case, means just short-term irrationality. On long term, or on another scale, it's very rational.

'' Traditional models of "rational choice", such as those based on Game Theory and Decision Theory tend to work on the assumption that aims/preferences can be specified prior to the decision process, and remain fixed during it. Other approaches, by contrast, stress the dynamics of preference change and problem re-formulation.''

Drama theory gives explanations to why people get mad, envious, revengeful, bullying, and what not. These are usually considered very negative aspects of life, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't be, but their function really is just level the playing field when you get stuck in a losing situation. They are rational at some level.

Revolutions, violent demonstrations, and wars (''war is just a continuation of politics'') are examples of trying to change the rules. Others more accepted ones are boycotts, work strikes, and so on. Religions are not usually rational - but amazingly they are often helpful to the followers. Even if a certain God of Vows (such as Mithra) doesn't exist, believing in his powers and making business deals or marriages in his name helps in building a strong society. Irrationality pays, big.

Microsoft wants businesses to play by the traditional rules of the business game. Supporting the proprietary business model may be rational in many cases. But the problem is that Microsoft has attained a game-theoretically sustainable winning position. You can only win by changing the rules, which may require slight "irrationality".

It's perfectly rational to get red mad at Microsoft, and give up short-term business opportunities, to perhaps be able to compete in a healthy market later.

Microsoft is also trying to talk generally about the ''best'' business model for software industry, although Linux and Open Source movements are an ad hoc response of the IT world to combat specially against Microsoft's unhealthy monopoly. The rationale for general context is completely irrational and irrelevant for the current specific situation in the operating system industry.

GPL means changing the rules, especially for this particular situation. It means starting a revolution, which may in some cases mean giving up the proprietary model even where it might have been useful otherwise. The target is Microsoft.

This is what Microsoft is afraid of.

Article misses the boat

[blakestah]

This article really misses the boat.

If we backstep 3-5 years, we see a different computing environment. Microsoft OWNS the desktop and office. UNIX OWNS servers.

Then, we look back another 15 years. CP/M is the best OS available. Microsoft buys DOS for $50000, ports BASIC to DOS, and undersells CP/M by a substantial amount, and owns desktops.

Then, to 1995. OS/2 comes out. Windows 95 comes out. OS/2 is good, Windows 95 is junk. Windows 95 sells for under $100. OS/2 sells for a few hundred. Microsoft owns graphical user interface environments. Mac could have owned it, but they made the same error made by CP/M and IBM - they went after the high end.

The low end takes over. This pattern has repeated itself over and over.

Back to the mid to late 1990s. Microsoft was concerned. As networking became more relevant, they needed a network presence. Hence Windows NT. It rapidly looked like NT would take over the low end server market. It didn't matter that it sucked badly compared to UNIX - it cost a third of UNIX. The low end would rule again.

However, as NT was starting to make ground, enter linux. UNIX admins EVERYWHERE set up linux boxes to do server tasks for free instead of tolerating NT. This ate into Microsoft's market.

Microsoft would OWN the low end server market today if it were not for open source OSs, primarily linux.

And now Microsoft is attacking the GPL. They are attacking it because it owns markets that otherwise would rightfully belong to Microsoft, following the age old rule that the cheaper system wins independently of function. They can now see the writing on the wall. Linux (and *BSD) has eaten the low end server market, and Microsoft is not getting it back. You cannot undersell free, and Microsoft has never won by competing on quality of software.

This is alien to their entire business strategy. They make crappier products, sell them cheaply, provide no support, and own the market. Once they own one market, they leverage into other markets as strongly as possible.

This strategy today makes them a PROFIT ABOVE TAXES OF A BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. And Microsoft wants more. If they could merely keep new quality software out of the GPL, they have a chance.

The GPL, you see, does not prevent a business from using software. But it does assign the IP to the open source community. And that scares Redmond to death. Open source has already eaten markets Microsoft had earmarked. They are now worried about the home base - the main monopoly, the billion dollar a month monopoly.

Now THAT is something to worry about.

this is getting too easy ...

[Frizzled]

Bill Gates, "The ecosystem where you have free software and commercial software--and customers always get to decide which they use--that's a very important and healthy ecosystem"

... which is why Windows XP will come bundled with a browser, media player, fire-wall, email client, and ISP.

_f