Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft "Bans" Use Of GPL Code
iceT sent us a link to an article about Microsoft banning the GPL from be used w/ their Mobile Internet Tools beta. It's kinda tricky, but the article is really interesting (except I still don't really know what code I would get w/ the mobile internet tools beta). They specifically ban several Open Source licenses from being used with the toolkit.
Update 1.5h later by J : Yes, we know we ran this
a little while back
but there are good quotes from NuSphere and Ximian in today's piece. C'mon, don't you want to read them?
Microsoft is launching a two-pronged offensive against what it sees as its chief competition on the Internet: duplicate posts by Slashdot authors.
Microsoft wants everything to be closed source. Open source software could cause someone from Microsoft to be sued.
M$ had better do a more comprehensive audit of their entire code base before going public with stories like this.
The Department of Justice has no business meddling in private affairs like this.
it is.
Emacs is under the GPL.
VI definitely is not under the GPL. There are vi-like editors all over the place. It was written by Bill Joy before there was a BSD.
They cite in the workding that they ban perl. Now Windows Services for UNIX 2.0 SHIPS with ActivePerl... Hrmm... how can they expect their developers to omply with things they they themselves dont comply with... Is this just another attempt to make people use ASP?
Are you kidding? It's not an End User License Agreement. Anyone can _use_ GPLed stuff without a thought to the GPL. It is a _developer_ agreement, authorising not simply use, but re-hacking and redistribution. _User_ agreements don't give you the right to reprogram the damn app and start giving it out!
I don't think the GPL is anti-big-business. It feels that way to some people, and they see "Hey, Microsoft can't use my code, so neener neener neener!"
You're not looking at the big picture. Microsoft can afford to ignore your code and write their own. The people who the BSD license helps are the little guys -- NFR, Network Appliance, a billion countless little startups--because they need the BSD license to protect their ideas from people like Microsoft.
Look at IBM using the GPL for JFS and tell me that the GPL is anti-big-business.... of course it's not.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm watching my Tivo.
You can make money without being a robber baron wannabe. Even commercial embedded developers don't seem to be allergic to Free Software.
The only people crying seem to be Microsoft and jealous BSD'ers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, we just realize that we are far more likely to be exploited for our creativity than to profit from it. We have no dellusions about being the next robber baron. Further, we realize that centralized control is generally a bad thing and can be quite harmful when applied to infastructure.
Some things are better not owned.
This is not an immature meme but rather the opposite is true. None of us are the hero in some Rand novel.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Without some actual numbers, or some means by which we could generate our own, your comments are completely devoid of meaning.
Embedded developers like Linux as well. If they actually listened in CIS 100, they can even create proprietary additions without the need to give them away.
At worst, copyleft only enforces good engineering discipline.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Free Software doesn't need a business model. It exists quite independent of business. That's is real strength and why Microsoft fears it.
So what if Free Software doesn't create any Robber Barons?
Most of us aren't Robber Barons. We just want software to do what we need it to and to "just work".
"business models" weren't willing to give this to us.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
All you've done is describe consumer applications software development over the last 15 years, including commercial software.
The KDE team is doing nothing more than what Microsoft did to Wordperfect and Lotus.
If you're just reselling 15 year old technology, you SHOULD be worried.
That's primarily what Microsoft does.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
A 500Mhz machine is strictly sub-bargain basement stuff in PC terms. You can build a comparable compact (bookpc) system for less and still include a larger monitor and Windows 2000.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That's precisely what they're trying to do. They're trying to maninpulate public opinion. You bet they're trying to shape public policy. Now, they're explicitly forbidding developers to USE tools developed under certain licences.
The headline is only accurate.
If that's going to raise a ruckus, that's not really the fault of the messenger.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The biggest kicked is, it seems to me that this licence breaks its own agreements.. 8-)
Doesn't the entire MFC library fall under 'Free Software'? It is freely redistributable, and one has no charge for it..
For that matter, what about using the MSXML component for formating XML via XSL? Once again, very easily falls under the agreement..
Don't even get me started with MSIE. 8-)
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
NoNoNo..
while (!NewsFactory->ListNewStories()) {
NewsStory *newStory;
newStory = NewsArchive->GetArchivedStory((rand()%6);
NewsFactory->PostNewStory(newStory);
sleep(360000);
}
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
If I was in a closed source shop, and I *AM*, BTW, I'd look at the licence. If LGPL, I'm all fine. If it WASN'T LGPL, I would then zot an email off to the author asking if we could licence the library under the LGPL, instead..
Most library developers suddenly find that they MEANT to release under the LGPL, which just makes sense.. 8-)
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
This licence goes beyond this. This licence actually states you cannot use even open software DEVELOPMENT TOOLS. If you read really, REALLY deep, it states a whole lot more. It limits you to use *ONLY MICROSOFT* stuff in able to use it, and in the process, actually breaks it's own licence agreement.. 8-)
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
IMHO, I'd go a little further than you do. Microsoft have 95% of the desktop market. Existing customers return to buying Microsoft, to the almost total exclusion of anything else. Further, new customers buy Microsoft, because there is no practical alternative, from their standpoint.
A monopoly is NOT 100%, as you correctly point out. A monopoly is a large enough majority that the organization, in effect, becomes the market. The two become synonymous. The number of alternatives, their market scope, etc, become irrelevent.
An example of monopolistic practices is to make a change in some standard X, knowing that that same change will break all competitors versions, and that those competitors have NO alternative but to pay the organization for the rights to that change.
(If the organization has 99% of the market, but are seen as has-beens, nobody would care. If the organization has 1% of the market, and are seen as red-hot, the change'll be "acquired" by brute force. IF AND ONLY IF the organization has a dominant share so large, that all competitors combined cannot oppose it, AND that organization has enough vitality (good, evil or green), for the modifications to be seen as changing the market in a permanent way, THEN you have monopoly power.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
By prohibiting the bundling of GPLed (or other Open Source'd) tools, they're entering exactly the same kind of deal they tried to pull with OEMs - and got their fingers burned on.
They aren't ALLOWED to have exclusionary contracts. It's Against The Law! It's very simple, very straight-forward, and does not require any kind of genius to understand.
Yet they persist in breaking the SAME law they have already been tried and convicted for breaking, by the District Judge, which was then upheld 100% by the appeals court.
I'm not a lawyer, but I know that there is a term "Contempt of Court". It's probably not applicable, in the legal sense, but I can't think of a single more fitting example of exactly that. Contempt of the Court, of the legal system, of the judgements, and of everything else.
I doubt this will happen, but IMHO, repeat violations of an offence, whilst effectively on probation during the appeals process, should be grounds enough to have the entire Microsoft board of directors slapped in irons.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yahoo doesn't equal "market share." The fact of the matter is that FreeBSD, for all of it's many benefits, has something like an order of magnitude less installations than Linux. This doesn't make FreeBSD a bad OS, but it isn't nearly as popular as Linux (which is what market share measures).
Miguel is essentially right. There are no legal reasons why Microsoft couldn't release their software for Linux. Plenty of companies produce commercial software for Linux, and I don't see them handing out source code.
Microsoft chose FreeBSD because it isn't popular enough to really be a threat to Windows (yet). Not that their software is really going to be much of a gift. It is nothing more than a watered down implementation of their new language and runtime. Not only is it lacking the Forms and Database layers, but it is also missing the so-called "high performance" garbage collector and compiler.
Microsoft says that their reasoning behind this is that they don't like the GPL, but that's patently absurd. They simply don't like competition, and Linux is increasingly becoming direct competition to Windows. FreeBSD is good stuff, but it isn't being installed at near the rate that Linux is, and so Microsoft sees it as "safe" to port to.
If this is Microsoft's game then it is backfiring pitifully. Even mainstream economic news sources are weighing in against Microsoft on these issues. And while Microsoft is poised to spend a pile of money on XP, this does not necessarily mean that they are the only voice being heard. When Microsoft weighs in with ridiculous claims about the GPL it isn't a horde of GPL fanatics that are answering the absurd claims, it is PR flacks at organizations like HP or IBM (both of which have released software critical to their future success under the GPL).
Quite frankly, most CIOs I know of listen more to these companies than to Microsoft.
As for the rest of your rant, it's old, tired, and misspelled to boot (the word you are looking for is loser). I can read Word documents in my email (and Excel spreadsheets, and Powerpoint presentations, etc.). There was a time, however, when that wasn't the case, and yet Linux kept on growing despite the fact that it basically had no desktop type applications when I first started using it.
And the reason for that is simple. Linux is a useful, flexible, and cost effective way to solve problems. Not all problems (yet), but enough to make it worth tracking. And the list of problems that Linux solves acceptably grows every day. While Microsoft must upsell their customers to new versions of their software to keep their company afloat, Linux can easily survive with nothing more than its present installation base. Linux will continue to do just fine.
And who knows, maybe Windows XP will fail to catch on with consumers. Microsoft has certainly done their best to make it unpalatable to consumers.
Yes, many Free Software developers are more concerned with cloning commercial software than paying for it. That doesn't mean, however, that Oracle becomes GPLed when they release a Linux version of their software (which is what Microsoft is intimating with their goofy press releases).
Oh, and these same cloned products often show up running on BSD as well. There is plenty of GPLed software running on BSD systems, and there are even BSD projects that are basically cloning commercial software. This doesn't have anything to do with licensing issues.
If I own the copyright I can release the software under as many different licenses as I want. To prove this point why don't you surf on over to www.trolltech.com and purchase the commercial version of QT. You will notice that while the GPLed version of QT does not allow you to create closed source commercial software linking with the QT widget set, the commercial version does not have this feature (which is why it is being used in Kylix).
In other words your software can be free for people who are willing to release their source, and commercial for those that do not (and are willing to pay the price).
BSD style licenses, on the other hand, do not allow you to use this trick. Everyone gets your software for free, no matter what they want to do with it.
Nice try though. You almost had a point.
Once QT was GPLed the Free Software Foundation ceased to have any problem with the license. Before that QT was released under a license that the FSF Lawyers felt was incompatible with the GPL. One of the cool things about the FSF is that they take the time to work out the legal issues first, and then they worry about the technical issues. This means that FSF projects are able to avoid tricky licensing issues like those found early on in the KDE project and more recently in the Python project. As a developer that isn't interested in performing my own legal audit I appreciate the efforts of the FSF to point out possible problems with software licenses. That way I can concentrate on developing, and not on stupid legal issues.
In your case, if you are interested in using QT with proprietary libraries then you basically have one of two choices. You can pay for the commercially licensed version of QT, or you can stop using QT. Blaming your inability to use the GPLed version of QT with commercial libraries on the FSF is ridiculous, Trolltech is the group that chose the license for QT, not the FSF. The FSF's widget set (GTK+) is licensed under the LGPL. You could use that library with Sybase's dblibrary without any problems at all.
I actually agree with you that GPLed libraries are problematic. Fortunately the FSF generally doesn't GPL their libraries. Commercial entities (like Trolltech), however, have a lot of incentive to GPL their libraries. That way they can get exposure for their toolkit among Free Software Developers while still charging commercial developers for the use of their software.
That's Trolltech's entire business model. Blaming the FSF or the GPL for your problems is ridiculous. It's Trolltech and Sybase that are trying to charge you money for their libraries. The FSF is simply giving you their expert legal advice as to the legality of distributing software that combines GPLed libraries and commercial libraries.
Microsoft isn't interested in undermining the legality of the GPL because doing so would weaken copyright law. Since Microsoft relies on copyright law as the basis for their money making machine the last thing that they are likely to do is subvert the GPL.
Microsoft's response is dumb, but they really don't have much else they can do. They have tried ignoring Linux (that failed). They tried discrediting Linux (failed). They even tried cooking up some anti-Linux benchmarks. Many of the improvements in the 2.4 series of the kernel are directly attributable to Microsoft and the money they spent on Mindcraft benchmarks.
You can bet they won't do that again.
Microsoft can't embrace and extend GPLed software, and they can't buy enough Linux developers to make a difference, and so they are stuck with these crappy tactics (which are likewise bound to fail).
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Any license which restricts what TOOLS the developer can use to develop software is shooting itself in the foot.
;P
Developers generally have a favorite set of tools they use to program - even if they only program web pages or shell scripts, they have a favorite editor.
Telling a programmer they can't use their favorite editor to edit source code files is counterproductive - they'll just go elsewhere. There are plenty of toolkits to use, but only MS' says you can't use EMACS or VI
My 2 cents, anyway.
So the distributor of MySQL, the most brain-dead POS DBMS on the planet, says MS can't beat them technically. I'm sorry, but MySQL cannot even come close to MSSQL.
You attempt to show that MSSQL is better than MySQL merely by stating, "...MySQL cannot even come close to MSSQL." and you provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.
Furthermore, you describe MySQL as the most brain-dead piece of shit database management system on the planet. Again, providing no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
Then you have the unmitigated gall to state, "I guess it goes to show that FUD comes from both directions." Did you fail to realize that your post can only lie somewhere in between FUD and flamebait? Hell, maybe it even encompasses both! The least you could have done is post some benchmarks or some anecdotal evidence to support your position. It would certainly have done much more for your argument than decrying what you despise as a piece of shit.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
and you people are attacking / defending products STILL, even in this thead.
Which is precisely what you did in your previous post, mr. "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about."
why dont you talk about that.
Good question, why don't you?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Funny, I thought the GPL was protecting my code from commercial exploitation.
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
The GPL isn't anti-business, it's non-business.
Are you on crack? When the average home user just wants a machine for the family to surf the web, email, and type school reports, they get a machine that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and one that they can get software for at the local Staples. When MacOSX runs on a $600 machine and there are a dozen racks of software for it at any given computer store, *then* Windows will be in trouble.
I'm not endorsing anything about Rev. Ike, but I tend to agree with him when he says that the lack of money is the root of all evil.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
If you're talking about the IBM PC, you're mistaken. IBM came up with the hardware first (based in part on some of their own previous hardware), and then went looking for an operating system. It could just as easily have been CP/M. You might be able to make an arguement for Intel as co-inventor (and that would be a stretch), but not MS.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I don't mean to troll or turn this into a giant flame ware but you are using some slightly incorrent claims to make your point. Redhat is nowhere near profitable. Yes, they may have taken in more last quarter than they spent but if you look at their total cash flow for the lifetime of the company, it is decidedly in the red.
And since when is OSS the 21st century business model? Last time I check, most of the OSS companies had either folded or laid off huge numbers of employees. Just because thousands of Slashdot folks think it is so, don't believe that the rest of the corporate world is going to jump to this business model any time soon.
--
I love this one...
"It's an attack on Linux, which has market share as an operating system. FreeBSD has no market share, so they say, 'Oh, that's the good one,' " de Icaza said.
First of all, it's an outright lie. FreeBSD certainly has a market share. Ever heard of Yahoo!, Miguel? Secondly, FreeBSD does not have the anti-big-business licensing (ie no closed source--yes, this can be anti-big-business) that Linux has.
--
I respectfully disagree. The GPL is not well suited for (closed source) hardware devices such as load balancers and firewalls. There are companies out there that have taken a stock BSD distro and modified the kernel and userland to suit their particular commercial application. Perhaps I should have used the words "anti-closed-source" instead of "anti-big-business", since small businesses can just as easily benefit from closed source licenses. When you're in business to make money (and who isn't?), it's in your best interests to make sure that your competitors can't easily use your coding efforts to beat you. Yes, Open Source software can definitely make money but it will never approach the money-making abilities of closed source software.
--
I also like to hike
Hiking boots, $110
Topo maps, $15
and read
"Earth in the Balance" by Al Gore, $14.95
and Make-love-to-my-wife
Birth control, $10
and garden
Ambrosia Canteloupe seeds, $1.75
Spade, $9
and drink-cold-beer
Pint of Uintah Brewing Co. Cuthroat Ale, $3.50
Refuting idealistic babble with hard, cold facts - Priceless.
Not to be a dick, man, but life costs money. I want to hike and garden and drink beer with my friends just as much as you do but I know that unless I make some money to pay my mortgage, it ain't gonna happen...
--
Not sure about the "use your brain before you speak comment" - sounds like you are basically saying "Don't point out flaws in the GPL", although technically YOU did. (Or do I misunderstand)
People make a lot of fun of IOWA (Idiots Out Wandering/Wondering Around) (I don't live there myself) but I have been massively impressed by the legal stance their state gov has taken lately!
Headline:
"Playtime is Fun"
Go with it.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
well put with most of the large enterpsie issues highlighted :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Maybe he just smokes a lot of pot? Each to his own but the way things have been going for the last couple years ;)...
if this would be my day job, i'd smoke pot all day too :)
actually, i don't care for pot. give me a case of beer, and i'll post stories all week long.
--- d'oh
http://www.siliconvalley.com/roundtable/
Lando
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
Nor did humans (or our ancestors) more than several thousand years ago.
Sure they did - haven't you seen the Discover Card commercial where the cavepeople use teeth as currency, and subsequently starve to death?
However, what if there's something useful in this new article? Does that make the story redundant? What if it's only a marginal increase in information? What delta is appropriate for a new headline story, and who decides that delta?
Could I suggest, for discussion (and if a consensus develops could someone plese bring it to Taco's attention?), two possible ways to provide timely follow-up information without starting a flamefest of "what, nothing new today?" messages?
Anyone else think this is a good idea? Or should I just crawl back under my rock?
david.
...about the article was Microsoft's latest attempt to extend and extinguish by reusing an acronym that we've all come to know and love: ``CLI'' It will always mean Command Line Interface and not whatever it was that Microsoft is currently trying to push.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
That is, of course, complete FUD and has been refuted so many times that I need to (re)do it here...
should read
That is, of course, complete FUD and has been refuted so many times that I shouldn't need to (re)do it here...
argh!
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Yes, and it's doing such a good job at it that even *you* can't exploit it commercially.
That is, of course, complete FUD and has been refuted so many times that I need to (re)do it here. Suffice it to say that the GPL does allow for commercial exploitation, and indeed numerous companies make a very nice (if not obscenely Microsoft-style monopolistic) profit doing so (Cygnus, Red Hat, TiVo, Caldera, IBM, CheapBytes, and countless smaller consultancies, ISP, etc.). What is does not allow you to do is to deny others access to the software's code, or to close the source of a derivative product. You can sell the software for whatever the market will bear, provide value added services, incorporate the product into other products (so long as any derivative software is GPLed).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Both emacs and xemacs are GPL. I don't think vi or vim are gpl'ed, but they are "open source"
And if code developed with open source tools is out, well, I'd be very very surprised if there exists a BSD developer who didn't use emacs. Or gcc. Or gdb. Or gzip. Or gmake. Or gas. Or GNU tar. Or Mozilla. Or any of hundreds of fast, stable, portable, reliable GPLed development tools.
If you can't use code that was developed using open source tools, then I doubt that there is much in the way of code that you can use at all.
The revenue stream for every programmer who is subject to this license. If I were using this particular MS product and if they were able to prove I had agreed to the license, then I would be a competitive disadvantage to other programmers who were not subject to this license.
Guess who isn't subject to the terms of this license? Well, don't forget that Microsoft sells applications in addition to the platforms to run them on. Microsoft owns this toolkit and therefore don't use it under license. Therefore, Microsoft can use whatever tools they want to. Microsoft's application competitors can't (assuming they want their app to run on Microsoft's platform).
So aside from the attempt to manipulate the market, this is Yet Another example of Microsoft attacking the developers are partly due credit/blame for Microsoft's platform having such a large marketshare. In addition to using secret APIs, now they also have license terms to fuck 'em. (Remember WordPerfect, Lotus, etc? Me neither.)
I guess Microsoft, like many other companies, has finally realized that using technical means to force deliberate incompatabilies, never works in the long run. There's always someone who will reverse engineer. But now with stuff like DMCA around and gaining acceptance, the practice of using legal threats to hold back technological progress, has become institutionalized.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Suppose you run a small development shop that produces Windows products. Your company's success depends on maintaining a good working relationship with Microsoft. You can't afford to spend a lot on legal fees. Even if the license they're pushing on you is legally non-binding, do you want to be the first one to test it in court?
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Thought experiment:
Suppose I _DO_ go ahead and break Microsoft's
license. I create a web service based on Microsoft's toolkit and a combination of the GPL.
Are they going to sue me?
If so, what does that do to their public relations? The view of their license?
(Or does the license say I'm not allowed to talk about it?)
Ã
--
Tweet, tweet.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Reposts.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Can you say repeat? I knew you could. Of course, there's a real article this time, somebody else has written an article about the EULA. Old news, ho-hum, been there, done that, don't care, goodbye.
Uh ... let's try a bit of word substitution: Its bullshit. Firstly, they can't enforce it -- I can use their "GPL" code with any non-GPL program I want to and they can't do a fucking thing to stop me. Cuts both ways, doesn't it? Of course, the real key here is that this is an SDK, so "use" means "linking against", not "running Office". It's not distributed with the operating system, and so pursuant to the terms of the GPL, you can't link to it anyway (since it's not open). What Microsoft is saying is just reaffirming the GPL. Some of the other licenses mentioned are questionable, but that's just Microsoft covering their asses.
No, you don't. When you "buy" a piece of software, you own a license to use that software. You DON'T own the software in any way, shape or form (try reading a EULA sometime, eh?). Thus, your book analogy is irrelevant. Of course, any analogy you make to physical property is not going to be appropriate, though you could get close by thinking of "buying" software as renting a house -- you can use the house all you want, but you'll generally need permission from your landlord before modifying anything, and the landlord reserves the right to kick you out. And as far as enforcement goes, you're both right and wrong. If you're just a little individual developer playing around with this SDK, then they'll probably not look at you twice -- until you go and release your software under a GPL license while linking against their SDK. Microsoft has lawyers, and they're not afraid to use them.
I love all the articles saying how restrictive the GPL is....
Has anyone read any of the licenses by Microsoft?
That's restrictive!
It sure does. Of course, I'm not about to take your opinion seriously since you cannot, apparently, be trusted to not dick with your own salary if given the chance to do so.
--
Poliglut
I'm sure people made this observation when this story was posted the other day, but which license is restrictive and viral? The one that says "you can put any software on the machine with me" or the one that says "if you use me, you can't use this entire class of software?"
Shouldn't this set off big red flashing lights at the DoJ?
The only real problem with this is that for OS X to be a threat, a whole lot of people would have to buy Macs. This couldn't happen at Apple/IBM/Motorola's current production capacity, and they aren't trying to mass market computers to bean counters and the like. They target the education, home and creative markets. I think OS X will be a big success, but even if they run the whole thing on multiple hardware platforms (unlikely), they won't be able to overwhelm Microsoft.
OTOH, Apple has pretty much won the culture war. Today's Windoze machines are functionally better Macs than the 1984 Macs. Today's PCs are more or less user-centric. In 1984, the enemy wasn't so much Microsoft; it was IBM
.Helium balloons want to be free.
"Have you ever had the feeling of deja vu?"
"Didn't you just ask me that?"
See here
--- witty signature
the most interesting thing to me in the continued ms vs linux debate is that linux isn't a threat (yet). the os which has most potential to dethrone ms is mac osx, and it's rapidly becoming a real threat. as apple is fond of pointing out, they will be the largest unix vendor on the planet within 6months. it's nice to see microsoft picking the wrong front on which to attack. however, they're doing lots of goodness with their .net stuff, to get lock-in on that, so it's
not at all like they're missing the boat completely. but it's good to see a small
chink in their armor...
Look how much more ire this can raise!
"Microsoft BANS the GPL!"
Now that's journalism.
-Ben
> Microsoft's Tony Goodhew, project manager for
> Share Source CLI, said Microsoft is moving in
> the same direction as open source code
> advocates, but wishes to continue to protect
> its intellectual property from commercial
> exploitation by others.
Hey, that's _exactly_ what GPL does - it protects
your intellectual property from commercial
exploitation by others.
Doesn't he realize that you can't have it both ways. Although Open Source Software does lend itself to use within business, it does tend to cause the 'control' of intellectual property to weaken (the GPL very explicitly does this). Of course Microsoft doesn't like this. They have always suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome - if they can't buy a technology, they tend towards "embrace and replace" tactics.
What seems to escape them is that the loosened 'control' of IP is exactly the thing that allows OSS to flourish.
Kinda reminds me of the old Henry Ford anecdote. You can buy a Model T in any colour you like as long as it's black.
Somehow, I think that the first time someone tries to bring C# to Linux, they'll be sued out of existence....
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
you need slashdot.h and libame.
Be thankful for this approach MS is taking again the GPL. It's dumb, but it's outright dumb. I would have expected some sort of "compatible" licensing scheme with their toolkits, that once everyone starts using with GPL code bases, they try to undermine the GPL from a legal standpoint. Call it a legal "embrace and extend."
At least they're being forthright with their intentions this time.
Out of curiosity did you post that at work?
He said the company's Shared Source initiative goes so far as to allow developers to examine the example of C# and CLI code, and then build similar structures on the platforms of their choice.
OMG, Microsoft will let people use sample code? You mean to say that I can copy that HelloWorld.C# from your documentation without being dragged off to IP Court? I can copy the syntax for the ridiculous way you decided to do database access without fear of having my app confiscated? Well, halelujah!!
What company would publish a new language without providing source examples, and what company would inhibit the free dissemination of those examples? How else would people learn the damn language? It doesn't sound like they're releasing the implementation of C#, only calling some example code 'open source'. So, score them -2. That's -1 for releasing another closed source language, and -1 for confusing the marketplace with their lies about releasing source code.
PS - I don't know how C# accesses databases. It just sounded good.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I laughed out loud when I read this. Anyone else see the irony?
So, looking at his logic, Goodhew is saying that open source advocates wish to have their intellectual property commercially exploited by others. I, for one, never realized that was what being an open source advocate was all about. My bad.
And, even if you don't read it that way, there's always the fact that MS doesn't want people to exploit its code, but has no problem exploiting someone elses! [i.e. no GPL'd software, only software where they don't need to tell anyone that the code was even used]
I'd go on, but I won't.
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Intel should have a new license for its microcode that prohibits use of any M$ products on its microprocessors unless they are open-sourced .... that would give them a real taste of their own medicine.
I do agree that (in my experience), it's a very simple task for a single Unix machine to serve as several hosts, and even different hosts on multiple domains. But while your math is correct, your logic isn't: you can't assume that Unix is a better multi-hosting system just because windows systems tend to be single-host.
--
The important difference between government programs and the GPL is choice. Citizens are forced to contribute to government programs such as Social Security when they pay taxes. However, developers are not forced to release new programs under the GPL, and users aren't forced to use GPL software.
The open source community has been working to take out Microsoft for the last five years.
Actually issues mostly come from Microsoft who appear to really dislike the idea of actual competition in the Software market. Open source enables competition
It would be nice if they *really* played by the Unix community rules, such as abolishing seat licences for filesharing.
Like the vast majorty of things Microsoft didn't actually invent this. They simply copied from Netware, unfortunatly they omitted to copy things which were actually useful from Netware....
It never ceases to amaze me that M$ proclaims that the GPL is "viral". Consider what kind of virus would attach to an open source developer, if he/she were ever to get a gander at some of M$'s "shared source" code?
Why is it "amazing", are you trying to say that using projection as a political tool won't work? History would appear to show otherwise...
When one side can cheat, that side almost always wins. That's why we have a ref, even if he does occasionally resemble Darth Vader...
The difference is that in most sporting events the "ref" does things straight away.
A modest proposal - prevent Microsoft from releasing any new products for one year. Let the competition catch up, and maybe let Microsoft work at making the products they have work rather than jumping into new areas. Call it "1 year in the penalty box".
I'm not so sure this would help with issues such as exclusive contracts with OEM's. Maybe force the use of independent resellers for all supply of Microsoft software.
I've read most post in both this and the previous discussion, as well as several online news articles elsewhere, and nowhere have I seen a description of exactly what is banned under this license.
If it was too specific it would be F&D rather than FUD...
The GPL is not well suited for (closed source) hardware devices such as load balancers and firewalls.
However closed source is not well suited for anything security related. It's effectivly a use of "security by obscurity". With it being impossible to keep the workings of a commercial product obscure...
Is it even a valid component of a licensing agreement to dictate what kind of programs you're allowed to produce with this SDK?
This is probably a "who had the deeper pockets?" issue though.
Copyright law was never meant to give IP owners the right to tell people how to use their intellectual property: for example, MS telling me I can't use their SDK kit to develop open sourced code.
The way it started was to apply the "logic" that software must be "copied" to be used. Therefore use equates to copying. Problem is that software licences have suffered "creeping featurism"
That's valid, and that is all that is needed to protect their rights, and their investment in the software
Assuming you are refering to the US reasoning behind "copyright" is to promote publication rewarding authors is a means rather than an end.
You "may not use the Software in a live operating environment with data that has not been sufficiently backed up." This is common sense, but who are Microsoft to insist that I back up my data. This is my application and my data after all. I'd be stupid to not have backups, but that's my prerogative.
It appears that you have 2 business days from release to install all updates that Microsoft delivers to you. What about time for testing? Even if these updates have bugs that adversely affect your application? This is especially unnerving in light of the fact that their disclaimer ends with "THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY, OR ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES, REMAINS WITH RECIPIENT." In denying me the right to decline an update they are taking away some of my control over my application, yet I must accept all the risk as to its quality? Hardly a fair deal if you ask me. While GPL and other free/open source software might also come with a heavy disclaimer I at least have the source code and the right to fix it.
All in all, I see many reasons to click "Decline" on this one...
How will they know when they've succeeded?
Isn't this the sort of the same as authors of GPL software trying to protect their "intellectual property" from commercial exploitation by others? Of course Microsoft hates the GPL. They can't take good GPL software, and adapt it for their own use, like they can with less restrictive BSD licensed software. So they support FreeBSD because they believe in total freedom of the source code, and yet, don't like Linux and the GPL because it protects the coder's "intellectual property."
And by the way...
That's a pretty lame thing to say. FreeBSD does have market share, and the fact that it's being used by Microsoft and other big companies supports this fact. I mean, no need to get all up tight just because one company doesn't choose to use your favorite OS... It's all about choice, remember?
And yet this "no market share" has been rising steadily.
Lessee there's MacOS X...
And of course there's the relatively new TrustedBSD.
And you remember this article don't you, about RTL/BSD?
Oh yeah, and Windriver's acquisition of BSDi which will greatly benefit the other BSDs.
And here's a small quote:
de Icaza musta been coding too late or something because even on the front page of the Gnome site it says that "GNOME is included in pretty much every BSD and GNU/Linux distribution" so it must have some market share if it's worth keeping it compatible. Can't be that DEAD can it?
sigh, why log in if you are not going to give an email address. Would you care to continue this conversation? email me.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Remember four years ago, when boxed software says "requires Windows 3.1 or better"? Windows 95 is cool, but it's broken and needs to be reinstalled again -- how frustrating!
I try this "Lie-nux" thing, just as a toy operating system. It's so cool! It doesn't do much, but it has fvwm95 and Doom and xbill!
The first kernel recompile. Neato! I can make Linux as thin or as fat as I want to. Now, my sound card works, and Doom is even more fun. x11amp works pretty well, and so would Netscape, if it weren't for that damn winmodem...
I replace the modem, and now things are pretty cool. I download a new version of x11amp, with skin support! I'm going to take over the world! I try to sniff packets by running ifconfig ppp0 promisc. Thus ends my "hacking" career.
Fast-forward a few years. I know what a hacker is, and I now use Linux for pretty much everything; I abstain from the things I can't do in Linux, except games (it takes too long to boot Win95 on my P120, anyway). Linux is rock-solid and I've never been so at ease with my computer in my entire life. Everything just works, unless I break it. fsck still takes a while to scan my 6.4GB hard drive every 20-or-so bootups, but it's better than running Scandisk twice a day. I'm a Linux zealot, and I think Linux is the best for everything. I think BSD is archaic, even though I've never used it. The Linux sticker movement has gained momentum, and people are trying to get Windows refunds. Microsoft claims ignorance of GNU/Linux, and really can't do a damn thing about it, because there's no company to bankrupt.
Then the US Y2K-bug laws (DMCA/UCITA) are drafted. We don't expects them to go anywhere, but the DMCA is passed. The free software community feels threatened, but overly so. Microsoft is keeping an eye on us, but doesn't do anything, because of an anti-trust lawsuit.
Now, I know several programming languages and have used several systems. I know nothing is best for everything. Reiserfs has eliminated the need for fsck, Apache and Tux are kicking IIS around. IBM, Netscape, and Sun are only a few of all the GNU/Linux supporters, and Microsoft is pissing its pants with fear. MS tries to use FUD and the new Draconian laws to kill free software, but it's not working, because so many people are watching Microsoft that every bluff is being called, every deception exposed.
So, we may not have thought we could take over the world, but Microsoft seems to think we can. Maybe this is better than killing them with anti-trust alone. Microsoft certainly deserves a painful, torturous death, and I think free software will bring it.
In a few years, we'll finally be liberated from the cancer of the information age, Microsoft.
And Microsoft knows it.
------
That's a nice idea, but it's been thought of before. You've presented a known problem without a solution. Do you have any ideas? I'm sure everyone else here is stumped.
------
Personally, I don't see OSS being much of a business model for most people. I think it can make money, but nobody is going to get rich from selling OSS like Gates did selling BASIC and Office.
Almost nobody these days can make any money selling a web browser these days, so trying to sell a web browser is probably a waste of time and effort. However, being a key developer in the Mozilla project would take the same amount of effort (or maybe even less effort), but can gain you a great deal of fame that can actually benefit you financially (think about your résumé). People are realizing this, and as a result, people are also realizing that what they used to have to pay $60 per copy for can now be had for free with very few/minor restrictions.
Basically, any form of mandatory fee, per-copy or otherwise, is contrary to the idea of OSS, and nobody will accept it as OSS.
<rant>
What I'd like to see more proprietary software that comes with source code. I would buy the Opera browser if I could get source code with it, but I can't, and Opera segfaults, so I won't. People must stop believing that their source code is a secret, and realize that anyone else could produce it with some effort.
</rant>
------
FreeBSD does not have a very significant market share, compared to Linux, and especially NT.
Linux does not have "anti-big-business" licensing any more than Microsoft does. There is absolutely nothing stopping any person or business (big or otherwise) from developing closed source software for Linux.
yeah, they sound like raving lunitics try to nail the most damaging sound bite they van, whether its rational or even close to being correct or not.
Read the quote again. Now remember slahdot back at the hight of the MS trial. Most of the posts sounded alot like that.
heh, its fucking embarasing, i could hardly read slashdot.
i hope you people (you know the ones I mean) have settled down and realize then if you really love and care about open-source and linux and the comunity, you would start thinking about improving it rather than the wounded duck thing.
Like maybe one more alternate version of the GPL thats even a little lighter, but still meshes with the rest GPL. Maybe show a market ready for a better DB and that you guy wont be asses if someone thakes a chance with linux. And things like that.
k, im done for now
:)
oh wait one more thing
:)
I got to say that in the last couple of months, or so, this place has gotten alot better. Except the articles are new getting worse than the posts used to be.
Anyway thanks for putting down the crack pipe
who marked this as a troll it was up to a 2, jeez. its one more senable posts on here
Being a peer is a state of mind and how you chose to view others. Its wonderful that so many have dedicated so much of their free time to this whole thing. I think i the whole paradigm is a great idea. But what do the poepl who write Linux software do for money, and how many of those jobs to make money are centered around corporate software.
And, toward you argument, if free (beer) software wins then how do you suppose we all eat.
I think open source should have liscences that protect the already opensource part of the software, to the degree that the original developer intended. Which is free in a completely different sense than your voluteer only view.
But if you dont give some more latitude for the original developer to say how he wants something to be open, you create two irreconsilable worlds.
The reality is that comercial software is needed, and sometimes people need to spend 24/7 on something, and earn a living from it. On the other hand voluteer is needed sometimes because there are some things that the comercial software industry could never justify doing.
What happens in 10 years from now when there are two huge code bases of irreconsilable software. This issue is being able to use them to gether. Not if its free (beer) or not, which is noble as well.
Thank god for the LGPL right now, or ther would be no Serious Sam and things like it. Surely you have to like what they did, even though its commercial. The only people you aer hurting are the little guys, the big guys have the money either to steal it and not care because of leagal budgets, or the money to recreate whatever was done on the regular GPL.
But requarless of that the main point wa the the quote was irisponsible at some level and it has to be obvious.
got to love how all the mindless Linux advocate reteric get bunped and the constructive criticism gets nothing marked as troll.
Like anyone who has an idea for improving anything or trying to point out potential community weaknesses has GOT to be a troll.
"You are a Heritic and an unsightly evil troll. No one need hear your thoughts." You sound like communist china bastards. They know that most people have thier threshold set to 2 or more. So they get you down to one and dont care. Is the point of moderators really supress views. I dont think so.
If Slashdot is to be a corner stone of the linux community. And the direction of linux is driven the linux community. And if all you can stand to hear are complaints about appearent opposition (reality not withstanding), and self praise. We then run the risk of be coming anemic, selfcentered, isolationist community that eventually crumbles under the weight of its own hurbis. How many tale have been written abou the downfall of great communities, organizations, armies and governments that acted like that.
oh, i forgot elitist, snobs
"Perhaps the fact that people with actual SKILL are getting work done using mySQL rather than MSSQL is pissing you off a little? If so, GET OVER IT!"
- Anonymous Coward on 04:22 PM July 2nd, 2001 CST (#252)
is he saying that the guy who runs Dell's customer database and pos system on Tandem (now compaq) Himilaya servers is just a puss because cant figure out My-fucking-SQL.
I like Linus and the GNU, GPL, FSF, and the IETF.
I dont want to all this nice stuff degrade into a pile of protectionistic crap. You guys sound jst like Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, you name it, youselves.
FUCKING WAKE UP
got to love how all the mindless Linux advocate reteric get bunped and the constructive criticism gets nothing marked as troll.
Like anyone who has an idea for improving anything or trying to point out potential community weaknesses has GOT to be a troll.
"You are a Heritic and an unsightly evil troll. No one need hear your thoughts." You sound like communist china bastards. They know that most people have thier threshold set to 2 or more. So they get you down to one and dont care. Is the point of moderators really supress views. I dont think so.
If Slashdot is to be a corner stone of the linux community. And the direction of linux is driven the linux community. And if all you can stand to hear are complaints about appearent opposition (reality not withstanding), and self praise. We then run the risk of be coming anemic, selfcentered, isolationist community that eventually crumbles under the weight of its own hurbis. How many tale have been written abou the downfall of great communities, organizations, armies and governments that acted like that.
btw,
I like Linus and the GNU, GPL, FSF, and the IETF.
I dont want to all this nice stuff degrade into a pile of protectionistic crap. You guys sound jst like Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, you name it, youselves.
STOP IT
mod this up!!!
/. party line
it follows the
I don't think that's the case. The developer doesn't just have to steal code in order for it to be a problem. In the GPL world, you're correct. It takes stolen code. Even Microsoft is free to look at the code, not take the code, but reimpliment what they see with their own code. Under the shared source license, that's not the case. The developer only has to reimplement some MS technology, and M$ has 'em.
Let's suppose (hypothetically) that Jeremy Allison worked for MEGACORP and MEGACORP deicded to purchase a copy of M$ shared source. All M$ would have to argue is that Jeremy's not reverse engineering anymore. He's seen the code and is stealing ideas. Poof! Jeremy can't work on samba anymore.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I wouldn't put this tactic beyond them.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
It never ceases to amaze me that M$ proclaims that the GPL is "viral". Consider what kind of virus would attach to an open source developer, if he/she were ever to get a gander at some of M$'s "shared source" code?
That developer would effectively be forever forbidden from working on public project. The burden of proving that he didn't use any of M$'s code would fall on him/her. With M$'s history, if that developer's company had an license, even though he/she didn't look at the code, the developer would probably forever have to prove that he didn't look at the code!
IMHO, if I worked for a company that agreed to the shared source license, and I had an open source project going, I'd try and find a new job.
Now THAT is a viral license.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
(c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in s ource code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
Oops... forgot to include the entire EULA... you can find the EULA here. It might be a bit slow to load though.
From the article:
"Microsoft can't beat us technically, so they've decided to strangle us in legal paperwork," said Lorne Cooper, president of NuSphere, distributor of the MySQL open source database system, a potential competitor. Microsoft announced its restrictions as NuSphere and Great Bridge, a distributor of another open source database system, have begun to enjoy limited success as Internet systems.
So the distributor of MySQL, the most brain-dead POS DBMS on the planet, says MS can't beat them technically. I'm sorry, but MySQL cannot even come close to MSSQL.
I guess it goes to show that FUD comes from both directions.
Ugh.
No Laughing Allowed!
I've read most post in both this and the previous discussion, as well as several online news articles elsewhere, and nowhere have I seen a description of exactly what is banned under this license. What constitutes using GPLed software "with" or "in conjuction" with this MS toolkit? I suspect nobody really knows.
That this does not stop hundreds of people to voice their firm opinion about this thing they don't know what it is a bit amusing.
I just had to point out that MS no longer uses BSD to run hotmail. You didn't really think that they were going to allow people to shove that in their faces forever did you? Hotmail is 100% Windows 2000.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Dude, GPL can be considered "misuse of copyright" since it FORCES me into licensing scheme chosen by somebody else.
Dude, you are free to not use GPL software at all, so dude, you aren't "forced" into anything, and in fact the only way that, dude, you could possibly use GPL'd code is by choosing to use it yourself, so dude, it's not a licence "chosen by somebody else", but rather one offered by them and chosen by you.
Misuse of copyright means leveraging the copyright to enforce anticompetitive business practices. Ask Red Hat if Mandrake's use of the GPL was anticompetitive when they took Red Hat's work and resold it as is. The GPL is charged pro-competitive on steroids.
This may be a text-book case of "misuse of copyright" where one uses intellectual property rights in an anticompetitive way. Here Microsoft is using its copyright to excluded competition (sort of anti-tying competing products).
The common remedy, by the way, when there is a conclusion of misuse is that the government refuses to enforce the abuser's copyright until the anticompetitive behavior is fixed.
Perhaps various authors of GPL software should coordinate to file antitrust cases in a few dozen different jurisdictions. I think there are probably some firms gearing up to bring private MS antitrust suits who might be interested in doing these kinds of filings on a contingency basis. Basically, some big firm could take the "best" case forward in the hopes that the precedent will turn all the others into good investements.
Run the strings program on their DLLs and exes. You find BSD stuff all over the place.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
From the article:
"De Icaza noted that, in the beta license, Microsoft restricts seven specific open source licenses, but made an exception of the FreeBSD, an open source Unix (news - web sites) OS that came out of the University of California at Berkeley"
They had to make an exception for that. Then they'd have problems with using the TCP/IP they ship with windows-- which is BSD based!!!
MS R&D = Geek scanning the net for new BSD code to rip off in their world domination using embrace and extend!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
If you can't beat'em, join'em and deface them.
:-) Pity you can't a 12 year old code for you and get around this like you can with EULAs...
Seems to me that they're trying to cloud the issue on Open Source slinging FUD liberally. This time its official though-licensed FUD
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
But I'm not sure how (if...?) this argument could be applied to the MS license under consideration. On one hand, their primary objective is to ensure that none of the SDK code gets "trapped" in a GPL program which is obligated to release its (and therefore MS's) source. This represents a poor understanding of the GPL, but given this interpretation, this could be a reasonably reponse.
In a broader sense, though, as the yahoo article and all of us seem to be arguing, this is an attempt to squelch the use of open source software by outright banning its use. However, it seems about as silly as a license saying "MS Word may not be used to type an article which disparages Microsoft or its products," or "you may not use Sprint long distance minutes to advise others not to use Sprint long distance." I mean, those provisions wouldn't be legal, would they?
Maybe a better comparison is to the right to reverse engineer. Courts have ruled (tons of citations in this article) that it's legal to reverse engineer, for example, video game systems, even though the manufacturer obviously objects. Basically, it seems like IP owners, including microsoft, put in tons of garbage restraints in their licenses in an attempt to expand their IP rights by essentially seeing what gets through.
Also, as per that article, this could be seen as "a lockout device to restrain competition," which would make it illegal.
---
Um... huh? I can just imagine the microsofty's response:
MS: Okay, you're writing an article on the what now? [covers handset] Hey, has anyone heard of an open-source ban? [back to reporter] Huh, sorry, no one knows anything about that right now.
Or maybe the author just called tech support, and was rebuffed by the "no representatives currently available" message?
---
But honestly, how can they get away with this? Even if most people running GNU/Linux won't be developing for M$ platforms, I should still be able to use whatever software I want (and that I paid for) however I feel. If I want to wipe my ass with the Win98 "Getting Started" booklet, I should be able to without fear of line 3,465,098,492 of the EULA, reading "Thou shalt not wipe thine arse with any M$ product."
Bullshit like this makes me want to turn off my computer, change majors from computer science and major in history and teach high school kids how to be anti-disestablishmentarianisticated and anti-corporate and paranoid and similar all-important skills learned from our crazy history teachers.
---
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
- slashdot: Down with microsoft!! They suck, they are abusers of the weak and exploiters of the dumb! Freedom is so very important, therefore MS sucks.
Do I sense a hint of hippocracy? I think it's been said before -- Slashdot is not a monolithic community. It is a community with wide ranging opinions and viewpoints. From the tireless BSD advocate to the angered MS supporter. As far as I can tell it's always been this way. And as far as CmdrTaco bashing MS with his front page post? I dont see it. He is rightly concerned over a change in MS licensing policy, as we all should be. MS would take away our freedom to increase their power over us. Obviously, to many many people this is wrong, and immoral. But I guess to you it's "bashing", which implies a lack of reason, and I just dont see that.nanojath: Slashdot sucks!! All they do is bash microsoft! When microsoft isn't being bashed anymore that must mean slashdot doesn't exist!! Yeah, because slashdot only stands for anti-microsoft and pro-communism!!
I think that's because MS appeals to people who dont particularly care for computers as long as they can do a few simple thing slike email, web, messaging, and writing documents. To them Apple and Windows provide this same functionality, but apple provides something more. Fashion.
:)
These people are usually more creative and individualist than the like-minded person that decides to go with windows. They are integrating their macintosh into the style of everything else in their lives. Their clothes, their posters on the wall, their furnature. Technical reasons for a computer purchase dont matter as long as the basic functionality is satisfied. At least I imagine that this is what the apple marketing folks discuss in their strategy sessions
- And who knows, maybe Windows XP will fail to catch on with consumers. Microsoft has certainly done their best to make it unpalatable to consumers.
One can only hope. I dont think we should count on this. What would be better is if AOL decides to adopt mozilla to keep open standards alive against theI actually read that round table. Let me sum it up for you. Craig Mundie isn't debating anything. He's written about 3 comments, none of them addressing any criticisims of shared source or MS. The rest of the debate is essentially this BSD zealot called " Glass" who keeps antagonizing Bruce Perens with Troll after Troll of and anti-GPL spew. You'd think this is exactly what Microsoft PR wanted out of this. Fractiousness.
Encore encore!! Very touching. Made me think of my beginnings as a linux zealot in late 1996. Ahh those were the days :)
Uh I dont think you quite grasped what Miguel was saying. Miguel wasn't saying BSD is dead. Far from it. In fact, I have heard Miguel saying he really likes FreeBSD in #gnome/irc.gnome.org.
What he *was* saying (for the clue impaired) was that FreeBSD has almost no market share. Linux has an order of magnitude more market share than FreeBSD, especially in the desktop, but even almost that much in the server space. BTW, when you try to support your arguments try not to link to FUD opinion pieces on zdnet. It really shows a lack of class.
Hell yeah I am, Bitch. :)
Heheh thanks for the tip :)
Sorry for not seeing your joke. I am very touchy.
Ranting about how unfair it is on slashdot will just create a lot of hot air and goatsex links. Getting Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond or Linus Torvalds to write letters addressed to each of the attorneys general could have Microsoft's copyright in their SDK taken from them for abuse of copyright, as well as having extra sanctions pressed against it.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
No, I don't want to read them. I wish your irresponsible journalists would grow up for a change. This is boring irrelevant news that nobody cares about. Its only purpose for being here is to cause a flame war.
Modern comfortable western human life costs money.
Notice that no lifeform besides humans uses currency. Nor did humans (or our ancestors) more than several thousand years ago. Consider the point refuted.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I need to stop reading /.
that's almost as bad as BSD banning 'non-free' code from being in their systems. I don't think linux puts proprietary/closed-source code in their kernel either. Seriously, these posts about the MS/everyone else double standard really stand out now. So they ban Open Source code with their toolkit. What's the problem? As evil as they are, they still have the right to do whatever they want. I'm sure someone can find an alternative. If not, someone will create an alternative.
And well, you have to ask yourself...what is more annoying? MS banning OpenSource with their little toolkit or Slashdot's inability to remember their old stories?
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
Good. Bad. I'm the man with the Gun.
- Ash, Army of Darkness
Now what can we learn from this kids? As long as Microsoft has the Gun (compaign contributions), you can kiss your sweet open source ass goodbye as new laws get bought. However, there is still light: Use BSD-license, everyone knows they're good. Not like these virus-creating linux freaks. Nooo, they be BAAAAD.
Walk in the light.
- Children of the Light (Wheel of Time)
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android
From Corel's10Q:
11.1.4 Publicly Available Software. Corel has not, and will not in any manner: (i) create or purport to create any obligation on behalf of Microsoft, or (ii) grant or purport to grant any rights or immunities to any third party under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Corel shall not incorporate any "Publicly Available Software" in whole or in part into any part of the Port Deliverables, or use "Publicly Available Software" in whole or in part in the development of any part of the Port Deliverables in a fashion that may subject the Port Deliverables or the underlying .NET Framework in whole or in part to all or part of the license obligations of any such "Publicly Available Software". "Publicly Available Software" means any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that such software or other software incorporated into, derived from, or distributed with such software (a) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; (c) include specified attributions, disclaimers or other notices, or that marketing materials related to such software include such attributions, disclaimers or other notices; or (d) be redistributable on a royalty free basis. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (r) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (s) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (t) the Mozilla Public License, (u) the Netscape Public License, (v) the Berkeley software design (BSD) license including Free BSD or BSD-style license, (w) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), (x) the Sun Industry Source License (SISL), (y) the Apache Server license, and (z) any software that is distributed under subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d) above. The licenses granted to Corel in this Agreement are expressly conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of Section 11.1 herein.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
I'm trying to present the PHB view of MS's constantly changing and bloated "standards". Like a wife beater, MS is using a twisted combination of flattery and abuse. They know it sucks because their computer is just as slow and crashes just as much or more as their old 486 running win93. But they feel trapped by their ignorance and MS encourages this feeling. When they get a letter from somone they can't open, they feel outdated and embarrased to seek help. That stupid little advert with the groovey young people on Smithsonian magazine's dead trees has worked it's magic on them. They know MS is going to change it's format and that is going to take some unpleasant action on their part. I'm surrounded by users like this at my job. They are just beat by it all.
Yes, this is an old story. MS has done this for years. It's the upgrade mill. Don't think the media is not going to coo, ohh and awe at XP or 2000 for one billion dollars worth of advert revenue.
What's different is the scale and the stupid and infurating public statements. Most people have not picked up those bizzare statements, and they don't know what an SDK is, or a GPL or a BSD, or whatever that alphabet soup is that might come out of your mouth. Remember that the average person spends less than 15 minutes a day getting their news. The statements are designed to make you look nuts for bothering over some arcane piece of junk you will never use. It's missinformation plain and simple, designed to waste your effort and discredit.
It's nice to hear that you have some more enlightened CIOs. The trade mags from Ziff Davis lying around here all have an MS focus still. Bill Gates himself gave my company a videotaped pat on the back for beeing such a good sucker, errr customer and inovator. The PR folks acutally put that tape on for their college tours two years ago!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
MS is poised to spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS on XP junk. Last month's Smithsonian and National Geographic both featured two page spreads pommising that XP would make you feel complete, make you a magician, and a time warper. These expensive technicolor visions of young people and their computers are just the beginning of their campaign wich will be unescapable. It's business as usual, make a few minor changes and hype it up to PHB as the answer to all problems.
But what's that got to do with liscences to one goofey little SDK? Nothing, and that's the point! This little insult to your freedom will be seen by the PHB as extreemist and wierd. Why do you care about being able to use VI, just get the job done you will be told.
The goal is to discredit YOU, and Linux by association. Expect MS to make other little insults like this to get everyone all keyed up about how rotten MS is right before they release the real orgy of self worship that is comming. While you are frothing in self imposed self rightous minority (still less than 5%?), they are going to present a smiling party face to everyone. "What a looser! When I send him mail, he can't read it!" will be the thought many have as they use "Send to Mail Recipient" in Word. Don't trust Linux, it's all controled by those crazy loosers they will say. Barf. More of the same, bigger and uglier.
Too bad they don't really have a product to justify the party.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
ok, so the GPL is viral. so release your code with its own licence that is just a copy of the gpl and indicates updates to the gpl also effect this new licence.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
There is a really interesting round-table discussion between Craig Mundie, Dan Gilmore, Bruce Perens and others going on at SiliconValley.com where this topic is touched as well.
If you don't like what it does or the licensing included with the software, don't friggin' buy it! I no longer buy Microsoft products for exactly that reason.
Microsoft continues to shoot itself in the foot by putting all these limits on use of their products with other software licensed under the GPL. I just sit back and laugh, watching their marketshare slowly erode as they continue to harangue about the evils of open source. It makes for a truly stress-free life.
Now you are getting a taste of what the GPL does to a closed source shop as far as developing goes. Imagine a GPL SDK and try using that in a closed source shop. It doesn't work because any software you created using the SDK would have to be GPL'd.
The MS license is a taste of the GPL medicine bumped up a notch, mainly becasue the GPL has been worked into tools in tricky ways such as previously mentioned. Thats why the GPL is not a good licence unless your goal is to make ALL source open and ALL source free (as in beer). Obviously this is the stated goals of the creators of the GPL and so it all fits the plan but its also good reason to critisize the licence itself.
If innovation is your goal then you licence needs to empower EVERYONE to create new software based on the code you wrote. I have no problem with you requiring that a copy of your original source code be passed on to the rest of the world but requiring the person using your code to pass on his derivative work is a bit much and it makes it hard to earn a living from the work that person is doing.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
The GPL doesn't allow you to link to non-free libraries, so you're not allowed, by the GPL to link to Microsoft's libraries - see the following section from the GPL FAQ
--
...or am I missing something?
Leave it to good ol' ZD to make a claim but not show the text of the license agreement. Does anyone have a copy to post?
Yea, yea. I was wondering when you were going to be showing your troll-ass. The BSD Counter proves you wrong. Fuck off, troll.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
The BSD Counter is a work in progress. The user count is working, mostly. The machine count is broken and is being fixed this week. The number of machines you see there is part of a debug test. Come back later and register your machine.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
The EU fucked with the wrong people. Simple as that. Its sad how truly suppresed Europe is. It was their supression that started World War II - and its their continued tactics of suppresion that will ultimately start World War III.
Gam
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
Make a new toolkit with a legit licence.
then make your GPL appz with the new toolkit.
Apache is under the Apache license. No mention from MS as that license being 'viral'.
There's the solution right there. (Re)release all new software under a personal license. For example, I could release software under the APL (AntiNorm Public License). Let's see M$ try to outlaw that.
---
DOOR!!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
"Microsoft Windows has a significantly higher share of the web when one counts by computer, rather than by host, as in the conventional Web Server Survey. The survey shows 49% of the computers running the web are Windows based; a little more than all of the Unix-like operating systems combined. As some of the 3.6% of computers not identified by Netcraft operating system detector will in reality be Windows systems, it would be fair to say about 50% of public Web Servers world-wide are run on Microsoft operating systems. Although Apache running on various Unix systems run more sites than Windows, Apache is heavily deployed at hosting companies and ISPs who strive to run as many sites as possible on a single computer to save costs. Windows is most popular with end-user and self hosted sites, where the host to computer ratio is much smaller. "
So it takes a heck of a lot of computers to do a lot less work: 20.38% of the web serving done, as opposed to those poor little unices running around serving 63.02%. Consolidating these ratios together means it takes 3 Win32 machines per 1 *nix box to get the job done. Bravo to the innovators at Microsoft on a truly spectacular job.
Any spoon would be too big.
Defending the BSD license --
GPL: The Great Wall
Avoiding GPL "infection"
Un-"GNUing" software
A boss without humor is like a job that sucks.
I think your quote is another good addition to the fortune database.
Embrace: Microsoft's "shared source initiative", embracing the open source movement
Extend: Microsoft prohibits the usage of software licenced under the GPL and other "open source" style licences, "extending" the definition of "open source"
Exterminate: When enough developers have dropped GPL and other "viral" licences in favor of MS's "shared source", MS will discontinue said initiative, and go back to a totally closed source model.
qed.
"Microsoft" Bans Use Of GPL Code
Microsoft Bans "Use" Of GPL Code
Microsoft Bans Use "Of" GPL Code
Microsoft Bans Use Of "GPL" Code
Microsoft Bans Use Of GPL "Code"
YOU decide!!!
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
Both of you: The word is simpy "equip" not "equipt".
:)
I hope you don't say or write "equiptment". That would be truly embarrassing.
NS: I forgive you if that was an innocent copy & paste from above
By the way, proprietary Unices can have licenses just as greedy as Windows.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Old News
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
"There will be an incredible amount of interest in this among the academic and research communities," said David Stutz, general program manager for Shared Source CLI at Microsoft. "There are a lot of positive lessons to be learned from the open source example," he added.
A lot of positive lessons to be learned from the Open Source example ?? Well thats what we have been trying to say all this while.. jeez..
Rapid Nirvana
interesting enough the article says they allow freebsd licencing. dosnt hotmail use freebsd? kinda funny. I bet they use freebsd code everywhere. I wonder where they got the raw sockets code for XP.
Ive read the new MS liscense. What is it trying to say? Is it saying that I cannot link against their libs in my own GPLed software? or I cannot use their IDE (WTF is a toolkit?) to write GPL? If it is libs, this dosnt make alot of sense, I cannot write a GPL application that uses non GPL-compatible libs, this would make my app non-GPL by definition ((would it not?) i wouldnt be able to distribute all the source necessary to make my application compile for someone else..) This sorta reverse-legaleeze has got me a little gray here.. someone care to clarify.. I cannot understand why this is relevant, someone writing a GPL app against my non-free libs *will not* change the license on my libs at all - thats fucking back-ass-words. That would be like me selling *your* car to my brother - something I have no legal authority or title to do.
e nter to prevent someone from unleashing this 'viral license' to steal your IP *cough*IPisalie*cough* from you
:)
Or: Is M$ writing this license intended to mis-represent (FUD up) the capabilities of the GPL. Is the intended FUD response from the PHBs supposed to be: 'if people use the GPL around your non-GPL libs/apps/OS *they* can force you to GPL something - so ban GPL from interoperation/presence/habitation-in-your-data-c
Im really missing the big picture here I think... someone shed a little light please.*
*this is a rare event... I usually have the right answer to everything around here
MS softwares should call "effectively insecure" or something like this. Isn't it?
Is it right? Not?
It's called Slashback!
sulli
RTFJ.
Wouldn't it be nice to have the M.I.T. institution sue Microsoft over the Mobile Internet Tools' acronym? M.I.T. is of course a bastion of knowledge sharing and open research. I just love the idea.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Why do I love biting at trolls?
The law sets the boundaries that companies work within. Sure, this limits the freedom of "free markets", but it does make sense. You don't want "Al Capone, Inc." to start killing off the competetors...
If a court of law has determined that Microsoft has broken the law (see the appeals court's affirmation of the findings of fact), then they need to stop breaking the law. It is the only fair thing to do so that the other free-market, law-abiding players have the same advantages.
When one side can cheat, that side almost always wins. That's why we have a ref, even if he does occasionally resemble Darth Vader...
A modest proposal - prevent Microsoft from releasing any new products for one year. Let the competition catch up, and maybe let Microsoft work at making the products they have work rather than jumping into new areas. Call it "1 year in the penalty box".
The difference is that in most sporting events the "ref" does things straight away.
It's not the greatest analogy, but I don't check my analogies too closely when responding to ACs.
I was pretty impressed over the last Olympics, where they banned the gymnist who took some sort of cough medicine, then went through the appeals process the next day. I didn't neccesarialy agree with the verdict, but there was a ruling on anti-competative practices that was done in a timely enough manner to benefit the competition!
On my "penalty box" punishment - it's a little toungue-in-cheeek, but I wasn't trying to stop Microsoft from developing or selling products at all. I just wanted a full year with no new products. Continue to sell what you've got, continue releasing Service Packs for existing stuff, just don't release Windows XP 2 in a year or so.
It's not a perfect solution, but maybe it would help current Windows users (some effort would be spent on making current products work, rather than adding features to release X+1 to crush the competition), and it would give competitors a chance to get some market share on new ideas before the Microsoft machine runs them over.
For this to work, though, the period would have to be greater than 1 year - maybe even 5 years (gasp!) Imagine buying a new machine, 3 times the clock speed of the old, and having the latest version of Windows run FASTER than the old version on the old machine! Incredible!
(I'm a little bitter. On the last business trip I took, we took along a 133 Mhz Laptop running Windows 95/98, and a 700/600 Mhz Laptop running Win2K. The Win98 machine beat the Win2K machine on starting up, opening applications, browsing the web, etc., etc.)
Its bullshit. Firstly, they can't enforce it -- I can use their "shared source" code with any GPL program I want to and they can't do a fucking thing to stop me. Secondly, its an unreasonable/illegal contract: no different than selling someone a book with the condition that they can't make notes in the margin -- you can't do it. When I buy a piece of software, I own it in the same sense that I own a book -- I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, except transcribe it and give the transcript away on the internet, or a comparable redistribution w/o the owner's consent. If I want to rip out the page, I can do that; if I want to analyze how it works, I can do that; if I want to make corrections, I can do that. And even if they try to make me agree to a "contract" in buying the book which says I can't, they have no means to enforce that, without violating my right to privacy. Hence, they can't impose such a restriction -- and that is the same type of restriction M$ is trying to impose. It just can't be done. The principle of the restriction won't hold up if its challenged in court(because copyright laws were never meant to let author's tell people HOW to use their works), and the means necessary to enforce such a contract would be unconstitutional.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The license basically says that you can't use their SDK toolkit to make a GPLed program, right? (or rather, that you can't distribute a GPLed program made from their toolkit). This is invalid. It won't hold up in court, not any more than would a person putting a clause in a license for a word processor that would say "this word processor may not be used to create any copy-lefted material".
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Shame on them for distributing products licensed under that evil GPL: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/interix/gpl.txt
u res.asp
I hope it doesn't eat up all their intellectual property. I guess their lawyers must have been sleeping under their desks.
They must be running ftp.microsoft.com on Windows 2000, because it has been up and down like James Brown for the past week at least. Their web site has more information about their GPL'd products, though:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/feat
I can't give you brains, but I CAN give you a diploma!
include $sig;
1;
"Microsoft has identified Linux as its potential competitor and is attempting to limit its use,"
In other news, a gentleman from kansas discovered that pigs really can't fly.
What's really funny is that I use FreeBSD as my preferred OS at home.
And I got a mod point of -1. Geez.
I'm gonna have to post this one just to get back to zero mod points for the day.
Does no one see the humor?
I've thought about this a bit, and it's just plain anti-competitive any way you look at it.
Microsoft has essentially said "you may use our toolkit as long as you don't use any other toolkits that we don't like."
I just can't find any way to look at this except as a deliberate anti-competitive move by Microsoft. Since they have such a large market share (or monopoly, if you choose to use that word) on OSes, stating you are not allowed to use code that they do not agree with in your products is just completely ludicrous.
They're attempting to squash the competition by giving you no other choice and are smoke-screening the whole matter with this attack upon the GPL. Seems to define "anti-competitive" to me.
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
is the fact that the GPL comes from an almost saint-like desire to help friends and neighbors. In that sense, the GPL is almost biblical (remember sunday school: respect thy neighbor). The fact is never mentioned that while the GPL might be anti-corporate under some circumstances, it is always pro-community.
The idealism of the GPL hit me personally when I read on the GNU philosophy pages (somewhere here) an insight on how it would be downright rude to refuse to burn a copy of Windows for my buddy. I had done exactly that many times, and RMS was making me realize that this is not "theft", or "piracy", by any stretch of the imagination, and should therefore not be illegal. So what he has done, instead of breaking these draconian laws, was to create a license that put these values into software and software developers.
In other words, the "M$ is evil" posters are right to an extent. Microsoft willfully breaks one of the ten commandments (I'm not religious at all, but the bible sure contains some great human truths) on a regular basis.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
So M$ has taken the first volley. When will some of us speak up and begin to ban M$ from our servers? When will we support only non-M$ browsers? I for one refuse any M$ specific extensions with my servers and I plan on shortly attempting to ban IE from browsing my sites. OF COURSE I'M NOT-FOR-PROFIT!!! And my sites are for specific companies and their employees. All have been setup to use Netscape.
I'm curious to know how they can disallow someone to license software based on that person's own will. Wouldn't the Microsoft license agreement on a commercial product like this be subject to the concept of being a product that once sold, can be used for whatever purposes the purchaser has in mind, providing that software piracy isn't being engaged in? I can see how they can say that people can purchase a license for 20 users for a server product, for there is a pricing structure and defintive products, but this is a product designed to be part of manufacturing, to make OTHER products...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
It is excellent that Microsoft is giving the GNU/Open Source movement free publicity. Keep it up, Microsoft!
Bush's education improvements were
while(user.karma<50&&user.karma>-10) {
int whoringType=rand();
switch(whoringType){
case 1:
toPost=copyOfArticle("They basically say that...");
break;
case 2:
toPost=obviousCommentThatWillBeModdedAs("Funny");
break;
case 3:
toPost=AYBParody("Funny");
break;
case 4:
toPost=geekHumor(pseudoCode);
break;
default:
toPost=antiMSRant();
break;
}
if(troll){
goatse.Post();
firstPost.Post();
} else {
toPost.Post();
}
}
This will virtually always be an antiMSRant() without a modulus to that rand function... change it to
int whoringType=(rand() % 3) + 1;
Also the if(troll){}else{} is really out of place...
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
Recent actions in the European Union (EU) show that the regulators there are increasingly willing to take the proper role of government in dealing with monopolies and merger mania, which leads one to ask when the other shoe will fall?
In other words, MSFT may ban the use of GPL here in the USA, but maybe the EU will override such actions in all of Europe, which makes it pretty much a moot point.
Can't happen? Just ask GE's Jack Welch - you can buy all the US Congressmembers and Senators you want, and get the White House behind you, but it don't count for squat overseas.
This is also based on some conversations I overheard last week in Paris and Carcassonne.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
LINUX LICENSE GOES MICROSOFT-FRIENDLY
In a surprise move today, Linus Torvalds announced that the next version of the Linux kernel will be released under the BSD license.
"I know I've said before that I'm a selfish bastard, but it's been starting to bother me that a software company can't use my code without corrupting their own," the ubergeek confessed. "I mean, there are some people in this world that I just can't share my new multi-threaded TCP stack with." When asked if he meant Microsoft, he only said, "Mostly."
But with the recent flurry of public flames between spokespersons from Microsoft Corporation and major figureheads in the open source movement, this move may not be much of a surprise. The GPL is, according to William H. Gates III, like "Pac-Man," gobbling up intellectual property like so many little round white pills.
"Also," said Torvalds, "[Transmeta] is starting to have serious issues about running Linux on my laptop." Obviously, they want to keep their secrets. "The GPL stifles innovation. And it's bad for business. Really, it is. RedHat or no. I can't have that on my conscience."
Richard Stallman, upon hearing the news, immediately assembled a group of hackers to fork the latest GPL'd version of the Linux kernel. "We can't have this [expletive]," he said. "It goes against every [expletive] thing so many of us [expletive] stand for." When asked what direction he planned to go with the kernel, he said, "I'd like to move it into a microkernel architecture. With any luck, we can have as much success with this as we have had with the Hurd."
When told this, Linus broke down and laughed until he cried.
Alan Cox has another theory. "He's always been the mediator when there was a big flame war on the kernel mailing list," he said. "He's always been the one to stop the arguments - kind of like a peacemaker. I think he may be trying to do the same thing now."
When we asked if he himself had ever been flamed by Linus, Alan got all stone-faced and said, "I have never had flaming relations with Linus Torvalds."
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
They really need to take the link to the "BSD comparison" down.
To paraphrase - opensource good - GPL bad
Get your Unix fortune now!
Hmm. I wonder what powers the servers behind the yahoo network, including their ecommerce backend service? (store.yahoo.com)
it isnt M$ and it isn't linux. Its that 'dead' OS that no one uses.
___
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Microsoft releases a toolkit called Interix, which in essence is lot of GNU tools compiled for Windows NT/2000. You can grab the source at ftp.microsoft.com. This is interesting, if I would like to use the compiler provided with interix (gcc), I can't because of the license that goes with the Mobile Internet Tools SDK. Very interesting...
Oh and by the way, man, it's spelled HYPOCRISY.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
a day without bashing Microsoft IS a day without Slashdot...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
For what in the world do we need mobile internet tools from MS? I think java is better for that.
to make a GPL license clone that specifically allows useage of Microsoft's tools. Call it the MSCGPL (okay, shorten the acronym first). Then, we can dual license GPL software under this license, without violating MS's license.
IHSIANAL, so I won't. However, how (legally) difficult is this?
Signed,
Wondering Why
How can *this* be off topic?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
I guess it IS true... the 'average user' doesn't think for themselves :)
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
This is the exact type of thing that shows code can also be speach.
You call anti-freebsd FUD from that dirty mexican working for Ximian a "good quote"?
Those kind of attacks are totally unwarranted. Microsoft picked FreeBSD, not the other way around.
el shame-o, Miguel!
This strikes as a *really* bad idea on Microsoft's part. They are forcing developers to not only make a decision between MS and Open Source, but are also giving many developers a choice they may not have even considered yet...
What purpose do they have in giving the GPL/et al more attention?
Either they are being totally witless, or they've got a motive I haven't figure out yet...
Yeah and if you run that script whilst using the Mobile Internet Toolkit, M$ will sue the pants of ya!
Here we go again. Needless to say a word about open source features. I just can't believe that M$ can keep doing this! Can't FSF sue M$ for difamation?
Did anyone noticed the note about Potencially Viral?. Let me tell you something, for me Potencially viral is build a word processor with macro support that nobody need, and put a functions called CopyMacro, that copies a macro from a .doc to another. YES, my friends, that's how Macro virus works!
If the fact of ignoring OpenSource/FreeSoftware benefits isn't, they are lying and difamating. I can't believe that nobody can't do anything.
And about antitrust, all I have to say is: Money rules the world. M$ won once, and will win again, and again, and again, until it has no more money. Then another company, with more money will win. That's all I can say after DMCA (MPAA vs 2600) and M$-antitrust cases.
Sorry guys, but I think that we don't have the money....
Don't worry, I'm too depressed [to|every]day
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
From be used...
Yoda I am. Grammar I can't.
the liberator who destroyed my property has realigned my perception
the liberator who destroyed my property has realigned my perception
www.quantumheresy.com
A day without bashing Microsoft is like a day without Slashdot.
Hmm... I looked at the previous article on this subject ("Microsoft EULA stokes crusades"), where it gives a link to the EULA, but that link seems to be broken. Has anyone got any idea where I could see the fine print of this license?
(Or maybe do I need to sign another license contract to gain access to the text of this license?)
SIG:
An application running across the network didn't close properly - Windows will now shut down.
How the heck am I supposed to double click on your computer?
we change the GPL by one character and rename it? Obviously not realistic but then it wouldn't be listed in MS's license and we could go ahead and use the code. ;)
just something that crossed my mind.. maybe I'll do it just to piss off the MS zealots.
The BSD license is the main reason Microcrap yoinked the TCP stack. It is not the same as the GPL, and hence they are right in saying it doesn't fall under the same category.
Of course, I too have a beef with the market share comment...
Screw 3...
did they add a banner saying "welcome to Evil Empire 2.0"?
if($linux eq "cancer"){ $microsoft = "Anthrax" }
I never doubted that M$ was scum, but I never dreamed they'd sink quite this low. My support for them in the antitrust lawsuit is quickly waning.
void* OldStory = GetOldStory();
}Post(OldStory);
The end of "Embrace and Extend"???
Welcome to the GPL! THe point is that the GPL is pretty darn good at preventing embrace-and-extend, which is why it's finally being friven out of MSs arsenal, and is being replaced by other methods, which are less subtle, and more dangerous to MS, as they are more flagrantly anticompetitive. Ther's nothing here that they can even claim improves the users' experience.
That said, with Dubya et al. in power, MS can pretty much do as they like, of which this is but the start...
43rd Law of Computing:
You are fucking prophet, aren't you ?
You certainly sounds like one.
On what historical evidence are you basing this "extended forecast" ?
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
It is not off topic. It is more like off limit.
You have simply ventured beyond acceptable and generally regarded as correct truths on this site.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
It seemed like such a successful business model. Maybe Bill decided he finally has enough money. This abrupt transition from "Embrace and Extend" to outright non-use of open source code probably has analysts worried. I'm not--maybe we are at the dawn of a new age in which Microsoft's products have reached unprecedented reliability and their coders write everything from scratch.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Shess MS.... now this is just getting plain silly now.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
and move up and fads start from the top and move down (and die quickly).
Instead of getting angry, you should be cheering. Every time MS does something like this, they weaken their position, and strengthen the position of open-source.
I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY disagree with Eric Raymond when he says that OS/Linux/BSD/FSF efforts should be directed at Fortune 500 companies. This silly ego-stroking is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.
Open Source should really be targeting SME's (Small to Medium Enterprises) because the cost and most importantly QUALITY of the software will give SMEs a competitive advantage in the market place.
This will allow them to slowly capture market share from Fortune 500 companies, who will realise 5-10 years too late then go into panic mode, like they did with "Quality Systems" after poor little third-world Japan started kicking their asses.
At this point they will either ditch their relationship with MS, or hold on to their proprietary solutions until they go bankrupt. At that point, their employees with find jobs with the former SMEs who are now Open Source/Linux/BSD/*nix shops.
If you compete over the higher ground, the ones who got there first will beat you. But if you control all of the lower-ground, those on the higher ground will have nowhere to go. Then they will surrender.
Keep hacking, Ian
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
No matter what Microsoft says, they can't possibly enforce the ban. People will use GPL software anyway, and Mictosoft won't be able to stop them. Even if they incorperate a function into the OS to detect GPL software, somebody will make a hack to get around it. The more microsoft tightens it's grip, the more market share will slip through it's fingers.
Repeal the DMCA!
I know it's not only me, but it really seems as if everyone is really lost in this whole argument of whether BSD is better or GPL. As so many people have posted, it really depends on what your goals are. If you want to ensure the highest adoption rate, then arguably BSD is the way to go (less restrictions, probably means more adoption). If you want to make sure that all derivative works remain in the public domain (so to speak) then GPL is the way to go. But there is another aspect to all this that utterly amazes me. How is it that all these developers who are for GPL for the reason that derivative works remain GPL don't see where things seem to be heading (or maybe they don't care)?
The argument is often made that all code should be GPL and that money should be made solely on the basis of service and consulting contracts. It is no surprise to me that the likes of IBM and HP would prefer to release their code under GPL. They are in the best position to ensure that they reap the benefits of any improvement to their code. What are the chances that Joe Hacker could compete with the likes of IBM in providing a service contract to the community at large? None.
So what does the GPL actually mean for the average small company that is trying to develop "revolutionary" software? It means that in order to get other small players to cooperate with you, you risk the attention of the likes of IBM and HP. If you are developing a great application that you would love to share with the developing community, then GPL also means that you share it with IBM. In essence, these GPL advocates are inadvertently (I hope) cheering for the IBMs of the world. I am surprised that it took IBM so long to realize how much of a good thing this was and embrace the GPL whole-heartedly.
My question to the GPL backers (and by this I mean people who believe that if something is not GPL, then it is inherently bad) is why they are willing to give up their own competitive advantage (presumably, developing innovative products) and make everyone fight the service battle with the likes of IBM? Red Hat has made it (so far) because they managed to fly under the radars of these corporate giants. And the jury is still out regarding the long term viability of these new OSS companies. But the giants have been awoken, and they will not be caught off-guard (at least not for as long) next time. How do you suggest a small company compete with these giants? Is it your intention that only the big services companies be allowed to sustain a viable business model?
I doubt that this is the intention of any of the proponents of GPL in the developer community. This is the resulting outcome, however. So, I believe that more work needs to go into developing a new license. If you believe that all code should be available to the masses for no charge, then that is your prerogative - the same way that some people sincerely believe that communism is the correct economic model. Just remember that even in that model, it was the apparatchiks that tricked the masses to work for peanuts, while they were feasting in the dachas on the Black Sea.
For those of us who believe that there must be a way to make decent money from an idea that we implement, the GPL seems to take away all our assets and advantages compared to the behemoths. I understand the general apprehension that many feel about contributing to a project that they feel would result in financial rewards for the originator, but not for the developer. The GPL solution that is being provided, however, merely shifts the gains to some other entity. It is saying that if I can't figure out a way to capitalize on this work, they neither should you. I think that this is inherently the wrong approach. What needs to be discussed and developed is a new class of license that allows the rewards to somehow be shared amongst the developing community. I would like to hear more discussion from people who have thought about how to best share the fruits of one's labor. Any ideas?
As an aside, I believe that George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect of "Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool, and any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool." I think that much of the talk that is centered around GPL has to do with the fact that much of (specially, the vocal part) the developer community falls into this age bracket. They are idealistic, and they have found a true revolutionary in RMS. How else could one explain the war of words that goes on between the GPL and BSD camps. They seem like individuals that started a revolution together, but are now squabbling over the next step. You probably need zealots to get the word out, but I believe that it is the pragmatists that would eventually make believers of the world at large.
As a last point, I think that a lot (OK, some) of us remember the days when IBM was the only game in town and gouged customers. We have at least read of their tactics with FUD to make sure that better hardware never made it. They made all kinds of false promises to make sure people would not buy the competition's machines. IBM finally lost the game because of the PC, and sees in the GPL a way to make up for its losses. It doesn't hurt that most of the people writing here have grown up in an age when the "real" bad guy is MS. MS is not doing anything IBM wouldn't have done. Monopolies try to protect their monopolies. Now, if some people hate MS so much as to contend that we need to be promoting these other companies, then that is a flawed argument. I think that OSS has a real chance to level the playing field and make the little guys stand up and be counted. What this means is that we need a way to be able to pool our resources and share the rewards. I don't think that it should mean that we should pool our resources to line the pockets of others. IBM should play its hand the way it sees fit, as so should MS. That doesn't mean that for everyone else the option is either being a lackey of one camp or the other.