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?
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?
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..
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)
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.
Funny, I thought the GPL was protecting my code from commercial exploitation.
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
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!
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.
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
News for Nerds. Stuff that Reposts.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
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?
Look how much more ire this can raise!
"Microsoft BANS the GPL!"
Now that's journalism.
-Ben
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
---
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.
Besides, you need to work on the content as well, I can think of ways for most if not all of your little activity price tags to do the same thing for free.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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,"
Old News
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
When you're in business to make money (and who isn't?)
Im not. I work to live - not live to work. Making money is *not* my biggest goal in life... you know, I kinda also like to hike and read and make-love-to-my-wife and garden and drink-cold-beer and lotsa other stuff that isnt very profitable at all. included in that is aid my community to the best of my ability... this is why I support the GPL. Why do people insist on making all arguments based on economics - there are *alot* of other worthwhile and valuable efforts other than the pursuit of profit. Pursuit of profit is not self-justifying.
The GPL is not anti-big-business so much as it enforces a particular alternative business model which is inconsistant with current practices. If the GPL is truly anti-business then Redhat would never have turned a profit. The fact that lord Bill just doesn't like the idea of altering Microsoft's business model to come into the 21st century isn't an excuse.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
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();
}
}
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
void* OldStory = GetOldStory();
}Post(OldStory);