Slashdot Mirror
Gates: Say No to GPL, Yes to the Microsoft Ecosystem
Andy Tai writes "As part of Microsoft's campaign against the GPL, Bill Gates is personally coming to the front line to launch attacks. While speaking at the Government Leadership Conference, Gates argues against spending R&D dollars for GPLed software development. He suggests countries that look to adapt the GPL model are denying "the benefits of an eco-system that has worked extremely well in the United States" and they should copy the system in the US (where Microsoft has an monopoly). He further suggests that source code availability is not generally needed, and when it is needed, Microsoft provides it. Invoking words like "capitalism" and "innovation", Gates argues that free software can exist, but should be like a free unix called "VSB" (probably a transcription error for BSD), without the GPL around it. Gates continues: 'A government can fund research work on BFP, UNIX, and still have commercial companies in their country start off around that type of work. You know, technology policies like biotech -- you only -- if your universities are doing work that can be commercialized, you will have IT jobs in your country. And if they are not, then fine, just say that farming is your thing, or whatever it is. All the taxes will be paid by those guys or something -- I don't know. And the farmers will go home at night and work on the source code.' It is interesting to note that Microsoft is increasingly using the same "ecosystem" arguments for defending itself in the anti-trust trial and attacks on the GPL."
Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
If you don't like copylefted software, you can always WRITE YOUR OWN CODE.
Yes, I know; many people have said this before me. And Gates' point is that governments shouldn't subsidize copylefted software, not that free software should be outlawed or anything like that.
While I'll be happy to see any source of money go to fund free software development, and I think that if the government does fund development it should fund only free software and preferably copylefted software, I personally don't feel the need to have the government subsidize it. The government subsidizes too many things already. I'll be happy for the government to not subsidize copylefted software, as long as it doesn't subsidize proprietary software, either.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I'm convinced that amateurs are usually better at most things than professionals, for the simple reason that they care more.
As an example: I write professionally. This is a Friday afternoon -- my productivity level is dropping toward zero. But I am taking the time to make (semi-)intelligent comments on slashdot. Why? Because at slashdot, I'm an amateur. I'm in this because I feel like it, not because I'm being paid to do it.
OT: perhaps that's why Taco et al are so unproductive at their jobs? Because it is just "a job" for them? Hmmm... interesting concept.
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
Mr. Gates is hardly a revolutionary.
;-)
A businessperson, yes. A good businessperson? Of course; he's evil enough and it's hard to argue that his company is not monetarily successful.
But calling Mr. Gates a computer revolutionary? Oh dear God no. The only significant contribution that he personally made was decades ago while working in his dorm room, and even then Paul Allen probably did most of the tech work (this is a fact, not an inciteful comment).
I'd also wager that the VSB error was one resulting from poor transcription of his speech rather than him being an uninformed idiot when it comes to open source and free software, althought I'd certainly get a kick out of him confusing Lunix and STD or something
- Eric
Founder, monolinux.com
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I don't understand how the richest man in the world can remain so greedy. He must know in the back of his mind that "real" open source is a very good thing, it benefits so many people in different ways. I'm really fed up of reading every second day about M$ fucking another small(er) companys/ideas/plans etc... to uphold thier monopoly(s). Fuck M$ and fuck Gates.
Why should the government pay for research and development of software under a license that allows Microsoft to take it, modify it (perhaps trivially, perhaps integrate it into the OS) and then sell it back to the US government and citizens for $big profits?
If the government pays for research and development of GPL'ed software, they are ensuring that the government, US citizens, and US corporations will always be free to use the fruits of that work, even after it has been extended. That's how I would prefer my tax dollars to be spent, thanks.
And I don't want to hear any whining here about how no-one will bother extending or improving the software if they can't profit from it. The entire history of Linux and other GPL'ed software has proven that theory wrong...
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
...is that he can't take the code without honoring the owner's wishes as far as payment goes. With every other license he can find a way to get the code without having to shell out anything significant, but with the GPL he can't get out of paying back in the same coin he received: code.
Microsoft sets new standard in MS English XP
"ecosystem - n : a system formed by the interaction of one organism with its physical environment"
I think you guys are reading way too much into this. The issue is not Open Source or proprietary, or even Free as in Beer. The issue is what should happen when the government pays money for software reasearch.
Under the old model the government would spend a few million supporting a research team who would then start a company to exploit the copyright. The University might get a share or might not.
The GPL is something of an improvement on this situation, but it is designed to prevent proprietary versions being created. That can be a good thing, but unless you are a religious nut on the subject there are often times when it is bad. For example, if the original code would require a lot of effort to turn it into something that was merchantable quality or if the code is of no use unless it is built into something bigger. For those cases BSD is a much better choice.
There is a reason why we released the Web into the public domain and did not make it GPL. GPL would have closed the door on commercial versions which was absolutely the opposite of our objective. We were changing the flow of information, not engaging in an RMS power play.
BTW RMS has said things to me in person that are way wierder than anything in the article, anything Gates has said to me personaly and for that matter stupider than anything said or attributed to Dan Quayle or GWB. Like the time he suggested building particle accelerators in space because there is lots of free vacum there...
If governments are looking at ways to get the maximum out of their research programs it would be a good idea for them to consider the restrictions they intend to place on the distribution of their code at the same time that they apply for the grant. The 'we will keep it private and sell it' approach should be least favoured, 'free for non commercial use' should be next favoured and 'free for any purpose' should be most favoured. I would consider GPL and LGPL to be equivalent to free for non commercial use since in practice a lot of 'open source' code under GPL is often reclaimed by the original owners and commercialised.
As for the utility of source, I think it is overated. I would much prefer an API that is written well enough that I do not need to see the source to work out what is going on.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I might be completely wrong, but any reaction, both positive or negative, from comercial companies has little effect on the GPL in general and GPL-ed software in particular.
For the past few years, GPL software has caught the attention of the masses. That includes big and small companies, knowledgeable users and complete newbies and even governments throughout the world. This has all started in 98 (or thereabouts), when Netscape released their source code for Navigator under the NPL. Since then, many other companies have followed suit, but without a very big impact (IMO, of course)
IBM seems to be the greatest Linux supporter so far. But most of the patches they are contribuing to the kernel are targeted solely towards their equipment (mainframes in particular). It almost does not impact myself, a lowly PC user. And it's in IBM's best interest that Linux should run on their hardware. At some point in time, they can simply give up their expensive to develop and maintain OS, and switch to Linux, which costs them a fraction of the cost. All the publicity they're pouring into Linux is targeted at getting people to accept Linux as a viable alternative.
SGI contributed their journaled file system. It's great, but it's still not completed. Reiserfs and ext3fs are far more advanced, and from what I've seen, are the preffered choices. RH with ext3fs, SuSE with Reiserfs. No distro that I'm aware ships with SGI's JFS(?). Again, no real impact on my computing experience.
Sun also wanted to released their StarOffice under GPL (or similar, I can't remember) for Linux. Then they decided to keep the source to themselves, and have OpenOffice available. Along with it, there's KOffice, SOffice, and the Gnome office apps (abiword, gnumeric, etc). I'm not counting WordPerfect, since I'm not sure if it's offered anymore by Corel. None are greatly successful, save maybe for StarOffice.
The only app that is wildly successful, and that came from a particular company is Mozilla. Not Netscape itself, but Mozilla. In Windows more people are using Netscape6.2, but under Linux very few do. But there are options to it too, Konqueror being the most proeminent, and Opera.
Those were _some_ of the positive attitudes from different companies. There are others, which I'm not going to list right now. Those ones suffice for my point.
The negative views come mostly from one source: Microsoft. But I don't see it affecting Linux as a whole, not more that it affected it in the past, when M$ was ignoring the GPL and Linux. They're lobbying governments to continue using M$ software and to stay away from Linux. And yet I don't see too many governments switching over to Linux. Those that do, would do it anyways, because of completely different reasons than the ones M$ is selling (costs, stability, non-dependence on one foreign vendor, etc).
My point (finally) is that no matter what action a certain company or government take vis-a-vis the GPL and Linux, it will not affect the movement to a great degree. True, it might advance it at a greater rate, or it might hinder it a bit. But as a whole, it will keep going. Linux will get better, nu matter if IBM contributes patches or M$ bans its use by the governments. As long as there are people who are willing to contribute their code under the GPL, there is nothing any entity can do to stop this.
So lets stop worrying what M$ might do. Many people, myself included, are going to keep running and supporting the GPL software, no matter what happens. I like the freedom it gives me far more than any incentive M$ could offer for me to give it up.
If my tax dollars pay for the development of software or other "intellectual property," I want to be able to get at it (unless, of course, there's national security concerns). And I don't want anyone to be able to take the fruits of that labor and build on top of it while offering nothing in exchange back to me, the taxpayer who funded it. In fact, I've been intending for some time to write to my elected representatives to have them introduce legislation mandating that the fruits of federally funded research must be returned to the public, with obvious exceptions for national research, etc. That means that university research funded by the feds cannot be patented and hoarded by the professors who decide to go private without their compensating me in some way. That may mean a GPL-style license or paying back some of the investment. But it probably really means something I haven't thought of.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
It's amazing how the head of such an institution can argue that competition, capitalism, and free markets are good. Mr. Gates: if those values are so good, do the right thing: break up your company. Competition and free markets only exist when there are many small players.
What Gates really wants is an unregulated market so that he can continue to monopolize it, just like the robber barons and oil magnates of the early 20th century.
For all his other brilliances, I don't think Bill Gates is particularly blessed with articulate speech. And he knows this, which is why you rarely see him speak without handling. And it's why it's a baaad idea for Microsoft to put him on the stand. He'll probably speak his mind, which is not something you do in court.
The funny thing about this speech is that it seems sincere. He really seems to think that the cost of Windows is trivial, and that complaints about its price are just bad press. Amazing. And then says a few sentences later that we should be moving towards lower cost computing. I just don't get how he puts it together.
He's right... if the goal of a nation is to have a software industry at the expense of farming. If the goal is to have plentiful software that people can use, then that's another story. Gates understands how to be a capitalist, but he doesn't understand capitalism and the allocation of resources.
Remember, he wouldn't be arguing against Free Software if it weren't so effective.
...GPL is bad in certain cases...
For example, if the original code would require a lot of effort to turn it into something that was merchantable quality or if the code is of no use unless it is built into something bigger
So GPL can't be used by business eh? This would be because obviously reading and understanding the code, then rekeying it in so that it's slightly different would be waaay to much work for a company who wants to profit off of something they got for free...
Like the time he suggested building particle accelerators in space because there is lots of free vacum there...
Oh yeah, particle accelerators in space, what a terrible idea, cause obviously no ones going to be able to figure how to refine partial vacuum to complete vacuum, or avoid radiation. Only thing stupider would be putting a telescope in space...
As for GPL vs BSD, it's pretty obvious that GPL is for promoting free software and BSD is for widest adoption. Which one the government should use is up for debate, but there are some great reasons for widest adoption... (course they work even better against commercial software)
Really dumb things Gates has said(from the article):
That's something that for a few percent of the price of the PC you can buy a commercial operating system, where all the work of testing it, supporting it, delivering it, is included for a few percent of that price of the PC.
So, $200 for WinXP is 4% the price of a $500 PC. Great math there Bill.
As for the utility of source, I think it is overated. I would much prefer an API that is written well enough that I do not need to see the source to work out what is going on.
That's great, you use the API's, don't worry about the fact you've just tied yourself into only one vendor that can ever fix the API, or know what it *really* does...
Government funding of software development should mandate public domain release so that the code is completely unencumbered. Making it GPL or allowing the sponsored developer to keep it closed are equally undesireable alternatives that only serve to block some people from using it.
I suppose that this is the gist of Mr. Gates argument, and it is wholly false. Nothing is keeping ANYONE from using GPL software, modifying it to suit their purposes and redistributing their changes. Businesses can, are and will continue to chose GPL software when it's appropriate. Peopel will take government funded GPL'd software and improve and develop it. Most GPL's software is superior to closed source software for this very reason. The size and quality of Debian shows that the GPL does just as well or better than BSD as a developement model. The only businesses that won't be able to use governement funded GPL software are those who wish to deprive the rest of us of our rights to do what we want with our computers. Those kinds of people desrve to lose out this way. In the mean time, they are just as free as you and me to use GPL'd software.
The goal of government sposnsored research is to develop technology that people can use. It's not to create a franchise that one or two companies can use to screw the rest of the word and impeed the use of that research.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Remember the SNAFU principle, which works wonders in any organization. In essence, the farther you go up the food chain the more distorted the information gets as each level of management reinterprets the facts to make these facts (as well as themselves) look better.
Bill Gates is at the top of his own little kingdom, one he personally designed to his own satisfaction. Combined with the fact that the man is insanely rich and not known for his ability to accept opposing viewpoints (to put it mildly), by the time the 'facts' make it to Bill they're probably, at best, a vague approximation of reality. There's little doubt in my mind that they reflect a reality which doesn't actually exist, but instead is one that Bill would *like* to exist since his underlings are highly motivated to present this over anything which the king might find less pleasant.
This is a problem in all organizations, and it gets worse the more levels of 'sifting' you have between the very bottom rung that collects the information and the very top rung that acts on it. The problem is exacerbated if those that sit at the top rung have a great deal of power, and Bill is arguably one of the most powerful men in the world based on his wealth alone. The information he receives has to be some of the worst blather in the industry.
There also seems to be some indication that Bill's reality is warping a bit, also not uncommon amongst the rich and powerful. The longer they spend at the top the stranger they seem to become, this process accelerating dependent on wealth and isolation. Bill is very, very wealthy and also very, very isolated; it's no wonder he's starting to act even weirder than normal.
So it's not a surprise that he seems to be sincere. He probably believes most of what he says now, convinced by his continued existence in OddWorld that what he used to know as propaganda is actually true. Just wait for another ten years to pass and see how bizarre and out of touch the guy is then...like Howard Hughes they'll say he *used* to be great but now he's just insane...err, 'eccentric'.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?