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."
Weirdly enough, he then moves on the characterize the BSD license as somehow less charitable and more business-like. The BSD license is the total-give-away license: you get the code and you have no obligation to provide anything in return. GPL, however, is the value-added license: if you change the code and if you distribute it, then your derived work is still part of the original work. I know this will start a heated debate, but if my tax dollars are paying for something, I want it issused so that some value comes back, not just a welfare-like giveaway. It seems that Bill now wants to move on the being a welfare recipient. Weird.
Miko O'Sullivan
are you on crack?
how many companies have been killed by ms when they incorporated their software into windows?
Why is it that even when IT was really hot writing windows software was not considered a good enterprise? Every thing had to be on the net, on servers or made for webbrowsers.
Microsoft kills every company that tries to make a mass used software for windows. the only ones that survive are the ones in the niches - game developers, accounting prog ppl etc, proffessional software developers etc.
And saying Pcs are cheaper is kind of silly because if it wasnt for microsoft's barage of new windows versions, most people would not need to buy a new computer every two years to do the same thing they have always done.
"As part of Microsoft's campaign against the GPL, Bill Gates is personally coming to the front line to launch attacks."
I don't think the headline got the important bit about Gates' speech. He was there to push Microsoft's egoverment (passport) thingy into the U.S.A. goverment, and the open source question came from the delegates. He had to answer.
All his speech was about M$ having sold his egoverment stuff to UK and trying to use that as a selling point.
When asked about open source he tried to downplay the question with this "I dunno..." and jokes, like implying that the question wasn't sane, or something...
Also, he appelated to Capitalism (upercase intended) and Patriotism. Quite funny from a monopolistic multinational.
Anyways, I think the important bit is that they found a breach in the UK and they are using it to become the f*****g egoverment of the whole planet.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
They don't gain, but IMHO, it's fear that's showing through. They can't operate in their normal way to deal with potential competition from GPL; it can't be 'bought out', it's not 'windows' in most cases, so they can't write it and give it away to crush any competition, so they attack it verbally as being communistic to anti-American to bad for business and government.
I don't think they'll take the 'ignore' suggestion, since they see it growing, particularly in server areas. The 'adopt' probably doesn't work either as I don't see them being involved in anything where they don't have total control, which with anything GPL, they don't.
You mean, the illegal-monopoly-eco-system? So Mr. Gates is actually suggesting that other countries and their governments should adopt this type of culture to actually *foster monopoly*? Isn't that like a convicted serial killer telling all the governments around the world to start schooling their citizens on how to kill people in a certain sociopathic way? Would anyone take such advice from a felon seriously?
Why does everyone seem to overlook the fact that the ecosystem MS is so proud of has actually been deemed illegal. More interesting is the fact that even after being convicted MS seems to be even more proud of that fact. I guess who wouldn't be if the govt sucks up to them and they can get away with murder.
No problemo. Just wait until the year 2097. The GPL copyrights on the software will expire, and you'll be able to use it to your heart's content.
That's why the framers of the U.S. constitution specified limited copyright terms, after all.
Why should MSFT pay taxes to fund its competition? Even if MSFT doesn't pay a dime in taxes, why should the government compete with MSFT? If the government can arbitrarily decide to compete with a business, what is the point of going into business? It's very discouraging to think I might someday build a business, only to have the government confiscate it because a bunch of Leftists are all in a snit.
Also, the government doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers pay for it.
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...
No. It's proven them right. The non-GPL'd BSD consistantly outperforms Linux; especially in security. GPL advocates often point to Apache (either due to ignorance or intentional deception), but that isn't GPL'd. It isn't even copylefted. Perl was originally Artistic only, not copylefted. It was only dual-licensed with the GPL due to community pressure. The gcc compiler keeps most free *NIXs hobbled at lower performance levels due to its subpar optimization. Non-copylefted Open Source consistantly attracts better developers for a very good reason: The better developers want to keep their options open, and that includes the option to release proprietary versions.
You are right up to a point. The GPL doesn't discourage every other journeyman coder or college student from contributing. Real engineers with real funding however, have better things to do with their time.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm convinced that amateurs are usually better at most things than professionals, for the simple reason that they care more.
The root of amateur in Latin is amat and refers to one who "loves" an activity. In a previous time, the amateur was one who was more highly thought of because they pursued a study for the love of it, rather than the "crass materialism" of the professional. The amateur was likely to delve into strange areas of the art or science, explore frontiers and new territory. The amateur was the innovator, not a profit oriented business.
It's interesting to see the swap of meaning (or at least depending on who you're listening to) in modern usage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For many many years, to commercialize a piece of technology, NASA (and the rest of the Feds) would license (sell) the rights to that technology to companies. This is a great revenue stream.
When the Government creates a piece of software they hold the copyright to, they should both GPL it, and then turn around and sell it to Microsoft/Oracle/Genentech/Boeing with a proprietary compatible license.
For lots of dough.
Good for researchers, good for corporations, and triple plus good for taxpayers.
"There's a faction against that, the so-called general GPL source license free software foundation, that says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software."
Yes, it means you can never commercialize it in the way MS wants to, to put it under the EULA. That's a good thing. Something which society creates should belong to us all, forever. It should not be allowed to be proprietized by the MS', Enron's, and Glogal Crossings' of the world. It should be forever in the commons. Just like MS, as a software developer, has, under the current system, the can control the distribution of its products, so can SOCIETY as a whole, which makes software through taxes. MS, Gates, don't like that? Fine, support an intellectual property system where the creator can't control their creation, but only be compensated.
"For customers who want source code -- universities, large customers -- we provide that. But 90-some percent of that time, that's more a -- okay, it's nice, I have it, you know, should I ever need it. That's fair. So source availability is not the big issue. That's -- you have got source availability from us and others, and it's not much needed in any case."
Really, they provide source? What he doesn't mention is that its at a huge price, and under draconian NDA agreements. Also, who's to say that individual's don't want the source code? MS Word 2000 wasn't compiled for MY computer. It may run faster if I compile it for my computer. Not only that, but witha LITTLE WEE bit of programming knowledge, I can even eliminate the useless annoying features I don't like (i.e., those stupid M&M help things, animation, etc). Source availability, not much needed? Nonsense. The entire biological community requires the source of most software packages as a bare minimum. There's only ONE major bio program which doesn't come with source, and that's PAUP; but PAUP faces stiff rivalry from PHYLIP, which does come with source.
"Then you get to the issue of who is going to be the most innovative. You know, will it be capitalism, or will it be just people working at night?"
I don't know, so far its been "the people working at night". Most major developments come from OPEN SOURCE or FREE software. More innovation has occured in Linux than any other OS, and that's Open Sourced. The world-wide-web as we know it is based on FREE OPEN SOURCED STANDARDS. What's more innovative than the net? Nothing. Nothing at all.
The simple fact of the matter is that established corporations like MS aren't good at innovation at all. Innovation is too risky for corporations. What corporations are good at is optimizing existing technologies. That makes solid business sense: its a sure bet. No technology is optimal as it is, and its a sure bet that if you pay good minds money to optimize it, it'll get optimized. Even this, however, is dubious. Has MS really optimized word processors? I've used MS Works 95 and MS Word 2000. MS Works 95 is overall better. Less annoying "correction", much faster.
Small time developers and individuals involved in open source are the most innovative.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Well, if Bill doesn't like GPL, how about LGPL? Notice he didn't mention that?
LGPL in a nutshell, creates a library. You may use the library in any way you like. The code you write that uses the library isn't affected by any GPLish license. Add on to the library, and you have to publish that...but write an app that uses it? That's fine. Sounds like a good govt. alternative to me.
But - there's why Bill fears anything GPL. Public money should go to public works. If I pay tax dollars for something to benefit the public, like public highways...well I am the public! I'd like to use it. And I'd be even happier if some company didn't come along and scoop it up and make it their own. Like how M$ copied Berkeley sockets verbatim and implemented netbios on top of it.
So with GPL, if Bill wants his own way, Bill has to write his own code. Waah. And if he uses the public roads, he has to obey the rules of the road. Double Waah. An unauthorized toll booth on a public road...is called theft.
Weaselmancer
PS: Isn't it too bad that the original Berkeley sockets aren't LGPL? Then the Samba guys would know exactly how M$ netbios shares work. See why Bill fears the GPL?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.