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."
Give added emphasis to the word "Micro-serfs"
I'll go home and change all my stuff to VSB straight away. Christ was I deluded!
Thank God someone like him, with no alteriour motives and a heart of gold, is around to steer humanity back on track.
Liberty.
Is it me, or does Gates sound a little high in this interview? I mean, this guy, by all accounts, is pretty GD smart whether you want to admit it or not, and here he's giving answers like "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."
Who the hell would want to go home from a day of backbusting labor and work on source code?
Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
There should be some good quotes in the upcoming part of the trial. Hopefully, the prosecutors won't be too in awe of his wealth to avoid asking the hard questions. Providing source code? When? For windows? I hope that countries like India move to open source so they force Microsoft to compete where it counts. The open marketplace. Not the courtroom.
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.
Theoretically, microsoft doesn't have a problem in a "capitalist" economy. If they would just make better software (that doesn't crash) people would choose them. The only problem they may have is when they stop making better software. I am glad the GPL is keeping these guys on their toes.
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
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
There are a lot of businesses and consultants making money selling and supporting GPL'd software.
You don't see massive software marketing organisations like Microsoft because the business model doesn't support that style of organisation.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Hmmm, you get paid, yes, but your paycheck is only a tiny itty bitty speck of how much money the code you write makes. Unless you make $28,000,000 a year, you are being RIPPED OFF. Doing 99.9% of the work and getting paid 0.000001% of the profit doesn't sound like a good deal to me. In fact, giving your code away for free and getting a reputation for being an excellent coder with innovative ideas will pay off MUCH more in the long run.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Hmm... Source accessibility is not needed. Ecosystem needs to be diverse.
;) Think poison arrow frogs.
These are good points, but they don't support Gates' position against the GPL. If diversity is important, than I am comfortable with proprietary licenses, BSD/MIT style liceses, GPL style licenses and the most restrictive of all, Alladin style licenses all being a part of the diverse ecosystem.
What Gates hates is that the GPL, like many components of our biological ecosystem has some defences against being eaten
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't understand how the richest man in the world can remain so greedy. He must know in the back of his mind that "real" open source is a very good thing, it benefits so many people in different ways. I'm really fed up of reading every second day about M$ 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.
"Feeding frenzy".
"Killing fields".
"Abattoir".
And the brethren went away edified.
Actually he does have a good point, why should any poor programmer use the GPL if they can't make money from it?
I think he should just open microsoft up to BSD licenses in non-monopoly areas of MS code. I don't see any need for MS office when there are a few good office suites already on BSD & linux.
I'm a lot more of an opponent to microsoft than the typical linux zealot here, I'm actually making a new BSD with brand new things to make it simple to run.
First thing I'm doing is putting a MS office compatible group of apps in the GUI, this should make it worthwhile to switch because most people want to work with MS office files.
Sure, my software is free [as in choice], not free as in [I let you freeload off a poor kiwi]. The sooner you people stop insisting that programmers mustn't earn money for their work, the better.
I know I'm going to get modded down by some free as in beer geek, but I think it's only fair to be paid for work you do & anything else is freeloading.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Microsoft sets new standard in MS English XP
"ecosystem - n : a system formed by the interaction of one organism with its physical environment"
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
Ok, Windows is a great ecosystem, GPL is a virus, open source eats your brain, and Barney shall now be your king and Lord?
I'm sorry, I read this, and I am really not sure what the purpose of this is. Feel free to call me stupid, but what the hell?
Really I tried to understand this, and I utterly failed. Either Gates is way more brilliant than I am, or I am way more stupid than a donkey.
(Ouch, I just did this: Gates>me>donkey. That leaves a lot of latitude!)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
So, you're implying that if two compainies provide a similar product, the one that milks more money out of its customers is better for everyone?
I would think that it would be better for Microsoft's customers to keep many the $Billions they've been spending on software, and save it for priorities more in line with their core businesses. It would be like a tax cut.
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.
Did it occur to you that maybe the person
transcribing his speech got it wrong?
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Just a guess, but it might be kinda a self-reference. BFP == Big Freakin' Program (i.e., Windows).
It's pretty obvious that the government can't fund/subsidize proprietary software (except for military purposes), because it's the public's money they're spending, so the public deserves to get the code their money was spent on. The question is which open source license it should be under. The way I understand it is that there are two points of view on this.
BSD style license
Licensing it under a BSD style license will make it easier for various companies to take the code, extend it and then sell it back to the public. The downside is that unless the stuff added wes important and significant, or the company makes sure to charge proportionally to it importance, the public is paying twice for the same software. The upside is that in order to develop those extensions, the companies will have to hire developers, giving back to the public, in a way. Obviously, however, the amount money spent on those developers will be less than what the company intends to charge. So in the end, the public usually ends up paying less than twice, but definitely more than once for that software.
GPL
With the GPL, the public basically says "We've payed for this software. You want to use it? You'll have to pay for it too, in the form of showing us any extensions you decide to make". This way, there's no way to screw the public and make them pay again for software they've already payed for. On the other hand, that software is then much less likely to be used commercially, so any extensions might not end up getting developed at all.
Since I don't tend to trust companies (especially not Microsoft) to charge properly for adding a pretty button to software I payed for and then selling it to me, I prefer the GPL, but it's obvious that both licenses have their advantages and disadvantages in this scenario.
If he's typing "Doe" instead of "Does" and "my" instead of "by," don't you think maybe he's typing out of his ass?
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.
ac wrote:
And comparing sharecropping to this is just absolutely asinine.
maybe you should familiarize yourself with the way the system works.. when something is in italics, it means that that was part of the story which was submitted by a slashdot user, in this case, Andy Tai. Furthermore, had you read the article, those were gates's words, not Andy's.
moving on. i know of hundreds of buisiness that use free software and make a profit because of it, so while there are only a few companies that make money selling GPL'ed software, there are hundreds of thousands of companies that make money working with open source software. The GPL is a wonderful, money making system if you stop thinking about companies selling consumer products and start thinking about buisiness computing, where most of the money is anyway. For the most part companies require at least some custom written software to do their work and fairly often this software is written in-house, by IT employees. now, say that company x needs some custom accounting software because the current enterprise accounting software packages don't have a feature that they need. they can a) tell their IT division to drop everything they're doing for a year or two and write this accounting system or b) tell their IT division to go download a GPL'ed accounting package, spend a couple days adding the needed feature, and release their changes under the GPL. the company in question would have saved hundred of thousands of dollars in labor and the GPL'ed accounting package would have an extra feature that may benifit some other company in the future. under a closed source system, those hudreds of thousands of dollars would have been wasted trying to "re-invent the wheel".
now tell me again how it's impossible to make money off of GPL'ed software.
Try reading the article:
We say there should be an eco-system so something like VSB, which is a free form of UNIX, but it's not - -doesn't have this GPL with it, versus Linux which does -- there's a big contrast. A government can fund research work on BFP, UNIX,
Now if Bill was reading it is unlikely that he would have mistated the O/S name twice and coincidentaly used a name that sounds kinda similar.
It is pretty obvious that this is a stenography blooper if you read the article. However we can be sure that slashheads will be wittering on in years to come about 'Gates does not know what BSD is'.
Gates definitely knows what BSD is because at one stage he was reselling UNIX as Xenix. Before NT became stable Microsoft was largely a Unix shop on the development side. more recently Microsoft has ported .NET to BSD UNIX.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
"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.
Okay, I know this is going to sound a little weird and off-beat, but as I was letting my mind wind down from the sleep-deprived state of quasi-clarity it finds itself in at 3AM the other night, I wondered something to myself.
:)
What is the legal status of source code used in publications where nothing is stated as a license, such as tutorials or instructional snippets?
I would assume the answer to this to largely depend on the medium. Is it copyrighted as part of the book or website it's published on, and is it something that can be incorporated directly into other code? I humbly (and lamely) propose a simple little trick.
Perhaps this might be a case for a new form of GPL, one designed to indicate that code is completely free for use even without keeping a license note in it. I kept thinking of calling it the EGPL for Educational GPL.
The main thing that made me think about this is the unwieldiness of including the full GPL with software if you're only looking at a 1-2K program on a webpage or a page of a book. Perhaps a statement such as...
##This code is released under the EGPL (Insert short URL to license here)
...pointed to a site where the full text (probably less than a paragraph stating that you can do whatever the hell you want, and not even need to redistribute what you do, or include the above statement) is available for perusal. This way you save the distribution hassles of a license that's a formality at any rate.
But of course, it could just be a pointless idea. Like I said, I was tired.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
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.
It happens to be about things like software projects, but I write English for a living, not C++.
About some professionals being very good: I never said they weren't. See my other reply to this thread.
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
Gates is a smart man and he knows that GPL is a threat to Microsoft's business model. With GPL, code becomes more like math and science. For example, do I have to pay a license fee to use calculus or the Pythagorean theorem. No, and the inner workings of these are open to those who want to see it. So with GPL the business model of software simply changes to a more service oriented one and this is not really what Microsoft is tuned for right now.
And is scared shitless...
:-) And dual licensing works of course as well.
GPLd source is the only software engine that can stand up to Microsoft, because it cannot be stopped by the occasional business failure or frivolous lawsuits.
If governments start to seriously fund that engine, it would put some serious power behind that already significant competitor.
And don't be confused... Gates isn't for BSD licenses for any good reason, just because it suits Microsoft.. they can steal all their ONLY COMPETITOR's hard work, and give nothing back. Screw that... if someone wants to close a branch of open source they just need to plunk down some cash and dual license it.
Microsoft's true stripes? Close source BSD networking, Mosaic browser (basically, leach-embrace-and-extend), and fucking us over on CIFS which they actually pushed some time back as the "Common Internet File System" but which is now basically a non-public spec. [I say this means, as the technical community we take OUR ball and go home... we were willing to play nice and interoperate with SMB, but I guess we'll just have to replace anything networking with SMB]
We'll figure out how to make money and not go back to the farm. It's already happening:
http://www.linuxfund.org
I think that's the way it will go, but on more of a microdonation system, ala public radio or public TV model. Pacifica being the purest example of course
IT companies are not required to distribute source unless they distribute binaries outside of their organization. For most IT projects, this is not a barrier. Software companies, like Microsoft, are obviously impacted.
To a shark, you are just another food choice...
Only PCs. Actually only 686 PCs with DRM hardware. Except maybe for a few embedded processors running crippled, dumbed down versions of IE and WMP (which doesn't even do MP3, and that is not GPLed).
In a Microsoft ecosystem, innovation is an endangered specie.
I have to agree that there is an awful lot of complaining around here when people want to get paid for what they do. However, I've been exposed to a really nasty individual with the mindset that people who only use free software are freeloaders and thieves, even if the individual in question is distributing a GPLed program.
The problem is moderation, a large number of very vocal people on both sides of the commercial software "debate" are loud enough to drown out the moderate ones that actually believe both methods have a purpose.
If someone wants to release something for free, great. If someone wants to make money from it, great. If someone wants to come up with a combination of both, even better. But people who go absolutely nuts with righteousness on both sides lose track of the real goal - creating a good product.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
It's clear to me that he is lying his ass off, but there is still a message that is MS biased.
So what is Bill really saying?
Well, here is a story for you about how much is Mr. Gates on the ball...
I proposed some web development ideas to my friends back in Hungary, about 8 years ago. Initially they were excited, but then Bill Gates visited Budapest and he had a meeting with business leaders. There he told about the Internet that it was not a serious thing, it was for students to fool around.
Since then I can't help but laugh when I hear Mr. Gates' innovative views.
And so that excuses Micros~1's ethical bankruptcy?
"I suppose, if everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, you would have to jump off the Empire State Building."
As we move into a future where interconnected computers and ephemeral digital bits will become critical to everyday life, it is absolutely crucial that the architects of this future are people of good character and integrity. Micros~1 is the very antithesis of this. Because they are at the beginning of this future, and because of their size and "success", their ethical lapses are magnified by a couple of orders of magnitude. Even if Micros~1 were to vanish tomorrow, undoing the damage they've done to date would take decades.
Regardless of the magnitude of their "success" and the "shareholder value" they've created, it does not change or excuse the fact Bill Gates displays all the character and integrity of a spoiled brat. He needs to be put over someone's knee posthaste.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
We should just go home and
1) Take envelope
2) Put all our money inside
3) Send it to M$
4) Be happy since nice mr. gates explained us why they're good
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.
The biggest customer of Mickeysoft products in the world is Lockheed-Martin. They and other defense companies have had it with the hassle and unreliability of windows (expense doesn't really factor into it) and are looking hard at Linux.
If Mickeysoft's government market dries up the company will basically implode. Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a law to deny gov't purchasing agents the option of using GPL'd software.
- Night
Gates: I'm the richest man on Earth, made all my money from the software business, and I'm asking you all to develop software in such a way as to make me, an *American*, even richer.
World: Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
I must have been asleep again!
I missed that!
When did that happen????
(Whoops, should have used the preview before that last post!)
Copyright (c) [YEAR], [OWNER]
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the [OWNER] nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
* Microsoft, Inc. and its subsidiaries must pay royalties to the value of 110% of the retail price of any product which includes source code derived from this software to the [OWNER].
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
I think I understand one thing that Bill Gates & Co. is bitter about. Microsoft and its 20,000+ employees pay $billions in taxes every year, a portion of which is used by various governments to sue Microsoft for even more money, and at the behest of their competitors (in exchange for "campaign contributions") no less!
:-).
Just to add insult to injury, they're facing one hell of a competitive threat from open source crews who are giving away software, ie, not paying taxes!
Yeah, I know, the people who use the software still chip in. But Red Hat ain't exactly coughing up $gigabucks to the taxman.
I suspect he's wondering why these Democrat AG's can't figure this out.
It's one of the things I like about open source
if your universities are doing work that can be commercialized, you will have IT jobs in your country.
You mean like TCP/IP and email? Of course! Commerce means trading goods, be it money for money, product for product, or a mix.
Does commerce exist when you trade US$ 0 for a product? Yes! It's called the gift society, and among us open source developers, the product is knowledge.
Not flying around through windows, since in our enviroment there are no walls, therefore, windows are useless.
IT jobs are NOT important. What's is important, for any country, is the well-being of their citizens. It's a simple matter of choice.
And you know, I mean, M$ doesn't provide choices and <insert Slashdot zealots comments to continue>.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
In the Industrial revolution, mechanical engineers were in high demand, then they foolishly designed and built production lines that would automate and therefore remove their own jobs, they dug their own grave, placed themselves in a coffin, lowered themselves, and dynamited the grave shut. Are we doing the same?
No. In fact, I am concerned that the GPL advocates are doing the opposite!
When asked where the money will come from, many claim that they will develop software as a "service" that is "individualized to the customer". One of their allies, Larry Lessig, coined the phrase "code is law".
Where does this lead? I'll tell you where it leads: programmers become like lawyers. Linux, supposedly written by developers for developers, is much harder to use than Windows. Installing and maintaining Linux is like trying to understand tax forms some times.
Deprived of licensing revenues, developers will be drawn towards writing complex, difficult to maintain code; code that will require constant attention; code that won't be useful without a consultant. Programmers will design programs to maximize "billable hours". Coders, once the hi-tech heroes, will become just as reviled as lawyers.
Say good-bye to applications that can simply be installed. Everything will have to be "compiled to match the parameters of your network environment" and the lawyer... err... umm... consultant, will visit you and charge $200/hr to "perform the standard system integration procedures for version 5.63.2 patchlevel 5 as recommended by circular 12-422 from the Bureau of Information Technology". it will usually take 5 hours, not including phone consultations.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Taxes? What taxes? Those which would be otherwise paid by Microsoft?
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
Mr. Gates says "that for a few percent of the price of the PC you can buy a commercial operating system". Last I checked prices, we were buying computers for NASA or for the university at $1000-$1500 each. Assuming a low $70 license fee for Windows, that's 5-10%. So his 'few percent' is a bit too fuzzy for my tastes.
_Maybe_ that's a few percent. But add in any useful software (Office, say) and suddenly, you're starting to have a software budget that is at least 50% of the computer cost. And you know, computers do need software to do anything.
And if you buy MS's suggested levels of support, you're spending more than 5% on just the OS. He doesn't mention that, but they have their sales force push it. So we'll count that as hypocrisy, on top of fuzzy numbers and inaccurate statement of what computers need.
So it's disingenious for him to first get vendors to bundle in Windows and pass the cost along to the consumer as a hidden fee, then suddenly say "the OS is just a few percent" and neglect the utility of the entire computer.
His talk is scary propaganda.
A.
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"?
Netcraft confirms the truth: *VSB is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *VSB community when recently IDC confirmed that *VSB accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *VSB has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *VSB is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *VSB's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *VSB faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *VSB because *VSB is dying. Things are looking very bad for *VSB. As many of us are already aware, *VSB continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeVSB is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenVSB leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenVSB. How many users of NetVSB are there? Let's see. The number of OpenVSB versus NetVSB posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. VSB/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetVSB posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of VSB/OS. A recent article put FreeVSB at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeVSB users. This is consistent with the number of FreeVSB Usenet posts.
All major surveys show that *Netcraft confirms the truth: *Netcraft confirms the truth: *VSB is dying
Fact: *VSB is dead
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
I make money supporting GPL'd software. I know of tens of thousands of others like me.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Actually ... it's BSoD ... it happened at a Windows 98 Press conference.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
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.
Microsoft loathes the idea that they cannot sell a piece of software and keep control of it. This impossibility is why they hate the GPL so much that they have resorted to lying (although that's their forte) about it by claiming that GPL licensed software cannot be commercialized. Microsoft does not understand that the point of software -- the point of any technology, really -- is not to make money off of it but to bring it into people's lives to better our standards of living.
The +1 bonus is not a limited resource, you know, in fact it's more like a +1 sword in Ad&d. Ha! +1 vs. trolls!
graspee
If you saw Frontline last night (on what's happened to meat production in this country), the thought "feedlot" comes to mind.
As in "a cow doesn't see a blade of grass after the age of 6 months." (That cow is slaughtered by age 14 months. It used to be 5 years, but changes in feed cause the animals to mature much more quickly. Sorta like how humans are hitting puberty much earlier now.)
And "that's not black soil the cows are standing (and sleeping) on, that's a thick layer of manure."
And even the later statistics that modern meat processing techniques mean that a single hamburger patty may contain meat from hundreds or even thousands of animals. If *any* of these animals are infected, you'll get sick.
All in all, a pretty good model of the "ecosystem" Gates had in mind. Not the rich diversity of a natural forest which can withstand most challenges, but an industrial agriculture monoculture where a single case of hoof-and-mouth disease (or a single virus) can take out hundreds of thousands of animals at once. Or a single blight can take out an entire state's produce.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
[talking about generating jobs and commercializing it] 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.
Hey Bill ... NO THERE ISN'T ... even in the US, we can devote R&D to software.
AND you CAN commercialize it ... the best example is SUSE. Yes, the do give the sources (GPL), but they don't give their distribution of Linux away for free. You must purchase at least 1 copy. However, they do create a demonstration for free.
Red Hat? Ever hear of these guys? They make a distribution of Linux, and they will give it away for free, including sources (GPL). The portion they charge for is support.
You, Mr. Bill, get downright nasty if there is just 1 license out of order. And you're company makes false law claims about the licenses as well. You (and Windows) is the insidious virus that needs to be controlled.
[too bad BG doesn't read /. ... my comments go to the choir]
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
amateurs care more about their work than professionals
One point to consider is that if the amateur does not care, (s)he will most likely be doing something else.
You can get some interesting horse races between an amateur's enthusiasm and a professional's skill.
I may have certain opinions about people who want to get compensated for all their code, but that shouldn't keep anyone from doing whatever the hell they want to do.
Question: what do you mean when you say that your code is "free [as in choice], not free as in [free beer]"? My tiny little brain hurts, because it thinks "free as in freedom" implies "free as in beer".
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
While you can dismiss Bill Gates' words, things are not that simple. Microsoft is, in addition to FUD, taking legal steps to attack Free Software. The recent CIFS license is an example, and more may be coming. Microsoft can attack with patents and "technical standards", and that can significantly impact Free Software. We can dismiss the FUD, but we cannot ignore Microsoft--we need to watch their every move. This is a war.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Hmmm, how often do you have these personal conversations? Have you been taking your pills?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Of course Gates knows BSD. Where do you think he got the NT TCP/IP stack from?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Corporations just pass it on to their customers. If the government (ie, ME, MY taxes) pays for some something, I want MY say. Corporations have no right to use MY software MY taxes paid for without passing on the source to their own customers. If they want to use MY software they can pay ME back in kind.
This applies to a zillion other things too. I am really tired of universities patenting something that MY taxes paid for, then making money off royalties that I end up paying to some corporation. If some researcher uses a government (ie, MY taxes) grant to discover something, then it's MY discovery too. If researchers want to patent something or otherwise own it, they can do the research on their own time and own dime. NOT MINE.
Infuriate left and right
Um, who does that sound more like... Open Source (wherein a large, if diffuse, community exists actively sharing solutions), or Microsoft and other proprietary vendors? Have you ever tried to call Microsoft customer support? Three hour wait to hear someone tell you that you should have tried the pay-per-incident service. (Not the "pay service". You pay for customer support when you buy the product. But you only get decent support if you then pay the surcharge.) Another hour to describe the problem four times to three people. And then the "help"? Frag the drive and reinstall.
If that's the convenience of the proprietary world, give me the chaos of OSS any day.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Excuse me? First of all, mechanical engineers do not, nor did they, run the factories. There were mechanics, of course, who ran the lines. Even for unskilled labor, it was a decent job. Then the mechanical engineers came along and designed automation. Suddenly (if 150 years is suddenly) unskilled jobs could be done by machine. This of course made the mechanical engineers even more valuable. And the children of the smart mechanical engineers became civil engineers. And the children of smart civil engineers became electroincs engineers. And the children of smart electronic engineers became computer engineers.
Change happens. Deal with it. The truly worthwhile don't whine about how things are so different from before. They ride the wave and figure out the Next Big Thing, and move the rest of us there.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
In biotech, at least, this is not how it has always worked, until relatively recently. Indeed, in most government research, the results have been available as a matter of principle. Of course the government would also allow commercialization and sometimes would even fund it... it's not a perfect world. But things like patenting genes is a new "improvement" to the process.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft is really running scared. They get more goofy every time they talk about GPL and Open Source. It is probably a good sign.
It seems to me that software that is developed with public funds should not be licensed or copyrighted at all. No GPL. No BSD. It should be public domain.
I know that this is closer to what Gates is suggesting, but it seems to me that this sort of stuff should be made freely available to all to use regardless of their application.
While Gates' motives are highly suspect, the fact is that the GPL is a license that prevents many people from using code for a particular purpose. If that code were developed using funds from general revenues, I don't think that is right.
On the other hand, I would highly encourage people writing software with private funds to license code using GPL.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If they use, and profit, from government-sponsored software, the public is going to be getting a return on their investment from those taxes
My economics seem to differ from yours. You seem to think the economy is centered around the government, what goes into and comes out of government is important. By contrast, I feel the economy is centered around my wallet, what goes into and comes out of my wallet is important.
In this case I pay taxes, and the government sponsors TCP. I then pay for TCP software sponsored by the government and part of that money goes back to the government and more of it goes to some corporation.
I fail to see how having my money shared between the government and some corporation is better than me just keeping the money in the first place. Of course, I'm obviously doing something wrong considering I sweat and toil for the money I get to try and live on.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think I split a gut!
What is Bill Gates smoking? and why isn't he sharing?
Oh, right, this is Microspliff. It's probably some sort of proprietary smack.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
All that I can honestly say to that is that if the US has such a great software ecosystem, why is there so much inbreeding?
Because this time we really hear it from Bill's mouth. Before, I personally assumed that that the anti-GPL stance was just something MS's lawyers put into the EULAs. Not that I expected that Bill would embrace the GPL or anything, but I didn't realize that he was personally so worked up against it. But now we know that every line of GPL software we write is a pin in a metaphorical voodoo doll of Gates. Cool.
This guy has proven time and time again, that he has no clue what makes the computer "Ecosystem" work. from the Homebrew computer club to modern day he has seen the computing phenomenon as a means for him to work out his oedipal agressions. far from the "smartest man in the world", he is a shamless robber hack, who is an agressive capitalist at best.
Or at least his style is now very similar to pro-Microsoft trolls. He has to fix one mistake though -- it's not "farmers" but "dirty hippies". Maybe he thought that by insulting farmers he would be better understood, but he completely forgot that in countries that can't exploit their colonial empires like US does, it's usually pretty well understood that farming is an important part of the world's economy, much more important than anything his little scam in Redmond ever produced.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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.
moving on. i know of hundreds of buisiness that use free software and make a profit because of it, so while there are only a few companies that make money selling GPL'ed software,
Microsoft itself is probably among these companies.
With his farmers-by-day, guerilla-coders-by-night references it's seems as though Chairman Gates is in the grip of some kind of Viet Nam syndrome where he feels persecuted by an enemy clad in black pajamas popping out of black holes in the impenetrable jungle and killing his men with near impunity.
No matter what he does he can't get rid of them. He will lash out massacreing the very people hw claims to be saving, but still the enemy multiplies. Wherever he moves his camp he is still only a few meters from enemy held territory. Why they might be right under his feet.
He will rain bombs on the jungle.
But the jungle will just grow back to harbor and breed his enemies.
He cannot win; and he's just begining to know that he knows this. It's nauseating and terrifying, like a bad dream that just deepens and deepens almost monotonously into a nightmare, isn't it Mr Gates?
The more the dreamer struggles to awake and escape his fate it seems the more stifled he is by the fine, expensive bedclothes and the tighter sleep holds him fast.
Basically, what he's saying is that the main flaw with GPL is that it's not costing someone a lot of money. Which is precisely the beef Luddites had with the machines that made cheaper goods and depressed their wages.
/. discussion that the money doesn't just disappear - it goes to other things, generating income multiples and tax revenues. Gates just doesn't get to be part of it. That's another lovely point in favor of the GPL.
Smart guy, cataclysmically stupid argument. Money not wasted on software will be spent on other, more productive investments. Someone pointed out in a previous
Bill Gates: Spreading this knowledge is something that we are very passionate about.
ROTFL! LOL LOL LOL! Yea, thats fucking HILLARIOUS. Gates/MS, passionate about "spreading knowledge"? No, they're passionate about spreading disinformation about GPL and other free or open software. They're passionate about spreading their propaganda.
Businesses may pay taxes, but it DOES NOT COST THEM. Businesses just pass the cost of taxes on to their customers and employees. PEOPLE -- NOT BUSINESSES -- pay taxes. Any fuck who says otherwise is full of shit and just trying to find a way to rationalize corporate preferencialism.
By the way, anyone is free to USE GPL'd code. FIRST, they can use it as is, for their own needs -- with NO restrictions. SECOND, they can redevelop/improve it, provided they distribute it under the GPL license. MS is free to use GPL'ed code, so long as they distribute the prog under the GPL. *BSD is also free to do that, given they distribute under the GPL. Take note, there's NOTHING that prevents *BSD from distributing things under the GPL.
The gov't certainly should NOT fund any software or research that is not open (as in OSS) or free (as in GPL'ed software).
So the one simple rule should be that if you accept government money for your project, it MUST BE OPEN/FREE AS DEFINED BY A MINIMUM STANDARD. That is, it can either be public domain, GPL'ed, BSD'd, or any similar "license".
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
More importantly, the U.S. software ecosystem hasn't really worked all that well for anyone but Microsoft. Microsoft has the money to outspend any competitor, and they can easily crush the upstart foreign software houses. Countries that want to develop their own software industry have no choice but to foster the development of Free Software. Otherwise Microsoft will end up destroying (or purchasing) all of their software houses as well.
"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
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
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.
MS pay some taxes, but not enough to complain about their ecosystem being polluted by the GPL.
Please remember that Stallman created the GPL when he discovered the MIT AI lab having to pay a lot for software largely produced by the AI lab. Someone definitely ripped off the tax-payer there!
See my journal, I write things there
I wonder, if the GPL community was given a chance to express their views at the Government Leaders' Conference?
Free software levels the playing field.
Everybody has access to the same software, and how they fare depends only on their marketing skills, the quality of service and the richness of their offer.
Free software removes differences between the rich countries and the poor ones, because it gives access to the tools and technologies to everyone, regardless of their location, be it Bostson, Bangalore, or Moscow or Sydney. What they do with it depends on their intellectual capacity not the depth of their pockets.
I don't know why Microsoft is spending so much time and money on a crusade against GPL. Apparently it is easier for them to fight GPL than to learn the rules.
Jacek Artymiak
freelance consultant and writer
master of many a page
"He further suggests that source code availability is not generally needed, and when it is needed, Microsoft provides it."
Have I missed something?!
gates and bush know what is best for all, just grab your Microsoft flag for your left hand and an American flag for your right, shake you head up and down, wave the flags and smile. Occassional chants of "these guys is great" ( language bush understands) are also permissable. There is no need to consider anything else, they will do your thinking for you.
>>>please remove "nospam" from email address
Now shut up, get back in the fields, and till some earth. Or the King will have you drawn and quartered, and the Church will damn you to hell.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Selling closed-source software has worked, for Microsoft as well as many other companies. Consumers have for the most part benefited, PCs are cheaper and better than they've ever been.
The existence of Microsoft and the fact that PCs are cheaper and better have nothing to do with each other. PCs would be better and cheaper regardless of whether or not MS was around and to conflate the two is just propaganda.
In addition, we have no idea what the world would be like if there had been no single monopoly but instead several competing companies. No one does, including you. The only thing we do know is that sans MS the world would *still* have obtained an OS for home computers, probably several of them; MS didn't 'create' a demand here, nor would the demand have evaporated without MS.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Rebuttal Number 1:
Do you need the source code of an operating system as a user of that operating system? That is, should you be paying your people to study the intricacies of how the operating system is built and stuff like that?
No, most people don't. There's actually a easy way out of having the simple end-user getting lost in the C and asm... Err, just don't look in the code.
Besides, there's two other segments of users not being addressed here. The first is people who actually by gosh *do* need the source code. There may not be that many, but their work is usually quite important/far-reaching and it affects those who do not need the source code. The second class Mr. Gates has overlooked by his unfortunate choice of wording is those who 'want' to look at the source code. If Mr. Gates needs a clarification of why someone would want to look at source when they don't need to, then his money's no good on thinkgeek.
Rebuttal Number 2:
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
Hm, I haven't the foggiest notion what Mr. Gates is trying to say here. It seems Mr. Gates holds the basic rules of grammar in as low regard as he does the GPL. Either that or he's excited about seeing Yoda in the new episode. Or perhaps he himself has no idea what he means. If he'll wrap that last one up in proper grammar, I'll be happy to respond.
Rebuttal Number 3:
For customers who want source code -- universities, large customers -- we provide that.
Doubtful. If Mr. Gates offered source code upon demand, to universities by way of example, I think we would have seen it by now. Any half-decent university would have jumped upon an opportunity such as this. Anyone out there with a university that counts MS as a supplier? Think you could provide feedback what happens when you say "Hey, we're a university, we have a big contract with you, and we'd like the source code." ? Hmm, large customers... anyone got any really fat relatives?
Rebuttal Number 4
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?
OK, what we're saying here is that it's capitalistic gain that is the prime instigator of innovation. This means that you can't write a good book if you're not being paid shovel-loads. And you can't compose great music if you're not getting rich off of it. And you're not a decent football player unless you're playing with Real Madrid or Man U. Mr. gates, I beg to differ as strongly as possible.
Rebuttal Number 5:
And the farmers will go home at night and work on the source code. (Laughter.)
If doctors can code, I don't see a problem with farmers coding. Oh, and I'm sure a farmer would laugh derisively too at the notion of a software magnate going home to tend to his crops and feed his livestock at night too.
Rebuttal Number 6:
packaged software costs are never more than, say, three, four percent of any significant project
3-4%? What kind of computer do you base this calculation on, Mr. Gates? I can only imagine this figure would be accurate if you operated a Cray at home, or if you were referring to the cost of the RedHat CDs you bought. In other words, your math needs work as well as your grammar, I'm afraid.
# end of rebuttals - for now
As a final aside, I find it significant that most of the points in Gates' response concerned the welfare of the supplier/producer/seller. Mr. Gates appears to be wilfully disregarding that the GPL was designed to serve the user of the code, not the owner/writer. We really shouldn't let this man shift our focus away from this.
Silly man.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Did he use words like "We need to cut off GPL's air supply"?
Nader has highlighted the endemic problem in the US of copanies capitalising on the investments in research funded by tax payers. Further he has identified that corporates capitalise their profits and socialise their losses.
Gates sees no problem with this arrangement (obviously, since it has made him a billionaire) since a solution to this problem , the GPL, is an anathema to him. The government _should_ be looking for was of "infecting" their funding with attributes that mean the ouputs must remain available to the public, since they funded it.
The worm is turning.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
On Slashdot the parts about GPL are useaslly picked up in these articles. This is logical as most Slashdotters (like me) are in favour of open source and GPL. (I am part owner of a company which is building it's business around OSS software. And yes we do make a profit!)
But what I find more interesting in this article is the focus of moving away from using PC's as a glorified wordprocessor to a machine that can be used to work together. IMO most programs used today by regular users are nothing more than tools to produce dumb objects (like files in stead of data). And the networks are for storing those objects and/or moving them around.
I agree with Bill on this part that moving away from this kind of use and starting to use the networks to work together might be the thing to do in the near past.
But I think that the OSS community has a lot more experience in this. Working together via a network (the internet) is something that is well developed in the OSS world.
The same techniques and experience can be used to create models for employees to work together on I.E. important documents.
So I think in that respect, OSS might have the better cards in this development!
To me that was more imortant. The fact that Bill has trouble sleeping at night because there is such as thing as GPL is not really news to me
---
Nah, it's not dead, it just smells funny :-)
Ooh. It frosts my shorts to see how someone can use "Ecosystem" as a metaphor for a One Microsoft Way. Ecosystems require diversity to be self-regulating. Ecosystems survive ecological crises by having lots of different species, all evolving separately in their niche. When conditions change, some species suffer, while others thrive. That's a diversified ecosystem.
The open source community exhibits that kind of behavior. Some people ask "Why are there so many different Jabber clients? Shouldn't we all get together and concentrate on one good client for each OS? Not if you want a healthy 'ecosystem'... Let a thousand projects bloom... 10 might become great products. 'Natural selection' will cause a lot of them to fail, but the rest will succeed in their niche.
Opensource software development even allows for transgenic mutation, if the code is copyleft. The 'DNA' (our code), can move around, joining other projects, making robust solutions for each niche. If conditions change, some projects will suffer, but others will rise.
Bill Gates thinks that Capitalism and Innovation work, because it's worked for him. Meanwhile, $209 for Visio? What's up with THAT? It's MacDraw for Org Charts... Lemme out of "that" ecosystem pronto!
=====
My father is a blogger.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
?l, it's -- I don't mean to be facetious, but capitalism is something that's hard for me to defend, because it seems to work. (Laughter.)
E vil.html
That's like Lucifer saying, "Evil is something that's hard for me to defend, because it seems to work."
What a crock of marketing shit. He says that GPL software can't be sold. Sure it can, in the form of tech support. MS doesn't sell their software, either. They sell a LICENSE to use their software. MS always owns the code. And that's what they object to in terms of the GPL.
And in other MS news of a recent acquisition (a classic):
http://bbspot.com/news/2000/4/MS_Buys_
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Microsoft's way had been in place for the past century, there never would have BEEN the rise of technology in the US.
Gates argument, when you cancel out all the mesmerizing buzzwords is this: Code that we can't lock up with one of our "fuck you" EULA's is not good for us.
I find it amazing that they actually have the balls to go out and defend THEIR license with these inane attacks on the GPL.
The fact is, yes, you ARE bound to a certain ideology if you use GPL'ed code. That is the price you pay for it. But you always have the option to NOT use it.
Microsoft would like the open source community to change to BSD style licenses because this would mean the END of us. A BSD license lets Microsoft take what we have and not give anything back for it. And they will do it too, there is a LOT of BSD code that has been used in `Doze. Too bad they didn't use more of it, really.
A BSD license for Linux and other GNU code would doom us to being the perpetual "red headed stepchild" to proprietary software, because it means they always can take anything we have, without returning the favor.
The GPL, on the other hand, is a defense, in that the license itself is a "poison pill" that is anathema to M$'s whole business structure.
Indeed, GPL'ed software is the ONLY competition to Microsoft that can't be: bought, stolen, or marketed away.
You can't compete with Microsoft making proprietary software when they target you for elimination. Ask Netscape about this. This is because they not only compete with your application software, but they OWN the highway you have to drive on to get to your customer.
I feel this is why there is now a DEARTH of proprietary software development, and why the only place where competition for MS is happening is in the open source and GPL license community.
And, you know what? It works! Open source software, in general, ends up SUPERIOR in quality to proprietary. Look at Mozilla. Yes, it took a year too long to develop, but I'd not even THINK of going back to IE's "pop up hell" even on my `Doze machine.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Nothing is keeping ANYONE from using GPL software,
I think he ment in the sense of GPL'd code. Sure, MS can use little GPL'd utitlities, but they can't use the code unless it's for a GPL'd project. That's the point I think the poster was trying to make.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
While y'all are arguing about the GPL versus BSD versus other licenses, or the evillity of Its Billness, here's another, more important point to ponder:
This speech was given at a Microsoft convention for Governments. There, Your Representatives get hob-nobbed, pampered, as well as get their ears bent by Microsoft. That is, Microsoft gets a wonderful chance to come off as Great People® and gets to put some of their thoughts and opinions in the heads of Your Representatives.
So, when are we GPL, BSD, and Other Software Libre/Open Source Software people going to create our own conference for hobnobbing Your Representatives?
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
As for being "rabid", I suspect that RMS is considerably more flexible than, say, Brett Glass and his ilk. RMS has a goal, and generally acts in line with that goal, and sometimes that means supporting Open Source licenses instead of the GPL.
Personally, I believe that a schism between Free Software and Open Source can benefit only those who don't truly wish to see either succeed.
Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
People, individual people, will take the software and work on it. For-profit corporations, for the most part, will not
Most for profit corporations do not produce software, they just use it. The subset of companies that would be affected by the inability to sell GPL software is not all that large.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Gates is widely perceived as a capitalist, as is anyone who heads a large company and is rich. It's easy to forget that Lenin and Stalin had pretty well-to-do lives as well, and headed up their own organization.
Gates' own words:
Ah, so government should be spending taxpayer money to create jobs, instead of spending it to get the most bang per buck. I see. Thanks for making that explicit, Gates. Wow. He's saying that taxpayers should pay for software that has already been paid for, let Microsoft skim from these payments, and send what's left over back to the government, so that it can pay for schools. Yeah, that sure beats taxpayers getting software for free, and then directly funding schools themselves (instead of running Microsoft MiddleMan) with the money that's saved.Ignore Gates' use of words like "capitalist" in that speech and look what he's really saying. It's left-wing corruption, through and through.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Second, to hear the head of a shambling monstrosity like Micro$oft go on and on about how his company's products will not only cure all ills, promote domestic tranquility and generally create paradise on Earth only IF you buy..
Please, I must stop and go retch..
Why would anyone waste life debating this obvious drek? More importantly, I'd like to know what my representatives were doing there, listening to the guilty party desperately trying to convince all that will listen that no, we're not a monopoly, not really, but even if so, it's good for the country and alright for you...
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
The convicted software monopolist doesn't like the GPL.
Who could ever use another license again?
I really like Bill's argument "In a GPL world, only the farmers will pay taxes, hacking at night". It conveniently forgets that Microsoft hasn't paid income taxes in years because of stock option loopholes, and that in any case, even if they did pay taxes, the net money flow would still go from the government to Microsoft and not the other way around.
An ecosystem isn't stable if one type of organism comprises 97% of the biomass. Such an ecosystem will collapse, with the dominant organism choking on it's own waste products.
On the low end of the ease of use/flexibility range you will find OS's like Apple OS - somewhat less flexible but easier to use. On the other end is *nix which is somewhat harder to use but somewhat more flexible.
Dude, you should check out OSX. It is *nix and contains all of the power and flexibility of *nix plus the ease of use of a Mac. On top of that there are advantages of OSX that you can get in no other *nix.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
How it is that Bill Gates is able to convey messages with so much DoubleSpeak in them, using soft bunny fluffy terms like "ecosystem" and "fostering innovation" while running a behemoth that bulldozes over innovation coming anywhere but from Microsoft, I figured I let you in on the secret.
He never finishes coherent sentences. His speech is riddled with hyphens, discontinuities that make it possible to say such things.
[According to Hard Drive, he refers to this manner of speaking as "high bandwidth" and actually "converses" with Steve Ballmer using this language.]
I doubt the court will be so enamored of it, though.
"Provided by the management for your protection."