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."
If you don't like copylefted software, you can always WRITE YOUR OWN CODE.
Yes, I know; many people have said this before me. And Gates' point is that governments shouldn't subsidize copylefted software, not that free software should be outlawed or anything like that.
While I'll be happy to see any source of money go to fund free software development, and I think that if the government does fund development it should fund only free software and preferably copylefted software, I personally don't feel the need to have the government subsidize it. The government subsidizes too many things already. I'll be happy for the government to not subsidize copylefted software, as long as it doesn't subsidize proprietary software, either.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I'm convinced that amateurs are usually better at most things than professionals, for the simple reason that they care more.
As an example: I write professionally. This is a Friday afternoon -- my productivity level is dropping toward zero. But I am taking the time to make (semi-)intelligent comments on slashdot. Why? Because at slashdot, I'm an amateur. I'm in this because I feel like it, not because I'm being paid to do it.
OT: perhaps that's why Taco et al are so unproductive at their jobs? Because it is just "a job" for them? Hmmm... interesting concept.
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
Mr. Gates is hardly a revolutionary.
;-)
A businessperson, yes. A good businessperson? Of course; he's evil enough and it's hard to argue that his company is not monetarily successful.
But calling Mr. Gates a computer revolutionary? Oh dear God no. The only significant contribution that he personally made was decades ago while working in his dorm room, and even then Paul Allen probably did most of the tech work (this is a fact, not an inciteful comment).
I'd also wager that the VSB error was one resulting from poor transcription of his speech rather than him being an uninformed idiot when it comes to open source and free software, althought I'd certainly get a kick out of him confusing Lunix and STD or something
- Eric
Founder, monolinux.com
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
?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.
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
The convicted software monopolist doesn't like the GPL.
Who could ever use another license again?