Slashdot Mirror
Slides Of Microsoft Anti-GPL Advocacy
An anonymous reader links to these slides outlining Microsoft's position on Free software licenses, in particular the GPL, writing "Regarding the latest memo from MSFT, the current politics is to be against 'copyleft' type licensing... Protecting freedom is fundamental for Free Software and MSFT knows that. They don't want licenses that protect our freedom." Makes an interesting companion piece to the anti-OSS memo mentioned the other day.
Impress!!! to create the presentation :)
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
What good is this to my lynx browser?
Kidding aside..
It's just a bunch of jpg's on a non MS site. Just pointing out the obvious, what verification do we have these came from M$?
Please tell me and don't mod down, I think I have a very valid question here.
Stop equal Free Software with freedom, you don't really have much more freedom than with closed software, infact, in many cases you have much less.
Diversity is good, but GPL is the wrong route as it kills diversity.
Go public domain!
Not fp, spam.
A lot of time, softwares are developed by the Academia and heading straight to the consumer. And those software are usually distributed freely for non-commercial use (sometimes they are free for all).
Apparently the Industry (a.k.a. Micro$oft) want the finding and development to go through the industry first.
One motive: MONEY
Yes, you too can believe anything and everything that is posted on the internet! Especially when someone claims it was created by MSFT! Anyone can whip up some slides, take pictures of them, and post them on a random web site.
Considering ESR's Halloween VIII stressed that decrying the GPL was so ineffective for MS, even their market researches knew it.
I think the Visual Studio .net ad that popped up when I opened the comments page explains Microsoft's position well enough....
There was a long period in which Microsoft did not suck. This ended in 1991 or so, at which point they had the money to be total fucking cockbiters to everyone in their path. Shortly thereafter their software quality went waaay down.
Word 5.1 for Macintosh is the best word processor I've ever used.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
And why should they care about your freedom unless there is money to be made in the process? They are, after all, a business, not a charity.
They want a liscense that protects their freedom to charge for their work!
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
It seems someone at Microsoft has sat down and thought long and hard about this. I'm certainly not one of MS bigger fans, but I think they pretty much got this one right.
Naturally, they don't like the fact that they can't take something under the GPL and integrate into their own products, like they have with BSD-licensed code. And, on some level, they have a very good point about products of research that are released under the GPL. The only value they have to any company working on a closed-source product is as an example, while a BSD-style license would have allowed them to take the existing code and adapt it.
In this aspect, the GPL actually harms interoperability and if the purpose was to give the research results a wide impact, releasing them under the GPL would be counterproductive.
I live under no illusions that all software will one day be open source, and perhaps it would be a good thing for people to think an extra time about the consequences of their choice of license.
For standalone programs, the GPL makes a lot of sense, but perhaps BSD-style licenses are more appropriate for prototypes and example implementations. Perhaps also the operating systems themselves, but that's a harder call.
Slide 1: Title of the presentation with Microsoft logo
Slide 2: The Software Ecosystem
The flow of shared knowledge goes in a circle.
Diagram shows customers to government to academia to industry and back to customers.
Slide 3: The Business of Software
subtitle: Source Code Licensing
another diagram showing the interactions between source code - Core IP on the left and business model with usage rights and binaries on the right. Arrows showing development, support, deployment, and audit connect the two.
Slide 4: The Open Source Software Model:
complex mix of elements
has produced some great software
has both benefits and drawbacks like any model
Diagram showing "development model" surrounded by "philosophy", "business model" and "licensing"
Finally, somebody please mirror these images, the bandwidth on that site is getting sucked dry.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
...sounds an AWFUL lot like Richard Stallman... ;)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
what is the correct moderation when a 50% Flamebait comment is 100% Insightful?
See, Microsoft is a Big Evil Company. Their interest isn't making money, it's robbing people of their freedom. Withness the Internet Explorer debacle. Microsoft knew that I wasn't going to make them a nickel, but they released it for free so that they could take away our right to someone else's browser. Shit howdy, man, they don't care if they lose every nickel they've got so long as they get to keep robbing us of our rights!
Don't you see, man? They're eeeeevil. So evil that anyone who alleges that they did something evil is automatically right. So evil that when they release good software we must overlook the fact that the software is good and instead focus on how they are bad.
Microsoft operates the world's largest kitten and puppy grinding facility! Fact!
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
For a good time call goatse.
here
Bandwidth sponsored by danish research funding...
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
of refusing to give software away for free in order to drive a competitor out of business, and I, for one, applaud them for taking this courageous stance for capitalistic freedoms.
Shoe? Meet other foot.
KFG
Looks like it's been /.'d...
Dude, where's my packet?
The slides look real and consistent with prior microsoft positions. (i.e. Their move to prevent gov't funded software from being GPL'D).
They do as always play the unasked question game very well.
1. IF closed source development has driven the economoy what's to say open source won't provide a better driver.
2. Where is the benefit of shared source except in allowing customers to work to benefit the vendor ?
> This statement is slashdot idiocy at its finest.
> GPL'd software isn't "free", it comes with strings
> attached. What's wrong with pointing that out?
The GPL is one of the few licences that enforces a user's freedom, rather than the developer's. The BSD licence maintains a developers right to take and use code, the GPL keeps maintains a user's right to look inside the code they are using.
> Microsoft doesn't really need to any help to
> make OSS advocates look stupid, the overeager
> religious zealots do that job just fine.
Microsoft dislikes the GPL so much because it gives freedom to users rather than developers.
We all know MS is bad and they are hard at work on Evil Master Plan v1.0, but where I seriously see Linux going in the next few years is gaining ground on other unix vendors. At my workplace we use AIX and Solaris running Apache and a large number of Java Apps. There is no reason we could not use Linux. I am told making the switch is in the project plan for within the next 5 years.
I am looking forward for linux to become the definitive unix because at that point we can really start inovating and changing the commands we all know and love. For instance, besides for backwards compatability there is really no reason why no two console tools can't support the same set of regular expressions or command line options that are standard (maybe -V is always version and -D is always debug, etc). I'd also love to see something along the line of perl6's attributes for return codes for commands, e.g. after running cvs update it would be cool if it not only returned 0 for success, but if there was some way to tell if it actually updating any files (I know I can do this by parsing its sysout, but I'm trying to make a point that commands could return more complex structures that we could programatically interrograte).
I love grep, sed, bourne shells, and the gang but it would be very cool if the typical command line experience was a little more cohesive.
I've used linux and various unixes for about 5 years now and fee pretty comfortable, but maybe this is where we could really shine.
I realize there are plenty of efforts to modernize shells and command line tools, but I don't forsee them making much ground as if linux was drastically different from what I used at work, it probably we be a plaything at home, rather than a platform for study and to increase my skills.
It seems clear to me that the command line is superior to gui in terms of speed and efficiency for knowledgable users. What I'd like to see now is a set of tools (and shell) without such a drastic learning curve and also without loosing the power that unix has.
And yes, I realize that this is probably an impossible dream as OSS was forged in chaos. But who knows, stranger things have happened.
You know, one of those autonomous drones that runs around looking for any sign that Microsoft is evil or websites by some guy who knows someone who once visited the Peruvian embassy saw this guy who said he ran linux.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
I'm glad some people finally understand that the battle isn't about markets or choosing a software license, but freedom. All to often people think that free markets are about markets, and not freedom. But just the opposite is true, when a society has healthy freedoms - the markets tend to take care of themselves.
There is an old saying, a nation can't be half slave and half free - but only all slave or all free. Unfortunately, alot of people don't understand this about copyright controlls. They think that choosing a software license is like going to the store and choosing between pears and apples or between painting your room yellow or pink - that it's just about preference. Well, it is not, and it is so fusterating to see how people refuse to consider the long term consequences of their own belief systems.
The simple truth is copyright controlls are untenable without massive free speech restrictions like the DMC0A (and beyond), and information is so easy to manuipulate and change form - that it can't be controlled unless all of it is controlled.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Source Licensing Debate (continued)
Slide 10:
Areas of Concern
Box to the left of text contains 4 boxes saying:
General Public License (GPL)
Ecosystem Health
Commercial Software
Government Policy
Don't think so... GPL protects the software's freedom. It makes the software free, but takes away your freedom to modify GPL'd software and release it without the source code for your modifications. The BSD license gives the most freedom to software developers, people are free to do whatever they want with BSD-licensed software.
First off the number of software companies vs other sectors is really small. I work as a porogrammer / sysadmin at a manufacturing plant. Do we really care if it is bad for microsoft when we use GPL software. No we care about reducing overhead thus lowering the cost of manufacturing thus allowing us to take bigger price cuts on our products while maintaining the same level of profit. Linux makes us competitive in our industry and this is why we use it, religion is not the issue but simple economics is. Furthermore do I want to sit at home each night and write some code for MS so that they might be able to sell it back to me and or overcharge my company for it. No thanks I will choose the GPL!
Got Code?
Microsoft kix azz all u linucks bitchez!!!
... I've at least kicked their software off my computers. Well, except the Win98 I have to keep on the disk for tax reasons, of all things!
You don't say? I think it looks like MS is getting its ass kicked
Slide 17 (last):
Microsoft(R) (logo)
Dirk Tombeur
Microsoft Belux
dirktom@microsoft.com
http://www.microsoft.com/sharedsource
Starting work on 15+16 now...
No the GPL ensures that some slug is not going to compile in my library and try to sell me back my own code. The GPL is my reward in knowing that I not going to be taken advantage of.
Got Code?
Linux community and many open source projects simply use GPL without much thinking, but that prevents people from writing commercial software and using that existing code in their code.
The author makes up again, as we all know. GPL prevents people from writing commercial software. I think GPL is one of the primary reasons why open source will not be as successfull as it was expected to be. Nobody seems to think about it, but as a software developer, why should I write a commercial software for Linux, rather than Windows. A software developer spends days and nights to build a nice software, but he/she can not release it for Linux, because many projects are GPLed, so he/she can not incorporate that code into his/her own and also some so called open source advocates oppose commercial software. Overall it is better to work for Windows platform. After all of these issues, some people will still accuse Microsoft of using tactics to hurt open source, but the fact is that it is these people who hurt open source.
To me, the citizen, GLP'd research/programs/code/technology/whatever ensures that imrpovements in the whatever are kept in the public domain, which benefits those of us that made the investment in the whatever in the first place. As a developer, if I'm going to be contributing to an open source project, I'd rather have it be a GPL or LGPL'd one to make sure that my contributions stay with the project and aren't taken into something that I don't approve of. Now if it's something that I'm writing for myself, I'd rather have the option of dual liscencing the project to allow me to choose the best usage for my project at that time, while still keeping it available for others to see and use, as I allow.
Different schemes for different purposes, but if it's public financing that helps create something, then the public should have continuing access to that something inperpituity.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
I like the bit about "Open Standards Have Become A Point Of Confusion" ... Isn't that the point of open standards? I mean, you could always cruise around for a while and figure out an open standard is, but for closed standards, I suppose you'd have to just trust what the company that created/supports it says instead of learning about it yourself.
Yeah yeah, I guess J. Random Consumer isn't gonna want to search Google to find out what the hell IMAP is and how it works, but I rather like that the information, any information is out there somehwere in a clear form for me to read.
In the sixth slide, it says that the GPL is 'Known in the OSS community as a "viral" license.'
Totally regardless of whether or not the GPL is viral, isn't this the description that Microsoft came up with?
I'm confused. Who first described the GPL as viral? MS? RMS? Somebody else?
Also here.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Freedom to buy out
Freedom to monopolize
Freedom to restrict
Freedom to blackmail
Freedom to extort
Freedom to bribe
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
What makes you think that I want you to have my code in your closed source project. I could give a rats ass if you like my choice in licensing. It is my code not yours, if I want to use the GPL then by god I will use the GPL.
Got Code?
Box to the left of text contains 4 boxes saying:
General Public License (GPL)
Ecosystem Health
Commercial Software
Government Policy
Areas of Concern
R&D
Software Industry Growth
Slide 16:
Choice of Models -
Choice of Software
That's it from me for now. Somebody else must do the rest.
At my workplace we ... run[ning] . . . a large number of Java Apps. There is no reason we could not use Linux.
My understanding is that the Linux threading model (pthreads actually map to processes that share memory space instead of "true" kernel threads) doesn't really work well with Java, since it's easy to generate Java threads, they map to processes, and you swamp the computer. The next Linux (2.6 or 3.0 whatever it's called) I believe has better threads, something more like kernel threads. Please someone corect me if I'm wrong, I'm interested in this too.
but it would be very cool if the typical command line experience was a little more cohesive.
I love the command line too, but there are limitations. The data is constrained to be a stream. All data has to be marshalled and unmarshalled to the constraints of the the streams. The only "metadata" organization you can have is whitespace and maybe some headers. These are constrained to be in the same stream and need to be extracted from the normal data. Pretty much the entire reason for awk is parsing the output of commands and rearrange them to be the proper input for other commands. Having all these commands constrained to streams makes for a lot of interoperability but you lose a lot of context. The simplicity of a stream is somewhat countered by the occasional need to use another tool (like awk) within a pipe. I wonder what an XML-aware toolchain would look like. Would having the extra context of XML input/output improve certain tasks (after the learning curve) or would the complexity be too heavy for even power users to use on any consistent basis? Might be an interesting research project for some school.
The other major limitation of the pipe heavy shell is that the pipe has no knowledge or control of internal program state. You can control initial program state (inputs, command line args) but thats it, everything else is pretty much controlled by the program's internal state machine, and not by you. Again awk helps a little - a pipe friendly program that allows programming looping and conditional constructs, but you're stil limited. AppleEvents are very interesting. They allow you to pass data, structured data, from program to program, and allow the script to interact with the programs internal state while it's running. I'm sure VBA is something like this as well, but I have no experience with it.
I'm not sure if Linux can ever have this. Too many disparate developers. No one to really "bless" a single scripting language, so there are multiple. Linus has repeatedly said he doesn't really care about the userland, so it won't be from him, maybe RedHat will bless something. But that still doesn't mean developers will use it. Both Apple and MS have certification programs. To get an Apple/MS logo, you have to submit it, and follow some APIs, including AppleEvent or VBA compatibility. Linux doens't have that, won't have it any time soon, and probably never will.
And so this article *really* lends credence to the anti-OSS memo. ;)
Aren't some of these articles and whole lot of fun?
Why would you conclude this post is a troll? The OP ends with "Go Public Domain!". He's knocking the GPL, not free licensing in general. And he's right -- the GPL is restrictive compared with other licenses (LGPL, BSD, PD) since it places requirements on the derivative work product. Not a big deal for applications, but when applied to a library, the GPL would appear to preclude closed-source application development (or maybe not -- see yesterdays /. article). Whatever you think of CS development, this is a significant restriction which (for CS developers) can be a more onerous restriction than a commercial license (depending on the terms).
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
Even if this authentic, so what?
Microsoft isn't allowed to be opposed to a particular software license?
I see people on here every damn day saying that they don't like Sun's license for Java, Apple's APSL, BSD, etc. but Microsoft doesn't like the GPL, they are evil.
I suggest you people take a look in the mirror, and see if you can spot the hypocrite.
I've been wondering why, and how, ms keeps slipping up and these "unintended discharges", i.e. "Halloween" memos, now this (if it is authentic), etc. Is it a clever marketing ploy? Or is it a sign of rot from within? If or when the so-called mainstream press starts to pick up on these stories, ms will be even more worried, and I predict even more unintended releases.
It's free markets... not free software. Communism is so passee.
Look at the scoreboard, dumbass. 95% versus 5%.
Would have been nice if the crucial parts of the slides where attempts to rationalize why GPL is bad weren't too blurry to read.
To all those who say that we won't know that someone from microsoft actually made this, I agree. The only way Microsoft will claim that this is theirs is by saying that it was the work of a "rogue employee" or something similar, please note the much-celebrated-on-slashdot Microsoft switch campaign.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
Micro$oft doesnt use Transparencies.. they use DLP projectors. who ever believes this crap ... well uh... Gulable
but think.. M$ has to much money to send out their team with transparencies..
Freaky Schitt always happens to me... WHY God WHY!!
It's dirktorn@microsoft.com
Repeal the DMCA!
What the hell??? Do you work for Microsoft!? It is well known what Microsoft has done in the past. Why NOT believe this time? Even if it's BS, this seems like something MS would do in a second and it's better to be safe than sorry. Based on their past how can anyone now be paranoid and suspect of those pigs at every turn?
Obviously identifies him as a troll. Many institutions (and even the FSF) had problems being burned with software being placed in public domain - that's why the current free software licenses require you to copyright your work. The most famous example of this abuse is probably Gosling Emacs. James Gosling originally distributed the source code as public domain, and GNU Emacs used some of that source code. Then Gosling decided to sell the program and source to Unipress, which took objection to this and so all the Gosling Emacs source had to be purged from GNU Emacs. Supposedly, several universities were prevented from distributing their public-domain software after some companies started selling commercial derivatives, although I haven't personally heard of a specific case.
In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I cannot stand it when people confuse freedom with free (as in price). The GPL isn't 100% *free* as in the definition of the term "freedom". The GPL has a nasty restriction, and even one restriction means it is not free (as in freedom). As we all know the GPL forces you to make any modification availabel to the original writer. In the end, GPL code is only usefull in academic environments, from whence it came at MIT. You can read code, learn from it, and go reimplement it away from the infected GPL code. This is the same reason many unix guru's tend to use oe of the BSD's over one of the Linux distro's, its the BSD license! In BSD you can look at thge code, get ideas, and go copy it. Or you can simply use the existing BSD code, and skip a step in the process.
There are some good examples of GPL code that is good, and the fact that it is licensed under a restrictive license doesn't take away from the usefullness of the program. I speak of the GCC tool chain, and many more (too many to mention). Many of these tools are so good that its simply not worth the effort to clean room copy the tools.
So it could be argued that GPL is not suitable for certain things. STuff like protocals, audio/video codex, and device drivers. Where the GPL would be perfect for userland applications. A good example of this argument would be the reasons why the Ogg/Vorbis programes decided to convert the vorbis codex form GPL to BSD license. The GPL was too restrictive, and would prevent chip fabricatin fo the codex for portable players, etc. A Network protocal shoudl be free of restrictions for the same reasons as the audio codex: hardware implementation! Device drivers that exist only as a GPL implementation are no good to other alternative OS users, such as BeOs back in the day didn't ahve as many network drivers as linux, but couldnt' use the existing linux drivers because they would force Be to expose its proprietary code (that it sold).
We sometimes have to remind ourselves that the entire computer industry would not be where it is today without the openness of computer programers back in the early days. This open spirt existed way before any GNU license existed, and that was good enough for us then, good enought now.
Companies like microsoft don't nessicarily see our GNU stuff as a threat to them, but a threat to computer programming in general. To clarify, I think Microsoft biggest fear is to be in a world where all code is saturated by a gnu encumberance, and one could not modify any code without being forced to publish the modifications. A world so utterly GPL that it collapses upon itself into stagnation.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
It has nothing to due with America and freedom. Someone is needs to stop spiking your coffe. They have a VERY valid point. Government sponsorship of GPL will give an artificial benefit to OSS ( OSS != GPL ). Thereby reducing the competiveness of the companies in America to compete with other countries ( which due provide corporate sponsorship, remember America does not as a practice sponsor business to increase competativeness, why should they due the opposite with a GPL approach. What's wrong with BSD or something like that Apple's approach. Is it even needed ?
Finally, somebody please mirror these images, the bandwidth on that site is getting sucked dry.
Do a gnutella on Microsoft Slides.
This is news for nerds not news for jocks... nobody give a fuck.
You haven't read the GNU General Public License.
"without being forced to publish the modifications"
This is only when there is distribution.
You can keep secret modification and privacy is respected.
Equity is the important point of the GNU GPL and some other "copyleft" type license.
What you have to do is to touch LC_COLLATE env-var and set it to be C, not en_US as probably RedHat set it (if not set, it inherits from LANG and others). That way you get ASCII sorting back.
Users don't have a right to look at the code they're using unless the developer of the code grants them that priviledge.
This is not about "freedom". Source code has nothing to do with freedom.
You don't even need a computer to be free.
I'm quite open to the idea that governments should consider creating software under X11/BSD-style licenses. But I think working with software under Microsoft/Sun-style "shared source licenses" is completely unacceptable because those kinds of licenses favor a single vendor; this should not only be discouraged, it should be made illegal: no government sponsored researcher should be permitted to create software under such agreements. The GPL may not allow commercial use of software developed by researchers, but it is equitable and fair to all commercial competitors.
So whats wrong here? IMHO the fact that today microsoft is still a monopoly in software land, and the fact that US law is not abided by the current surpreme court. The sherman act to be more precisely.
Robert
Now, I gather in the US, the present legislation means that publicly-funded software development must be placed in the public domain, which would seem to exclude the GPL.
The question though, is much more fundamental; should publicly-funded software development be "public domain"?
On one hand, people have paid the taxes that funded the development, so they should get all the benefits. The most efficient way of doing this is to make the software Free and make sure that derivative products stay Free. And, as a bonus, it doesn't even stop proprietary software manufacturers from learning from it.
On the other hand, proprietary software manufacturers pay taxes too, so they should have the same rights.
On the other, other hand, most corporations of Microsoft's size actually pay very little in the way of tax, and will employ embrace-and-extend strategies given half the chance. Eventually, this screws over the state and therefore the people as a whole.
For these reasons, it's my belief that publicly-funded software development should be licensed under GPL-like licenses, unless there's a compelling reason not to do so. And the original developer and a proprietary software manufacturer are always at liberty to agree a mutually agreeable alternative license if the main license doesn't suit the latter party.
An example of code which should probably be released under a LGPL or weaker license would be software to handle a new file format or a new network protocol. In these cases, it's probably more efficient to license it under a more PD-oriented license such as the LGPL or BSD license so that the code may be re-used and the likelihood of incompatible deviations from the reference implementation greatly reduced. In brief; "use the right license for the job" - even RMS wrote something along these lines, but I can't seem to find it right now...
--
Why not believe this time?
/. visitors who, like yourself, think that anything purported to have come from MSFT must have, that MSFT is the evil empire, that MSFT internally acts and speaks differently than any other company in existence (sorry folks, but Halloween memos read like just about any memo inside just about any technology company), and so on and so forth.
Simple: We have no information to prove whether or not MSFT created these slides.
I am not a MSFT shill. I am, however, growing largely irritated by the large percentage of
I saw someone smashing the windows of the community centre across the street a little while back. I couldn't quite make out their face, but since I don't much like you I'll just assume that you did it and run around telling my friends about what you did. Do you think that's fair? Your treatment of MSFT is no different.
One of the main points in M$'s argumentation is that the GPL hurts the industry, because you cannot write commercial apps based on GPL software, but the GPL is not the only Open Source license and most reasonable OS libraries are licensed under the LGPL or similar licenses that allow developing commercial software.
Open source developers simply have to choose an appropriate license for their project when they start. And if they find out that they chose wrong there is still the possibility to change the licensing terms. A very prominent example for such a license change is the Wine project that changed it's license from X11-like to LGPL recently.
If a company finds an OS library useful for their own project, but they cannot use it, 'cause it's GPL, they can still contact the author and ask for different licensing terms. They'll probably have to pay for that then, but they'd have to pay for a commercial product, too. So even GPL'd libraries are not really a hurdle for commercial software development. A good example for such dual licensing is ReiserFS, which is published under the GPL, but sold under different licensing terms to companies that want to use it commercially.
Yes, transcription may be useful but transcription with commentary is more interesting. For example, look at the file "img_223r.jpg" On the lower slide headed "Areas of Concern". The authors display their bias when they paraphrase one of
the terms of the GPL as:
"Any GPL code can be copied and redistributed at no cost, may charge for cost of distribution"
It's my understanding that although the above is true, that's not the whole picture. As I see the GPL, any code can be copied and redistributed at no cost, at the cost of distribution or at any cost a buyer is willing to pay as long as all the other terms of the GPL are honored.
This thoughtful presentation missed this point among others I'm sure.
Quid, me anxius sum?
Maybe if you weren't an uncoodinated dork, you wouldn't be having a hissy fit.
For me, the most interesting slide was the bottom half of img_0224r.jpg, (Areas of Concern) where it says: "Primary research results placed under the GPL are precluded from commercial use: TCP/IP example".
I'm wondering if this translates to "We are concerned, because we can't charge people royalties for every packet they send." I would have loved to have heard the commentary that went with that slide.
Even if it is legit, that doesn't mean it's true, or even what Microsoft believes is true.
In other news, Nike is defending their right to lie about shit (as Doc Searls so eloquently put it), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Exxon/Mobil, Monsanto, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Bank of America are supporting them.
If they win in court, maybe Microsoft can beat Linux once and for all by simply stating that a Linux license costs $100 more than an XP license.
Is this not a great country?
Accordingly, friends of mine who use Microsoft products don't use Linux; few have tried it (and honestly don't like it), but most are either ignorant of the facts or have partaken of the flavor-ade, as it were, but a few still don't know just what Linux is.
My point? If you don't like either alternative, build your own operating system or shut up.
Mod me down if you will, but you know that's where it's at.
I think sarcasm is becoming lost in its true intended form. Granted one cannot hear a physical tone of voice in text. But I think my statements were just outlandish enough so no one could ever take them seriously. Silly me.
I wish there was some there was some way that I could be outside playing basketball, in the rain, and not get wet.
Well, two points:
(i) Linux processes are about as heavyweight as NT threads!
(ii) Java threading on Linux pre Java-1.4.1 sucked because Solaris threading is different to linux, and the Sun Java was basically a recompile of Solaris's source (admittedly with some non-trivial work by blackdown).
Linux threading is basically:
There are processes. Processes can share memory pages. A thread "in" a process is a process with every memory page shared with the other process.
This is interesting - because, actually, linux processes can allow much finer-grained control than just a thread/process distinction - one can choose from a spectrum in between the two.
Linux 2.6 will include a new scheduling algorithm which will make large numbers of processes/threads multitask better with less overhead - so making it more suitable for java too.
I've always HATED the stupid "M$" text that people use when talking about Microsoft. They want to make money - good for them. HOW they go about it has proven problematic/wrong/illegal/whatever, but the motive is the same for all companies - make money.
No one is suggesting propping up a company at the expense of another - certainly not in this thread.
Please lose the $, or use it evenly:
$un
Net$cape
$ear$
$BC
$pirit
$am$ Club
$heraton
etc
creation science book
Partially - it depends on the product. Certaily the OEM version will have more restrictions because the OEM got a lower price. My storebought Win2k doesn't have the restrictions you're talking about - I can wipe it from a machine, sell the machine, and reinstall the Win2k disc on a new machine. I paid $190 for that version tho, which is probably much more than Compaq paid for a 98 OEM version. Lower price = more restrictions.
creation science book
-> Not mentioning the benefit that (only) open source is free-as-in-beer.
Photo #22 (bottom): "Open standards have become a point of confusion".
-> So the correct thing to do is use Microsoft's proprietary standards?
Photo #24 (bottom): "All software companies must carry significant legal overhead to protect against GPL infection".
-> Otherwise all companies (not just software ones) must carry significant legal overhead to protect against BSA raids.
"90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad reputation." --Henry Kissinger
In fact, had many of the doubters looked through the slides they would have found an MS webpage URL on the last one. Checking this URL shows that it is indeed an MS page. Currently it redirects directly to a page on "shared source" and licensing that includes a pointer to a word doc covering MS's analysis of the GPL.
The slides are a dumbed-down, idiot's version of the longer discussion and look to be developed for marketing presentations - probably directed toward upper management types considering the pros and cons of the issues. The slides present a view that the GPL is probably good for some (individuals, small developers) but bad for business and "innovation."
One implication is that if code is GPL'd, companies can't grab it (e.g. government produced data and software) and then proceed to profit freely from releasing it through closed licensing schemes protected by the DMCA. Innovation seems in the context to consist of taking ideas and data from tax-dollar funded sources (academia and gov't) and passing it on to the customer, efectively making the user pay twice for the right to use the product. There is nothing revolutionary or self-evidently out character for MS in the slides except perhaps an unusually "liberal" view of OSS, and a blundering failure to appropriately present the "ecology" of innovation
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
You can look at the GPL and write your own proprietary implementation. But a lot of source code from companies like Microsoft and Sun software is licensed under agreements that "contaminate" you; that is, you can't develop a competing implementation because the presumption will be that you copied stuff from their source code. They also contain lots of other clauses that "infect you", like with an indefinite possibility of getting dragged into a law suit between Microsoft or Sun and a third party.
Notice how the last slide says "Microsoft belux" instead of "Microsoft benelux"
Excellent point.
After alll the announcement is in French.
This statement is slashdot idiocy at its finest. GPL'd software isn't "free", it comes with strings attached. What's wrong with pointing that out?
Do you ever point this out at the supermarket?
Sign on the wall: "Buy one get one FREE!"
You: YOU FOOL! YOU HYPOCREET! That roll of toilet paper isn't FREE! Look at the copyright notice! YOU CAN'T COPY THE PACKAGING OR THE DESIGN! Only BSD TOILET PAPER IS *TRULY* FREE!
I guess when the person talking (RMS) is an unyielding whiner, everybody who disagrees with him has to turn into one too, even if they only disagree with a tiny little part of what he's saying.
Our Linux production servers run heavily threaded Java apps. We end up with tons of processes thereby making top mostly unusable, and we had to write scripts to kill all the "threads" in a "process", but aside from those minor annoyances they work pretty well.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Computers are cheap enough, and powerful enough for individuals to be thier own research and development shop, bypassing both Academics and Industry and directly publishing.
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE the issue here with objections to the GPL.
I don't think the powers that be, namely Microsoft, believe that the individual has the right to create software, manufacture it, and then NOT COMPETE on the same terms as Microsoft does.
(i.e. freely distribute it.)
They are trying to convince us that, only Academia, and Industry can be the focus of great ideas, and therefore they should only be the ones that decide how we are to value Intellectual Property legally.
I think this is VERY similair believe it or not to what the RIAA is trying to fight.
Think about this:
A independant band, decides it wants to make music and sell it on the internet, with no distributor. (They build a web site and sell there own music through P2P technology.)
No Recording studio. (i.e. they hook up a bunch of Mac OS X machines with Cubase and make there own recording studio...)
Enter the RIAA. They see the internet as a possible tool for making them irrelevant, therefore they lobby and inact laws to make it illegal to use P2P technology to distribute Music over the internet.
With such technology illegal, they can preserve thier tight hold on distribution, and insure no indepedant bands become to widely popular or compete with thier distribution network.
----With a twist
Independant software developer, Linux Torvalds, builds and designs an Operating System kernel, and publishes it directly on the internet.
(He decides he will distribute it for free and NOT sell it.)
He has no research facility, he uses no Academic or Business computing facilities to make the software, instead, he uses and builds his own tools and buys the required hardware himself...(or uses his Dad's computer at home.)
10 years later, after giving it away...enter Microsoft.
Microsoft decides this software will destroy its distribution and control over the entire US software industry. They lobby to enact laws including the DMCA, to stop free software.
They begin Marketing and FUD campaigns with there customers to educate them why it is better to pay for software, and to make illegal not to pay for software, and only software built through IP property sources such as Academia->Industry->User.
More importantly, they say that this change toward OS will destroy the future economy. The facts in the internet boom do not bear this out by the way.
I would like to remind people here, that the internet boom was due to ENTIRELY FREE SOFTWARE released under the GPL: (i.e. the orginal CERN HTTP server and Web browser...)
Did the last 5 years destroy the US software industry? In 1998 for example, did you find it HARD to feed and clothe yourself because this software didn't go through Microsoft's slide presentation of ACADEMIA->INDUSTRY ?
I am starting to see a pattern, all of it do to the internet. Which, I hope everyone can see here is ACCLERATING the pace of technology through:
Sharing information for free. Free OS's accelerate the use of software, making it penetrate new markets much more quickly as there is no cost barrier.
A good example of this is web server/web browser software. They are free, and they created a HUGE demand in hardware, short term anyway, both for servers and of course for workstations to run browsers adequately.
I believe, information sharing for free generates FAR MORE revenue opportunity than through what Microsoft has proposed in those slides.
However, that opportunity is now no longer centered strictly around the manufacturer of the software.
I believe that we are at the tip of the iceberg here. I further believe that eventually, software ALL software will be so easy to produce due to tool advancements, better education that it will, like hardware become a commodity item.
In the end, these slides represent the fear of the software industry. That is, that software, I mean software that drives the revenues or the control of government, will no longer be ONLY AVAILABLE through research institutions or industry.
In fact, software will be very prevalent and easy to come by and cheap to come by, through the internet. For free or at very low cost.
So what will happen 10 years from now?
Here are my predictions, and I am gearing my company up for this NOW:
1) Most if not all software, will be sold on a labor basis, not on a shrink wrap basis.
That is, you hire someone to write your software because all of the software for doing business is basically free. (i.e. you use open source business apps which are standardized and since everyone uses them, it is easier to exchange documents with your vendors over the internet. If they don't have the software they can just download it.)
2) Shrink wrap software will exist, but it will be for vertical niche's, and highly focused.
(i.e. Mathematica for example).
But, in the end, software that has built billion dollar industries, will become free. The reason is the internet allows people to organize, much as what a company does for profit, but at a much lower cost. Which is an interesting thought?
What will happen to companies if the internet is ultimately allowed to evolve through the free use of information? Perhaps, dare I say, companies will become obsolete? After all, why pay a corporate board to organize people to produce information, like software, when the internet can do it much cheaper!
Finally, gaming will be one of the last strongholds of mass market shrinkwrap software.
Even there, you won't actually buy the software you will be provided the software with a monthly subscription which may include a internet connection with the game believe it or not.
3) Linux WILL BE ON THE DESKTOP. In your server room, and well if it isn't...
The sheer pricing pressures you will experience in trying to compete with your competitors who don't have those sorts of costs will compell you to load Linux or be pushed out of your own market.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I agree. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the GPL equates to public domain. Maybe we aren't, but the slides make the point that our government should not be making developing products under the GPL. I like the GPL though. I think it's great that programmers would say, "if you think what i have done has value enough to use it, and you mod it, then damn it, let me see what you did." It's not only fair, but sensible, it seems to me.
Now that I think about it though, good debates could be had over whether the government should really be using the GPL. Its not really public domain in nature, but does it better benefit society as a whole. I mean look at what has happenned with linux/oss and the community. it's a thing of beauty. i can't wait to see what happens when this becomes a bigger issue (which i think it will in a short while when desktop/linux becomes just a little easier - let's not go there again).
On the other hand it is crazy to say that the government shouldn't develop ontop of the GPL...isn't it...it is, right?
He/she makes some good points!
why do you bother? you've posted 4 times in 6 months and frankly IMNSHO all your comments are bland and pointless
don't worry only you will ever see this message (probably in 3 months when you next log in) no need to feel shame
Quit Slashdot Today!
So if you're a company and you want to use a research result, get a knowledgeable employee to read the papers and write your own version in-house. No licensing problems (except maybe for patents, that's another kettle of fish). Repackaging existing research code by slapping a company logo on it and selling it to the public *is* stealing from taxpayers.
However, if they want to take the test code the researchers built based on the papers they wrote, and slap a company logo on it and resell it to consumers, who are also taxpayers, then that *is* stealing. Why should consumers pay twice for the research they funded.
Let Microsoft have an employee read the research papers and build their own code. Then I have no problem if they want to sell it. Or else, if they do use code I and others funded, they can't sell it back to me piecemeal. Give me the source, which is as much mine as theirs to begin with.
m$ willingly and knowingly violated federal law, violated court orders, and lied under oath.
netscape and sun didn't.
that's why m$ deservingly gets the label, while other companies (who haven't violated the law) dont'.
Why does people always miss out half of the equation when talking about the GPL in comercial surroundings? The GPL doesnt help people selling the same product multiple times or to take somebody elses work and make money of it. It doesnt help someone to take a project, twist it and screw the initial developers (think kerberos etc.). The GPL dont ease up the software companies ongoing efforts to screw people up with endless upgrades and "almost good, next version will work, i promise" kind of software.
The GPL is constucted to benefit users and not the vendors that want to sell you the same product with a new clownsuit ten times. All people and companies and governments use software, thats a pretty much established fact. They dont do software and they dont benefit from paying more for things than necessary.
As i see it software buisiness as it looks today is like the spinneries in england in the 1800. It is going to be raplaced sooner or later anyway. Todays constant upgrades and paid servicepacks is an artificial market not based on realworld logic.
Software companies like IBM, RedHat, Sun etc who provide services and really do something for what you pay is the future. Software compenies like Microsoft just sell the same things as many times possible and preferably without even having developed it themselves. They are moving themselves into a corner where they dont research and invent things but is merely a proxy for other peoples ideas that they "borrow". Now they even want government funded code for free to be able to sell it to the people who paid for it, the taxpayers. The GPL fosters interopability and adherence to standards because you cant hide alterations in code you have to show openly. The BSD license and others lets you screw the authors royally up the poopchute.
Overall the GPL license the license that benefit users of software the most. As a nice side effect it fosters adherance to standards witch in turn lets more people into the race even if they dont use or make GPL code themselves.
The only looser of the GPL is those who work once and want to sell the product over and over.
HTTP/1.1 400
a few massturds of deception action figure "slides" we found. talk about fooling some of the people......
perhaps ucann see why the payper liesense, stock markup, hostage ransom scam FUDgePeddlers of the ill eagle kingdumb, MuSt delete the non-compliaNT hobbyists, buy nitefall.
You are going to and have taken so much shit in response to this post, but you are right.
Both RMS-zealot "Free Software" (free as in communism?) and Microsoft's restrictive EULAs are against freedoms. The whole idea of licenses in general is rather rotten, I think, but there's still tons of licenses that are more free than the GPL.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
There is a damn good reason for them to dislike the GPL, because it would destroy their entire business model and radically change, if not destroy, their entire business model.
Most of the ideas in that presentation were rather sound.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Now sometimes, there are patents associated with some of those results, which is the prerogative of the University to apply for if they want. Nothing new here. If it's patented, follow the usual licensing channels. Should it be patented? Personally, if it's taxpayer funded research, I think it shouldn't. But that's another topic.
But to suggest that what you learn from reading research papers is IP encumbered is false. The paper has author copyright, but that applies only to the wording, ie as a literary work, not the concepts discussed.
The only valid criticism is that it may actually take a while to duplicate the code in-house for a company, but that's nothing compared to duplicating the full research that went into the idea. It's a production cost like any other.
Personally, I liked slide 223:
"The GPL is fine for the individual to choose, but bad for the industry."
So, IOW, Microsoft admits that the GPL is good for everyone but Microsoft. Imagine that.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
While I appreciate your more thought-out comments regarding the actual issue of open vs. closed source, your first paragraph simply proves my point. Anyone can link to a page and somewhat summarize its comments. Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not saying that MSFT didn't create these slides, I'm just knocking those people who simply assume MSFT created them because it allows them to begin an attack against the so-called Evil Empire.
Niggers be niggers, no matter what they choose to dress-up as. Mickeysoft can only suck SO hard, then they blow!
Slide "0223r" states the GPL is "For protecting the individual programmer" and "Against ownership or commercialization of software".
The GPL is in place to PROTECT THE END USER so that, as the fable goes, he can get working printer drivers, etc. It's not to protect the programmer at all but the user!
Also, if the GPL is so much against commercialization of software why are so many companies using linux and/or GPL'd software like Apple (GCC), TiVo (Linux), etc?
-- iCEBaLM
If the slides are Microsoft then that means PowerPoint - And if you tell someone to use PowerPoint - That leads to the use of ClipArt
In Halloween VII, assuming it's genuine, MS decided not to attach the OSS process but rather make economic arguments for Windows. Um.
I also thought it might destroy their business model; or perhaps completely destroy their business model.
Myth - If you use and modify GPL code inhouse, you have to give away all your code.
Truth - If you use and modify GPL code inhouse, you are free to keep it inhouse.
GPL only comes into effect if you want to distribute your GPL based code outside your organisation.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
As for NSA Secure Linux, which is GPL, it's a set of relatively minor mods to Linux. There's no new technology that you can't use if you reimplement it, and the code is useless outside the Linux context anyway. The whole purpose of NSA Secure Linux is to give people something to try that implements a mandatory security model, so that they can find out what it's like and figure out how to live with a tight security system. (There's no "root". What does that mean to the sysadmin?) It's the same technology NSA has been trying to get adopted for twenty years. Yet Microsoft has lobbied heavily to stop NSA from doing further work in this area. That could be construed as weakening America's defenses in time of war.
I meant "completely destroy their industry" or something like that.
Shit and perdition!
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
I always though that most computer companies,
IBM, Solaris &co made most money from support, not software of hardware sales.
Few companies are and where in the pure software game.
Install[piece of crap] shield is a good example.
You more-or-less have to go on a training course to use it, coes the documentations crap, it's a freek piece of software etc...
(I'm not sure why people ever used install shield to start with)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I don't know if this shit came from Microsoft or not but one of the statements:
..."
"Primary research results placed under the GPL are precluded from commercial use *TCP/IP example
I didn't realize that TCP/IP was GPL'd but the laughable part is that this suggests that we would all be better off if the TCP/IP protocol were proprietary. Can you imagine if Microsoft controlled this protocol?!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
GPL'd software isn't "free", it comes with strings attached.
It most certainly is "free". Wether it has "strings attached" or not is irrelevant.
If you're on a bus, and someone walks up to another person and asks if the seat beside them is free, would you call them an "idiot" and lash into a tirade about how the seat isn't "free" because it's part of the bus, and that they can't take it and put it in their basement?
Open your mind a little bit.
Even though there are "strings attached", it's still "free".
Seriously, this demonstrates a larger trust issue. No one inside of M$ will take credit for that kind of thing and no one will believe anyone outside of M$ when they pubish that sort of thing. Why is this true? Because Microsoft is dishonest, that's why. How simple.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Their business model doesn't have a divine right to succeed. I wouldn't stick up for the scribes that were put out of business by the printing press, or the pony trap manufacturers eliminated by that newfangled autocar.
May MS stock tank, and collapse the American economy with it. Then Europa will rule the world.
Since when have open standards been a source of confusion, besides when Microsoft doesn't comply with them? Microsoft is the only company with enough market power to confuse people about open standards and they have.
Not only are MS and Linux free to choose how to express themselves, their customers and users are, too!
and I'll add to it: Customer freedom leaves M$ two choices, adopt free licenses or fail under an obsolete business model. Freedom is the ability to do what you want, fiscal reward for your activities is not a given.
Microsoft thinks that they are entitled to income based on their "correct" business model. Most of the presentation was about software philosopy and why the GPL is wrong. It's funny how M$ overlooks their own strident propaganda while spending billions to promote it.
The only way for M$ to remain relative and profitable is for them to free their source code NOW. The longer they wait, the more pollished their "competitor's" free code becomes, the less credit anyone will give them when they see the light. Only swift and positive action will resotore faith in anything M$.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It is irrelevant to argue the authenticity of the slides in this article. It is obvious that Microsoft has held these views for a long time. The debate here is about a philosophy of intellectual property that extends from the desktop to the CD player, and to technologies we have yet to explore.
Software as an industry has only a tenuous existence because it is unnatural to sell something as ethereal as information. Most things bought and sold have a solid physical presence, and therefore build in copy protection. The only way we can keep the value of intellectual property is by placing limits on what we can do with it. If I want to protect a bicycle from being copied I need only manufacture it in a way that would make duplicating it more costly than buying it. To copy protect a software product I have to threaten potential copiers with jail time and somehow monitor their behavior to make sure they aren't doing it. True copy protection requires a virtual digital police state.
Software makers as well as the recording industry lack vision as to what the future will hold. They struggle to maintain what they have now, when they should be worrying about how to adapt to the new order of things. Right now I run SuSe linux, which is nice and green. I use MPlayer(which is better than windows media player IMO) to play movies, and if I want to go through the trouble to learn a bit more I can get Quake working, or Neverwinter nights. All the software I could need for word processing, web browsing etc is already installed. This is an operating system that has practically no market share for desktops, but it is this functional. If microsoft doesn't come out with any major breakthroughs, it's easy to see where the desktop is headed. In the future people will choose the system that is great, allows total freedom, and costs nothing. Software companies need to focus on how they can market their proprietary products in an open source atmosphere.
My Blog
...
Slide1: Embrace
Slide2: Extend
Slide3: ???
Slide4: Profit
It definetly has worked in the past for ms products.
Shadus
My example assumed little to no reworking of the code. Since most customers are lazy/don't know any better, they would fork over cash for no added benefit and pay for the research twice. If this code is bundled "freely" with some other product, but can't be "unbundled" and increases the price of the product, then things become interesting for lawyers.
Unlike the BSD license, the GPL-like license prevents this sort of thing from happening. However, if there is significant reworking of the code (where "significant" is the debatable point), then obviously the taxpayer/customer isn't paying twice for the same thing.
Lastly, looking back on what I just wrote, you're right that my original example isn't stealing the code. It's really just an example of wilful misrepresentation and stealing the taxpayer/customer's money.
Some evil smelly hippy must have managed to slip into the presentation and take pictures of the secret Microsoft manifesto using SOVIET RUSSIA era spy equipment.
:P
The only photo they didn't manage to take was the one of the map of Western Europe....
Not to nitpick, but MSFT is _not_ anti-copyleft. For example MSFT supports the BSD-style licence which is a copyleft.
MSFT is fervently anti-GPL. In particular the viral nature of the GPL fuels hatred by MSFT. If software written under the GPL was self-contained and was guaranteed to not apply to non-standard core or extension system API's. What is non-standard? Is anything non-POSIX also non-standard? The answer has to be no because otherwise to bypass the GPL a vendor would simply have to package its propietary code as an unpublished API that is used by a GPL program shell. I'm quite certain that the FSF holds such actions to be in violation of the GPL. See the GCC/NeXT debacle.
Without this issue, MSFT would probably be less driven. Since GPL is untested legally, MSFT lawyers may correctly read the GPL to require API's used by GPL software to fall under the GPL. MSFT is unwilling to risk their software library by endorsing the use of the GPL. End of story.
Because on very rare occasions, one hears a phrase like "virus used for good." Cancer, by contrast, is always bad. Haven't you heard about any of those projects where they plan to employ a virus in a positive way? (Either figuratively or literally.)
See since a virus (in the real world) is this little clump of DNA that reprograms cells, it's conceivable (though difficult) that you could make a virus that reprogrammed (only some of) someone's cells to do something good (like if they weren't working right). Or much easier would be make a virus that only attacks a specific organsim that you want to kill.
Cancer refers to a condition where some of your cells are broke and they're copying without bounds, theoretically consuming all your body's resources eventually, and making lumps where there should be no lumps. It's bad. It's always bad. There's no good there.
The main difference is that "virus" refers to a little programmable clump of DNA whereas "cancer" refers to a (always bad) condition.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
We all know MS is bad and they are hard at work on Evil Master Plan v1.0
This actually comes as something of a relief. We know it always takes Microsoft until at least version 3.0 to get everything to work.
Does this
A presenter brings a message with everything he or she does, body language, clothing, words; this also including use of presentation means.
I sometimes deliberately bring slides for smaller groups, believing this (among other means) to create a more informal and friendly atmosphere, when this is what I want.
If this MS guy talked to a smaller group, he could be doing the same thing.
s.y.,
AC in the consultancy business
The bottom line is this: There are certainly reasons why businesses or individuals would not want to release their software under the GPL, but Microsoft wants to convince you of more than this. They want you to avoid using GPL software even if it's appropriate, they want governements to discourage (or prevent!) its use in acedemia even if it's appropriate, and they want to stamp out any and all development under the GPL on Windows.
These guys are right about one thing: the GPL does really suck.
While the GPL's communism provide an interesting counterbalance to the typical shrink wrap license's fascism, GPL'd software is no more free than proprietary software -- it just happens to be on the opposite end of the encumbrance spectrum.
Proprietary: The IP owner has all the rights. The public has no rights.
GPL: The software (as if it's a person) has all the rights. The public has no rights.
If you want a piece of software to be TRULY FREE, contribute it to the public domain. This enables anybody on earth to do anything they want with it, without any encumbrances. Public domain is the only mode of release than anybody can accurately claim to be free.
The open source community is a land of a thousand licenses and no genuine freedom.
Yeah. It's about time everybody woke up to themselves. Socioeconomic models are the same; capitalism is as bad as communism. Fascism smells bad too. So what's the alternative??
..but nobody exactly spent a lot of time incorporating any design features into those slides. doesn't anybody at MS know how to use those cool colors, backgrounds and animations available in PowerPoint.??
Not if they're happy to embrace the GPL and release under it. I'd say there's just as much legal overhead consumed by making sure that all use of M$ software complies with its EULA (not to mention the horror of shared source !).
The stuff about the GPL is true *ie you cant sell the software as easilly*. Why dont they just quote the FSF Manifest though - hehe *at least then the reader can read the intentions surrounding the GPL*. :)
I dont like licensing and its fun to see this terms and conditions battle. */me checks FSF.org for a retaliation*
The GPL is the best software license! *IANAL but who GAF*
Pixels keep you awake!
I believe freedom is not the advantage of the GPL, but competition is.
One of the slides said that "The GPL is fine for the individual to choose, buy bad for the industry.". This is not true. Sure, the GPL is not as profitable for companies as closed source, but the GPL is good for customers, because it makes for a much more competitive industry. A more competitive industry benefits the customer.
Smart sellers will choose monopolies. Smart buyers will choose competition. It will be interresting to see who wins, proprietary source or open source!
In other new, Bookmans organizes protest march on public library "They're stealing our profits" film at 11
Who coined that term?
Is it really true?
What's with the BSD-license? Isn't that more free? And doesn't every license provide and take away your freedoms?
why do you bother? if i'm a guy that posts every 1 1/2 month, logs in once in a while, writes bland and pointless comments and is not as elocuent as you, why?
Anyway, thank you for your comment.
larry
The package said "Windows XP or better. Pentium Class Processor or better"... So I got a Mac with OS X
To get a glimpse of what Microsoft thinks of the GPL you can read the document atf aq.doc.
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Gpl-
This document is actually really good and should be a must read for every SMB or OSS developer.
In the free software world it's the pirates who try to use commertal software as if it were free (as in beer) and reverse engenear it (free as in speach) and patch it (free as in sidewalk.. )
But it is theft.
In commertal software it's legal to do exactly the same thing to free programs.
The short and simple.
Jack writes commertal code
Zeek writes free software.
Zeek makes a game Jack makes some changes and sells it Zeek pirates those changes.
Jacks the theaf but Zeek gose to jail.
This is becouse Jack os getting paid for Zeeks hard work and Zeek dosen't get to benifit from it. Jack's getting ALL the benifits and NONE of the labor.
That said I do release some of my code in public domain becouse sometimes I do benifit from Jack using my work.
I don't actually exist.
It's sick that I can counter myself.
So here we go.
Yes I can benifit from somebody using my code in a commertal product.
Let's say I'm a gammer and I make a game that has a huge number of sweet graphic and sound hacks. But maybe the game sucks.
Then Jack makes a great game out of my code now I get a great game with sweet hacks. Even if I'm paying for if had I not done the work I'd never have such effects.
I benifit. Now let's say I run Linux and the commertal gamed using my hacks won't run on my box even under wine. Now I can't benifit unless I get the code and port it to Linux myself.
Or I'm a commertal software develuper now I won't get paod becouse anybody can use my hard work for free.
Maybe I'll get extra traffic to my website. Maybe I don't need it.
Maybe I'll get recognised as a great programmer. Maybe I'm already recognised. Maybe I'm in a diffrent profession and don't need the recognition. Maybe my code sucks.
It's up to me. It's my code after all.
I don't actually exist.
Our Linux production servers run heavily threaded Java apps.
Does the "thread really is a seperate process" mess with things like signals as well?
The second slide already showed how broken their perception of open source is. Their second slide was a comparasin of "commercial" source vs "open" source as if they were mutually exclusive groups when they are not. Take a Linux distro company like Redhat for example. They are commercial. They make money reselling stuff that's open source. Whether something is Commercial or not is not really a property of the code itself, but of how people obtain it. Redhat's SRPM of the linux kernel that lives on the install CD is commercial. A downloaded tarball from www.kernel.org is not, even if it's exactly the same version number, with the same verbatim GPL boilerplate licenses all over the source code, and 'diffs' show it to be identical code to what's in the Redhat SRPM. Whether it's commercial or not is a property of the distribution technique by which you obtained the product, not a property of the end product itself.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
"Government funded projects released under the GPL would remain public resources and have no commercial value. Like FreeBSD"
Isn't that the point. I'm tired of paying lots of taxes (& Tuition) to fund projects that get private companies rich and do little to give back to the community or the schools.
Oh know, GPL limits corporate welfare. Very fuckin well then, spend the money on Art/Music/PE and teachers in K-12, and let MS create thier own software.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
thanks for taking the time to rise to a blatent troll
Quit Slashdot Today!
Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised)
are called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse
at are called software.
-- Levitating Trains and Kamikaze Genes: Technological
Literacy for the 1990's.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...