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.
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.
Diversity is good, but GPL is the wrong route as it kills diversity.
No, it doesn't kill diversity. It kills MS's "embrace and extend", and *that* kills diversity.
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.
...sounds an AWFUL lot like Richard Stallman... ;)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
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
> 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.
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.
Not to mention... can we find something new to report on? Microsoft doesn't like the GPL. Ok. We got it the last 20 times a story was posted exposing that fact.
Do we really need another story about it?
NO CARRIER
> ...you don't really have much more freedom than with closed software, infact, in many cases you have much less.
How is this possible? Closed source software never allows you to even see their source code, much less modify or redistribute it. Further, more and more closed source license even limit how you can USE the software. They often don't allow you to even install the program on more than one machine at a time.
The GPL places NO restrictions on how you can use the program. As long as you don't redistribute, you have complete freedom to make any changes to the program to suit your needs. You can make unlimited personal copies and run on all of own machines.
Only when you decide to redistribute a GPL'd program does it limit your freedom. Commercial software never allows you to redistribute it.
So please tell me one instance where a closed source application has even a single freedom that the GPL doesn't already give you.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Okay, maybe I'm dense, but how does your line of reasoning go? The only restrictions I see in the GPL are that 1) You have to make your source available under the GPL if you make a modified version and you choose to distribute that version to the public, and 2) programs that use GPL'ed code fall under the GPL.
That's it. You can use the program on as many machines as you want, give copies to your friends, all legally. You can even make modifications and keep the source to yourself, so long as you also keep the binaries to yourself. There is nothing in there to prevent you from being selfish. Heck, for most purposes you don't even have to accept the license. You can decline the GPL and still use the program all you want, you just can't legally modify it.
Compare this to Microsoft's licensing policies. Let's take a specific example: Windows 98 OEM version. That Windows disc that came with your computer can only be used legally on your computer. If you replace, say, the motherboard, it's not the same computer anymore, and you no longer have the right to use that copy of Windows 98 on any computer at all. Similarly, if you sell the computer that the disc came with and build a new one, you cannot use it on the new computer, even if you wiped the old one clean before you sold it. And there are lots of other restrictions, too -- read through a Microsoft EULA some time. If you actually take the time to understand it, you will find that there are about a zillion restrictions on how you can use the program. And of course you are not allowed to modify it, and couldn't if you wanted to, unless you are a wizardly programmer who can read binaries and reconstruct the original source code from them.
Compare this to the GPL, where there are only those two restrictions, and they only apply to developers. And the GPL is probably the most restrictive open-source license: others, like BSD-style-licenses, or the Zlib license, place effectively no restrictions at all on your use of the program. So, please explain to me: how is it that you have less freedom with open software than with closed?
I must conclude that this AC is a troll. Dang. Oh, well, I've got karma to burn.
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?
By contrast it's child's play to make closed software unavailable, even if it is to some extent accessible. One result can be that the dominant form of software can be completely unavailable and still block out other software from getting serious mindshare.
Is war peace and freedom slavery, too? I'm sure many people will read your remark about GPL having 'much less' freedom and nod foolishly because that's what they want to believe, but in a practical sense only the GPL is really effective in competing against closed software. And what is wrong with competing against closed software? I thought that was the whole point for the proprietary guys?
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.
Microsoft's licences also mostly prevent people from writing commercial software (or any other software) and using Microsoft's existing code in their code. Believe it or not, Word isn't released as public domain.
GPL gives you a lot more freedoms than Microsoft's licensing does. If you feel it's still not enough then I have sympathy with that, but suggesting that Microsoft have a point about the GPL license being restrictive is absurd.
Yeah, I'll give you this, but really the restrictions harm nobody but greedy people. It's the developer's freedoms (greedy developers) that are infringed. That's the whole point. From the point of view of the user or a civic-minded developer, there are as many freedoms as any other licenses, but with more benefits (as in the benefit of being able to use other's modifications). From any perspective aside from that of a greedy business, the GPL is superior.
So it could be argued that GPL is not suitable for certain things. STuff like protocals, audio/video codex, and device drivers.It could be, but I sure won't do it. Perhaps a BSD licensing for core protocols right now is important, because as you say, it is necessary to get commercial interest to get a sufficient "critical mass" to make something like Ogg a standard. Okay. Right now.
But that's only because right now there aren't enough free software users to be able to call the development shots with our force of numbers. As the free software pool grows, the harder it is to re-write that code base. That means that commercial interests will have to be able to make a *really* impressive application to expect people to pay for it. And that's in the best interests of the users as well.
As far as poor BeOs not being able to use linux drivers in their OS... huh? Why should they? If they want to use, they have to share. What's wrong with that? And if they can't build a replacement OS that has the broad range of features and compatibilities as linux, or other free Operating Systems, then more the fool them for trying to get into a dying business model. Maybe they should have found a business model that leveraged free software rather than trying to compete with it. Let Be be a lesson to other commercial software companies.
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.Absolutely! Now you are sounding like a free software convert. Oh. Wait. You mean public domain. Yeah... you are right. In some ways, this would be ideal. In fact, I would imagine that most free software people would rather not have to copyright software and just let it be in the public domain. But the problem with that is that when that used to be case (your "early days" of the computer industry) commercial entities would rape the public domain software by taking the software and modifying it in ways that locked you into a vendors product, be it hardware or software.
Thus, it became necessary to protect ourselves from greedy and unethical businesses. *That's* why there is a GPL. Yeah, it would be nice to imagine that all software could be free. Really free. Public Domain. But history proves that greedy people can't stop using public domain software to take away users freedoms. So users have to take matters into their own hands.
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.Absolutely. And they should be, because that's how it's going. They are greedy monopolists locked into a dying business model -- that of extorting their customer base. Good riddance, I say.
A world so utterly GPL that it collapses upon itself into stagnation.I'm not sure this follows. In fact, I'd argue that because of the large base of GPL code from which to build, it allows for people to innovate more easily. The infrastructure is already there, and someone with a great idea sitting in front of a computer in the Congo can implement it. Without a huge company behind them. Then we'll see stuff *really* start happening.
Don't waste your tears on Microsoft. As they sow, so shall they reap.
That's a peculiar point of view, since the only thing the GPL does (and it does it very thoroughly) is require that the code and ALL DERIVATIONS remain out there and accessible in a practical sense. That is ALL that is being required. It, and anything you do with it, cannot be bottled up. All the things done with it must remain not merely accessible but AVAILABLE.
:)
Yes, there's just one basic requirement. Now, a requirement, restriction, licensing term, whatever you want to call it, is why it is not free is the sense of public domain. Free software imposes its own sense of copyright, but it is still copyright, and they will sue you for infringing on it. I only understood this when I realize copyleft is just a politicized synonym for copyright.
See GNU license. (" To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights." -- mild doublespeak, no? To protect your freedom we must limit it by requiring you to acquiesce to this license.) Notice that the document invokes that hoary old term "copyright" more than a dozen times.
I'm not critizing free software -- really I think it's quite clever, inspired even -- but I believe it is merely a form of licensed software with really liberal "fair use" provisions. The copyright's holder's right to force you to comply persists throughout, so I think the political pitch is slightly misleading. I don't think it's some gross violation of freedom, but then neither is "closed" software -- if you don't like it, write your own "free" or even (gasp) public domain software.
And computing seems to be one of those few areas where academia and amateurs can currently do a better job than companies.
No, there's nothing wrong with a company wanting to make money - BUT -
Companies don't have some right to profit - the norm is for them to fail. Very few profit. Why should they be propped up rather than just allowing them to fail? If they can profit then let them - if they're trying to sell ice to eskimos^Winuit, let them, but don't support them when they plan legally-mandated polar-ice-melting so that they can do so!
To labor the point a little more - don't let them give Einstein a lobotomy so that little timmy can get relatively higher grades.
P.S. I find the $ in Micro$oft to be a good conversation-starter, which then allows me to lead into why ms is bad for the consumer. I don't care if some teenager thinks it's immature, or some astroturfer says it's immature. It's not. You legitimise someone by using the name they choose for themselves rather than naming them with a derogatory name. I choose, quite deliberately, to insult Microsoft.
P.P.S. If there was nothing wrong with financial profit at any moral cost, then the $ would be a compliment, not an insult. Clearly, even you feel that there IS something wrong with that, since you're objecting to its use.
So I hereby declare "inconsistency" on you. Closely followed by "probable shenanigans".
One of the main points in M$'s argumentation is that the GPL hurts the industry, because you cannot write commercial apps based on GPL software, but the GPL is not the only Open Source license and most reasonable OS libraries are licensed under the LGPL or similar licenses that allow developing commercial software.
Open source developers simply have to choose an appropriate license for their project when they start. And if they find out that they chose wrong there is still the possibility to change the licensing terms. A very prominent example for such a license change is the Wine project that changed it's license from X11-like to LGPL recently.
If a company finds an OS library useful for their own project, but they cannot use it, 'cause it's GPL, they can still contact the author and ask for different licensing terms. They'll probably have to pay for that then, but they'd have to pay for a commercial product, too. So even GPL'd libraries are not really a hurdle for commercial software development. A good example for such dual licensing is ReiserFS, which is published under the GPL, but sold under different licensing terms to companies that want to use it commercially.
For me, the most interesting slide was the bottom half of img_0224r.jpg, (Areas of Concern) where it says: "Primary research results placed under the GPL are precluded from commercial use: TCP/IP example".
I'm wondering if this translates to "We are concerned, because we can't charge people royalties for every packet they send." I would have loved to have heard the commentary that went with that slide.
I've always HATED the stupid "M$" 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
I'd disagree. I think Microsoft sucks less now than it did previously.
Microsoft's worst (alleged or proven, I don't care) dirty trick, IMHO, was Windows telling me that Digital Research DOS was incompatible. That kind of behavior made me a happy OS/2 user for years until I had it pounded in my brain (by IBM, nonetheless) that IBM really is a big, nasty corporation.
I actually don't see anything wrong with MS's attitude toward OSS or Shared Source. They're afraid of the GPL for the same reason that Apple (all worship Apple, benevolent charity and protector of good!) built OS X on top of BSD. Microsoft--get this--is in it for the money. Just like RedHat is. If RMS could sue Microsoft for having GPL'd code in the NT source base it would really cramp MS's style. That, frankly, is frightening to anyone who doesn't totally subscribe to RMS' goal of eliminating software copyrights wholesale.
As for the interview with the ex-developer (NB: here I go again with ad hominem arguments) don't you think that it's a little easier to criticize Microsoft after you've worked there 10 years? MS probably made that guy filthy rich. Give me millions of dollars and I'll gladly drive the high moral ground in my brand-new gold plated gas guzzling SUV.
This is not to say there are no "arrogant assholes" at MS: the interview appears to be written by a prime example. Many sales people (your contacts) also fit that bill. This is merely to point out that MS, as a corporation, has similar goals to those of most corporations. (Similarly, Slashdot, like Usenet in the grand old days, is filled with self-righteous idiots. Oops, ad hominem again! Or is that ad homini?)
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.
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.
Look very carefully at the pictures. They're not pictures of overhead transparencies, they're pictures of a paper copy (that kind that Powerpoint nicely prints out for you). You can even see some of the text on the next page showing through (for instance, in image 0221 you can see the faint outline of 0222r) . The perpective is not straight on, but rather at an angle. Also, the paper color is slightly green, suggesting he shot it under florescent light.
My guess is this was the handout at a meeting were the attendee didn't think he was going to get to keep his copy. He covertly pulls out his his camera and shots the handout right on the table in front of him.
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
First off the number of software companies vs other sectors is really small
RMS has used this argument to further the idea that the rights of proprietary developers are unimportant. It's essentially "might makes right" or "Proprietary software company rights aren't important because they are a minority". Placed within a larger political context, this argument not only falls apart--it becomes quite dangerous. Just substitute "black people" for "proprietary developers".
(self interest argument)
I have no disagreement with this. I've held my nose and used GPL'd software at times for this very reason, but when several roughly equal alternatives exist, I shun the GPL'd one because I disagree with the long term goals of the Free Software movement.
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!
The problem with this argument is that it places undue emphasis on the problem of "exploitation by closing the source" (EBCS) which is really not a problem at all. Why is it not a problem? Because the relicensor can't take anything from you--they can only withhold their own work. If I take BSD and repackage it without making any changes except closing the source, this will be seen for what it is: wholesale appropriation of BSD. It won't sell because it's actually less valuable than the original BSD due to not having source.
However, if I add something to a BSD distro that makes it more useful, then I can close the source and if the change is valuable enough to offset the loss of source, I will be able to sell my distro at a higher cost based on the value I've added. I could have used the OSS development model too, but it was my choice. Competitors are free to emulate my changes too and make their changes proprietary or open. The original developer loses nothing--they still have the base source.
So, that argument falls apart because there really is no such thing as EBCS unless your were planning to charge fees for the right to license your GPL'd software under a proprietary license. But then, if you are doing that, you are not really a GPL advocate.
Let us assume for a moment that EBCS is a problem. Is it the only problem? Of course not. There are many other ways to exploit somebody. The classic definition of slavery is being compelled to work without getting paid. The only thing missing with GPL coders is the compulsion, so it's more like voluntary servitude. It makes no difference whether you enjoy the work, or if the work is Open Sourced or not. The fact of the matter is that you do work, and corporations reap the benefit on all those Linux servers. The GPL doesn't protect anybody from that form of exploitation, which (if we assume that proprietary developers are a minority) is a much larger problem than EBCS. For a more succinct version of my rebuttal to your post, see my .sig.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
How does closed source give you any more of "the ability to do what [you] want" than the GPL? I can see BSD or Public Domain letting you do more, but closed source? How?
Since you don't care about source code, I can only assume you're not making derivative applications. So what freedom is the GPL taking from you?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I argue that this is itself a strawman argument. It matters not what Microsoft does with the government funded software - what counts is what *everyone* is allowed to do with that software.
The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly is the only reason that they can play a lot of their predatory games. One could argue that Microsoft in particular should be denied the use of taxpayer funded software as a penalty for monopolistic abuses, or one could argument that whatever use they do make of it should be monitored for monopoly abuses. But this applies only to a monopoly, which Microsoft happens to be.
In fact, it is unfortunate that Microsoft's name is used in this argument. The licensing of government software affects anyone who may want to use it, not just one company. Anti-Microsoft arguments, however valid, really add nothing to the debate over what is the best license to use for government subsidized software.
The only good weather is bad weather.
I've read Microsoft's on the record comments and these don't look any different. Craig Mundie frequently spoke of "Sustainable Innovation" ( for example ) and the references to viral are common and Microsoft is no exception.
Frankly I didn't find anything in those slides that is any different from what they openly state as their company's position towards GPL. Which means if it is a fake its a fake which accurately represents Microsoft's public position. I don't see why they have any reason to deny it if those slides were their's.