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.
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
Unfortunately, this crowd doesnt seem to care about truth at times. We all get pretty petty at times.
Freedom without truth?
Are you sure that you have freedom? or are they lying to you?
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.
Read the interview with a former microsoft developer on kuro5hin for an insight into maybe why this is so.
Executive summary: Microsoft employees are arrogant assholes. (insert sweeping generalization disclaimer here)
Quote from interview: Microsoft constructed an enabling environment for socially obnoxious behavior: it was welcomed and rationalized into positives. If you were late for meetings it meant you were busy doing important work, if you were extremely confrontational it meant you were passionate about your job, if you required subordinates to work long hours it meant you were committed to the product, if you turned down everyone you interviewed it meant you weren't soft, and so on. ... And some of that behavior trickled out into meetings with customers and partners, where they were correctly seen as negatives and helped foster the anti-Microsoft attitude. But since Microsoft kept hiring and promoting obnoxious people, they kept being obnoxious.
Now this is just one former employee's opinion. But in sales meetings I have had with Microsoft, (I'm an IT manager for a 13,000 user college), I've seen the same attitudes.
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?
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
And so this article *really* lends credence to the anti-OSS memo. ;)
Aren't some of these articles and whole lot of fun?
If you use GPL code, your code must also be GPL. That *is* a set up for viral propogation. And that is the way it was intended to work.
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.
Who cares who first described the GPL as "viral"? The fact of the matter is it IS viral, and was designed to be viral, regardless of whether or not you think that is a good thing.
I know what you're trying to say, but the metaphor is lacking in a number of key points. First off, the very word "viral" brings to mind illness, disease, and a variety of other unpleasentries. This is why MS decided to describe the GPL in this way. Welcome to marketing 101.
A virus is some foriegn invader to a system that lives off the host, and thus weakening it. Rarely is a virus invited in, as it's method for propogating is to be hidden in some other form unrecognized by the host.
Software that exists under the GPL does not hide what it is. It can't find its way into proprietary code unless it is specifically invited into it. It is its own host, not requiring another for its survival. Certainly the code is trapped within the license once placed there, but so is proprietary licensed code. The primary difference is that one is trapped in the public domain, the other in the corporate.
I don't have a better metaphor to contradict the whole "viral" thing. I do know that the GPL does not in any way exhibit what we would think of as viral though. Just like with proprietary software, if you want to utilize it within your own code there is a cost attached. To use Microsoft software, you'd pay a licensing fee. With the GPL you pay with providing your efforts back to the community you got it from.
The only purpose behind calling the GPL a "viral license" is to attempt to put a negative spin on it. The term is but one salvo from the MS marketing arsenal designed to attack that which makes us strong. Allowing the term to stick to any OSS license would be suicidal from a public relations standpoint.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
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?
Why would you take personal umbrage because some people make the perfectly valid observation that the GPL is viral? Cancerous is a somewhat loaded term, but it most certainly is viral. I don't remember anyone referring to the GPL as communist, but I can recall some MS officials stating that it was not in the US taxpayers' interest to have US government funded research be licensed under the GPL (which can be construed as 'GPL is unamerican' certainly).
But when has Microsoft the company ever called YOU - Malcontent - "communist or cancerous". I dare say never. They may, as a corporate entity, publicly disagree with a license (let's remember, it's GPL licensing they have big problems with, not you personally) which you think is the bee's knees, but they don't personally attack YOU.
You're suggesting there's no moral corruption at the top of Sears or IBM or WalMart or any of the other dozens of companies much larger than Microsoft? MS is the pinnacle of evil incarnate?
You're just not as involved in the other industries to see how large companies stomp over small ones all the time, regardless of industry. WalMart certainly has plenty of complaints against it, but they're selling Linux online, so maybe we should be nice to them?
creation science book
Because it's genetic, not viral.
The GPL only affects derivative works. That's genetic, not viral.
The GPL requires "consensual derivation" before it replicates. That's genetic, not viral.
The GPL transfers a single "genome" (aka the license) from the parent to the child. That's genetic, not viral.
A virus is something that infects a host, harms or kills the host, and spreads between hosts without asking either host permission to do so. The GPL does none of these things. The GPL is most definitely not viral.
MS and it's executives have used the word communist and cancer. They chose those words very carefully because they knew it would trigger negative reactions in the public at alrge and the media. It's a calculated effort to demonize open source programmers and users and to fan the flames of hate towards them. They want the US public to hate open source users and developers. So maybe they did not mention me by name but they did not have to they simply publicly smear an entire segment of the population. They are evil but they are smart. They have studied how other people in politics have demonized whole sections of the population throughout history and have applied those lessons to demonize open source developers and users. Using words like virus, cancer, communist, un-american etc are a carefully thought out and well orchastrated effort by the executives of M$ to attack us.
"You're suggesting there's no moral corruption at the top of Sears or IBM or WalMart or any of the other dozens of companies much larger than Microsoft?
No just not as much. Wally world is a very evil company (in different ways then M$). Their own employees sued them and won for making them work overtime without pay. This is why I will never walk into a wallmart store as long as I live and there are many people who feel the same way. I have never heard anything bad about sears or IBM. So I am
"MS is the pinnacle of evil incarnate?"
Yes pretty much. Worse then wallmart, worse then enron even (that's a close call though) definately up there with qwest, worldcom and the rest of the sleazeballs.
War is necrophilia.