Slashdot Mirror
Gates: Microsoft IP Finds Its Way Into Free Software
Andy Tai writes "While speaking to financial analysts and commenting on the SCO lawsuit, Bill Gates made the claim that Microsoft's IP is also included in Free/Open source software. Without being specific, he said "There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software. When people clone things, that often becomes unavoidable." Considering Microsoft's claims of ownership over technologies like CIFS, does this mean Microsoft may also launch SCO-style attacks against Free Software/Open Source?"
This is plain stupid. Who do they think they are? Reverse engineering isn't illegal.
Cue 1000 posts about BSD netcode in Windows.
windows inet tools use BSD source, many use other open source libs [libpng, zlib, etc...] doesn't phase them. The fact that they rely on them for success...
But if someone copies a MSFT design element, omg, end of the world, OSS must die!
Hmm hypocrites!
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Bill is just piling on. There is no copyright protection for API's or other interoperability code.
Well, I guess this is the new FUD Wars. MS and its friends will be spreading this "Linux stole some copyrighted code/idea" propaganda to slow down adaptation of Linux. Strange that we didn't see it in a Halloween Document, this must be stuff they kept a tight secret about.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Although OSS does try to clone Windows "Look and Feel" (KDE themes etc..) and even Windows features in the form of WINE, the community is very pedantic on making sure they do not use Microsoft code or break any laws.
If developers of Open Sauce software disregard IP laws they are shooting themselves in the foot, because the whole paradigm of Free software relies on users sticking to the IP/Copyright laws and complying with the licence.
I believe this is the regular Microsoft FUD, trying to kick Linux when it is "down" .
There is no god
First, that remark will probably generate a lot of comments here on Slashdot... Second, how does he know what he claims? From experience with the development of Windows? As you know yourself...
Wouldn't Apple then be able to claim that the Windows GUI is their IP, and then Xerox could claim that everyone's is theirs?
What about the guys who invented the Abacus? Shouldn't they get a cut too?
Sound waves should be free!
There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many open-source products, is being used in closed-source products. If people at SCO and Microsoft have access to source code, that kind of thing often becomes unavoidable.
Apple IP some how ends up in Microsoft products all the time. I wonder how Bill Gates feels about that.
I was wondering when the intellectual property attacks would come. It's really the only place open source is vulnerable. I'm really just surprised it took this long.
Any takers on a pool for how long before our good buddies at Microsoft start some legal action?
Add to that, how much of what is within the products of M$ was borrowed from other sources? I know they've been caught at it more than once, how much more code is still there owing it's existance to other than M$ programmers?
When you haven't established a proper framework for check IP issues related with incoming source code (like Linux, where branch leaders let anything in) that is of course unavoidable.
That does not mean that Linux does not have quality, or all that effort is wasted. It is a reminder for some of OSS/FS cycle's poor aspects.
Check out the definitions section
of the nda:
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
---------------------
Billy now has his own "special" name for GPL!!
ROTFLOAM!
--- Johnny
this is a perfect example on why you should use the GNU/GPL license instead of BSD or other open source models.
It means that big companies will find it more difficult to steal and bury.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
But in this case, they could seriously cause damage. Even without a legitimate claim they have enough money to hire a large army of lawyers. It's quite possible they've seen in SCO's lawsuit the method they will use to attempt to crush linux.
Pass the ammunition.
I'm surprised microsoft hasn't sued it into oblivion already.
Now that Linux is slowly breathing down Microsoft's neck and soon will devour a large chunk of the market due to bottlenecked desktop innovation [1], they are employing political smear campaign tactics.
When you cannot compete against technologies start making shit up.
[1] Desktop/GUI innovation is dead. There is not much progress one can make from this point on.
I am sure there a lot of cases where MS had copied it's competitors and has driven them out of bussiness.
This is just Microsoft laying the ground in case SCO is successful.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
With the garbage that gets a software patent there is certainly IP from microsoft in Linux.
Then again, there's cetainly IP from microsoft in first year programming assignments, "Hello world" probably violates microsoft's IP by now.
Actually, this is exactly what Bill would say at this time. When Gartner says to hold off on Linux development, the business world pricks up its ears. When a few days later, Bill makes a casual statment that Microsoft code has been SCO'd, all of the sudden this is a trend. Linux has major IP problems, is what business will hear.
Bill won't probably ever give details about what IP he's talking about--he doesn't have to. The value of his statement is that it highlights MSFT's long shadow looming over OSS. Specific threats would be refutable--his statement is not.
Net effect? A wonderful chilling effect (in Bill's eyes) on open source development with no costs for MSFT.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
If any manager or businessman begins an assertion with "There's no question", "Clearly", or "It's obvious", that assertion is nothing of the sort. It's a wild-assed guess at best, and a lie at worst. They say these things to give their statement a false measure of authority, and because they can't stand not appearing to know everything all the time. These are the phrases that shift my BS meter into overdrive...
Well, there you have it.
MS recently paid SCO a liscense for UnixWare. Why? Well, I'm no Microsoft PR Troll, but if I were them, and planning on a new "Linux users are dirty lousy thieves" campaign, I'd do my best to let the little freaks at SCO be heard, even if everyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge in the subject knows SCO's full of it. Just long enough to be heard by most people, and get the community whispering in doubt in places. "SCO keeps shouting that Linux stole their IP, what if they're right?"
Because now MS can run "Us too!" ads and FUD Linux in interviews at will. It doesn't have to be true, or even slightly true, all they have to do is put the idea out there and the PHBs of the world, already a bit put off by the SCO mess, will buy it hook, line and sinker.
It's not like the various Open Source people (ESR, the FSF, etc) are given nearly as much press time in contrast to Gates.
How to fight this? Demand MS put up or shut up. Loudly. Whenever anyone is within earshot. Fight their FUD with honest, biting truth -- Linux is open source, we have nothing to hide, and is MS thinks we've stolen something, they're welcome to show some proof. Mention Kerebos, HTML 3.2, and whatever other instances of IP that MS has "Shifting Standardized" or "Embrace and Extended" into being a royal pain in the arse to use.
Of course, this is all assuming that Gates won't sneak some GPLed code into Windows now, and just claim that we stole it from him instead... Which is a decidedly more frightening prospect.
They can't beat us technology wise, they can't beat us pricing wise, but they can lie about us until everyone's too scared to use us.
If we look back at the early suits involving Microsoft and Apple, there may be indicators of how this might turn out. In that case Apple was suing Microsoft for duplicating the look and feel of their GUI but Apple didn't win. I don't know the details of what MS is claiming but does this qualify as a bonafied legal precident?
Gates's main argument here is basically "if you make a clone of one of our programs, it becomes impossible to keep our code out of your program."
Yeah, I remember that time that I made that clone of IE, and then Gates himself showed up at my home, pointed a gun at my head, and forced me to copy and paste code right from IE into my browser. Right...
Last time I checked, it's not illegal for two programs to do the same thing, while having absolutely no code in common.
Let's think about this, anyway: how the hell does MS code get put into linux? MS's code is closed, we can't access it. I bet Linux gets a lot of kernel patches coming from billg@microsoft.com. On the other hand, Linux code is open, you can see all of it, if you want. It would be trivially easy for some coder at MS to see some linux code, and put it into windows without anybody noticing.
If there is any overlapping code in both linux and windows, it's far, FAR more likely that MS stole it from linux, not the other way around. It's also possible that they both came from BSD.
I've never heard that expression before, did you make it up yourself? :)
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Another consequence of the SCO garbage.
I'm sure they were just waiting for a precedent to attack with.
Though its probably true in reality.. but then again, Microsoft has used others IP too.. everyone is at fault to a certain degree.
Now its all a matter of who can buy more 'justice'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Let me get this straight then, releasing code into the public is a bad thing because you can't have cross-liscensing deals? It's funny how Microsoft bad-mouths the GPL and at the same time buy code from SCO. Sorta like getting sued by AOL/Time Warner and then making a deal with them to help with set-top boxes.
Yet Microsoft is clearly mindful of the threat Linux poses as it grows. Its share of the server operating system market is now more than 30 percent, and Linux ISVs are now targeting the desktop as well.
Bill Gates, in other words: "Really, Windows has 98% of the market, it's just that 28% of the servers are Unauthorized. Can you get the BSA on the line for me?"
Sonce all their software is not only proprietary but also "closed-source" so nobody can see the source code, automatically nobody can copy or include their sources into other software.
Technically impossoble.
Unless of course you come with the same solution to the same problem and your code looks very much alike. But then I want to sue Gates for violating copyright of my software. Back in the times of Atari I wrote a screen blanker that looks similar to one of Windows blankers. I never released my code, just showed it to several friends, but no doubt one of them told Gates about it and he stole my program!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Had a brand-spanking-new innovative one of a kind style graphical interface
*HINT* MAC-OS *NUDGE*
See next level-1 post for details. (-: "You insensitive clod!" :-)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If Microsoft cannot actually find any of its code in OSS, are we going to see the return of "look and feel" lawsuit?
Next time use SARCASM /SARCASM
someone might actually thing you have a kernel that panics!
(a million obligatory BSOD references) here.
Ok, here's mine:
So everytime Linux crashes the borg is going to take me to court?
Profit!
Uh, wait a sec...
Unfortunately, talk like this from M$ will put the kibosh on Win/Lin more interoperability projects from a very high level. This is just ammo for those PHBs to go with pure Windows farms. Gates has got balls to say that M$ code is in Linux.
I hate to say it because I work with the stuff for a living but, when was M$ ever on the leading edge of anything?
I hadn't read the thing about CIFS before, is that an attempt to claim that Samba is a rip of M$'s IP?
Under the present IP and patent laws, he's probably right - given MS holds zillions of patents, it would be very surprising if some Linux stuff didn't step on these patents.
However, I don't think he'd be silly enough to try to enforce these patents. Given IBM's love and support for Linux, and given that MS is almost certainly stepping on some of IBM's even larger set of patents, then he'd potentially be setting MS up for a world of hurt.
There's been a gentleman's agreement for years between IBM, MS and many others that sharing their patents via cross-licencing agreements is the only way to advance the industry as a whole. If MS tries to go against this agreement, IBM could give them a world of hurt (and get a lot of pain in return).
If there's "no question" that your IP is being used in open source software, tell us where. If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, the world should rightfully assume that your attacks are baseless and without merit.
I hope you continue on with this approach and name a specific distro or Open Source project so they can sue you for defamation.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Gates has been a "me too!" entrepreneur in everything else that came by the IT industry; no reason he shouldn't clone SCO's major product as well.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But it's not just the code! That's where you're missing the most critical part of his claim. When you patent softare concepts, you're patenting every array of copying that can happen, and that's the sad part of the matter. Open Source, though only out there for non profit means (until you arrive at Redhat, and the such), has to be aware that it can't trample the rights of big companies, even if it's being sucked dry of all of it's code at the same time.
We live in a capitalistic world, and frankly, an attack like this should be expected. It's a great idea to have people working on open source software for the fun of it, but it has to be original ideas. OSS is like the product of a company. If it's created and it tramples the rights of others, then companies that have been trampled will have the right to come back and request damages from ANYONE that uses the software.
It's a frightening world out there for Open Source Software, but it's a real world. We need not just look past these claims as "Micro$oft hogwash" or anything of the sort. SCO and Microsoft might be making VERY valid points, and it's something the OSS community MUST watch out for.
I love Open Source Software, but I also respect the rights of others, however evil they might be.
...when I saw XP first, was "Finally one of the guys at M$ saw Gnome and understood Windows UI was years behind current standards".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
...or STFU.
This message needs to be delivered loudly and clearly to Mr. Gates. You don't get to whisper vaguely about IP theft in the current climate. Either show us the source you claim has your IP in it, or keep your mouth shut.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
From the article:
"One thing about the GPL is that you can't just license IBM Linux, or Red Hat Linux," Gates said. "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux."
What a bunch of crap. This is disinformation at its best.
- Linux is a Unix kernel clone.
- There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
- Wtf does "licensing any Linux" and "licensing all Linux" means ? I'm assuming Gates mean licensing any Linux-based distro, in which case you adhere to whatever licensing terms the distro is released under, licensing terms which in turn are compliant with the GPL (since Linux is included).
That blurb from Gates means rigorously nothing whatsoever. But most people aren't even aware of what the GPL is, and when they quickly read something like that, they decude "uuh, Linux is dangerous to my business" or something. That's just ridiculous.
As much as I hate RMS' rants, flamewars and stubbornness, I must admit we need him more than ever today.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
*cough*Mono*cough*
Even with microsoft, I doubt anyone will be taking these kinds of threats seriously without some kind of verifiable proof. The main purpose is to scare people who are unknowledgeable about opensource software into choosing something else. And it might even help opensource software because 'stealing' code is much easier behind closed doors...
What Gates and people of his mindset continue to miss (or ignore) is the fact that 90% of software developers work on code that is never sold. They work for brokerages, shipping companies, hospitals. For code that is never meant to be sold, licensing is rarely an issue.
The GPL only threatens software companies whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications.
MjM
I only mod up...
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Also, copyright covers the right to make derivative works. So if there's an icon or other UI element that was a tweaked Windows element then that's technically copyright infringement. It's awefully hard to prove though (given the Apple v. MSFT precedent.
In short, Gates is right but it doesn't mean they'll start firing lawsuits against open source...They didn't previously sue their other competitors unlike how Sun/Oracle lobbied and/or sued MSFT.
All of Microsoft's products are closed sourced. The only way it could have gotten in is from one of you Shared-Source buddies.
We see it in TimeLine suits, the shafting of SpyGlass Systems, Blue Mountain Greeting Cards et al, the clone wars beteen MS-DOS and DR-DOS, the emBorgment of STAC Systems to settle yet another suit, and so on ad nauseum. Heck the company started by dumpster-diving for printouts of other people's software, and probably also had a copy of the Dartmouth BASIC source in hand while they wrote their 4K ROM BASIC (which they had already sold as pre-existing; ie, their first product was vapourware, the start of a long tradition). This is the company that copied the Mac interface right down to details like throwing away variable-sized elevators in order to look more Mac-like (and got sued for that one too).
This is a severe case of the event horizon casting aspersions about the kettle's colour! "Chutzpah" isn't a substantial enough concept for this, it isn't even in the running!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
he does have a bit of a point. It always surprises me how few /. people realise that, to most end users (business-wise), the biggest advantage of free software lies not in the fact that the source is freely available to read and alter, but rather in the fact that the program itself is free of charge. While most open source programmers make their programs for the more philosophical reasons, what ends up on the market is a product with all the features of a commercial product but at zero cost. A lot of those features were introduced into the open source product through reverse engineering of an existing commercial product. Of course, this happens all the time in the tech industry, and MS has nothing to complain about, it did the same to dozens of other companies (Apple being the most popular example, i suppose).
If coca-cola brings out a new drink, i do a chemical analysis on it and duplicate it, then bring it out at half the price in a remarkably similar bottle, i'd get sued to death. I don't see why people think the software world should work differently. I'm not saying MS should shut linux down or anything, i just think people should stop thinking there's something "heroic" about making open-source software, while microsoft must be "evil" because they want money for the things they make.
As long as I can find the string "mountpoint" in my registry, they have nothing to say about IP.
Hey everyone, take a look at the quote and realize that this isn't some sort of evil empire at work attacking us. (Yet..) If you look at the style of the comment, Mr. Gates is merely saying that bits of code may find their ways in free software. It's not some sort of FUD, in fact, it seems to show a little bit of understanding towards OSS. He could even be saying it in that way because he knows the opposite is true - bits and pieces of OSS find their way into commercial software.
Yeez people, don't get so defensive when you're not under attack. When he pulls out the big guns and threatens licensing like SCO, then we can all b**ch and moan until the cows come home...
You know sometimes the future of linux seems pretty bad and sometimes it seems pretty good.
What MS and it's little buddy SCO fails to remember is one major fact:
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Linux and other Free software developers have worked realy hard to keep things clean. This IP crap is the first for linux, but it isn't for free software in general.. Think BSD and the unix wars from the 70's and 80's. They distributed AT&T code, not thru theivery, but thru a twist of fate. So they just eliminated the code.
If any code is in linux, it's by accident or thru subtifuge by the rare unscrupulis developer.
People who develop for linux don't do it for the money and do it for the pleasure of it for the philosophical reasons. It is not to Linux advantage to steal code. Linux people can do better then that.
Don't forget that MS is going thru patent issues right now of it's own.
Once all this crap blows over, people won't remember: "Linux gained advantage over Microsoft in the server market. MS claims that they did this by possibly stealing from MS and other companies."
The will remember: "Linux gained advantage over Microsoft"
alright this proves it all this SCO FUD is really a conspiricy by MS to kill out favorite penguin. Well its time for Tux to kick some ass, break out his rocket launcher, and go Q3 on Bill's ass. And once Tux has gibbed the hell out of bill, its time to move onto those stupid sco exec's and soon there after the pesky riaa! i can just see the headlines now, killer penguin to promote the worlds best (and only) operation system, free of charge to all users. well now that we all conclusivly know that MS is behind all the FUD, we can get on with our lives while tux goes on his fragging spree... (anyone up for making a Q3 mod, player = tux, kill bill, at sco's head quarters, and maby throw in the riaa and metallica too!)
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
Open Source projects are the opposite of bureaucratic, they flourish, grow and decline according to their popularity.
Too bad really that TCP/IP and the many BSD tools weren't released under the GPL... or MS wouldn't be singing these tunes.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Microsoft isn't going to sue Linux any time soon, that would look bad. Thats why they had SCO do it.
Bill is just spreading FUD about OSS, thats all.
IANAL, but it cuts both ways - you can code either side of the API.
..."Linux might use Windows code."... If that isn't a serious bug report!
Now that is news.
Is software REAL property like a house , or is it an idea. I think this 'rights of others' thing is over rated.
Do we really want to live in a world where if i have a thought, I must pay M$ for thinking an idea that they have claimed to own?
Is this getting a little ridicules?
(off comment portion of post):
If i really want MY digital rights managed, I can do that myself.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
What delightfull fud
The good mr. Gates completely fails to identify the nature of the IP. He completely fails to identify how the IP is protecteted. And, He completely fails to explain how it got away from microsoft.
Lets consider the possibilities
1. Source code copying
The usual suspect. As always its much more likely that microsoft stole from the open source world than the other way around. You can completely discount the historical incidents and still come to this conclusion. Its just to easy for Microsoft to take something thats publicly available and hide it in its code bloat. OSS developers, would have to somehow purloin Microsfts source and include it into existing projects. NOT LIKELY
2. Look and feel
Microsoft more or less destroyed this argument in their lawsuit with Apple. Apple still owns Xerox Parc and is releasing Darwin under GPL.
3. The ever popular patent system
This is where the pain can come from. Our patent system is seriously broken. Between business method patents, Patents for devices that never get built and the ever popular overly broad but legal patent, are microsofts best weapon against OSS. The sheer cost of prosecuting a lawsuit makes it an effective weapon. On the other hand the organizations developing OSS in general have no assets, they have allready released the code to the world, and theres nothing to stop them from reorganizing in saner parts of the world (PGP excellent example).
As usual this type of action makes me happy I am an NRA member and support the 2nd ammendment to the hilt. The reason smaller government is best is because it belongs to whoever is willing to buy it.
In any case, it is obvious to me that there are still a great many hurdles humanity must face before individuals actually have the freedom so many millions of people have died for in the last century alone. Or something... It is just painful to watch as large corporations push smaller companies and people around, all the while receiving the blessing of our "representatives." I don't know what else to do. Vote, write your representatives, protest. Anything we can legally do only marginally works, if that...
"Civilization is only skin deep"
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Everytime I get a BSOD, I say a little prayer of thanks for Linux
I'm seeing a lot of people saying something to the effect of "put up or shut up". Are you sure you really want that? How would it affect your life if the Samba or Apache projects were shut down for patent infringement? I'm not saying this is likely, or even possible, but just think about it for a moment. MS could cause a LOT of problems without even having a valid legal leg to stand on. They certainly could convince a lot of companies to question adoption of open source. And it's not as if they are exactly convinced about it now...
SCO is the last gasps of a desparate company. Any legal action from Microsoft will be very calculated and a much bigger threat. Remember, $40 billion buys a lot of time from your friendly neighborhood legal team. That's pretty hard to fight, even if you are right.
SCO's attack has always been aimed at Linux, not Unix, and they were sponsored from the start by Microsoft. Now that SCO appears to be settling in, and the anti-Linux FUD appears to be sticking, of course Microsoft has jumped on the bandwagon. "Cloning" is now stealing, reverse-engineering is piracy, and all imitations are theft. Welcome to the Golden Age.
For those who believe that truth and honesty will win, understand that this is war: Microsoft is fighting for its very existence and it knows that it must destroy Linux and the very concept of OSS if it is to survive.
There is really only one answer, and that is to start a movement to boycott Microsoft in all its markets. The alternative is to watch as the freedoms we take totally for granted (write program, distribute program) get eroded and finally criminalized.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Yeah, funny. Ho, ho. Bloody hilarious. Nothing at all two-faced about Microsoft, is there?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
As I recall you can't license Linux, and I also recall if you license Windows you have to license the whole Windows.
If his goal is to destroy Linux, then he's going to delay showing us the source code as long as possible. If he showed us now, we would just change the code and move along. Same goes for SCO, but I'm not sure what SCO's true intentions are.
No, he copied it.
Ms has actually been convicted of the charge that BIll Gates details..
several years ago they were convicted of infringing on copyrighted code and had to pay some damages..
copyrights!=IP rights of patents..it seems Bill Gates has problems with these details..
For patent rights to be on the same level of copyrighted code..ie the code gets you in trouble..the code has to be included in the patent application..
Only one set of patents I know of is set up this way..AOP patents from Xerox-PARC
if the code implements features different or differently from the patent feature there is no repeat no infringement!
SAMBA is immune from these attacks of FUD as MS would have already been in court if it was otherwise!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
So... it's not BSD that's Bloody Slow to Die, it's really Poul? (-:
Well, you know what to do: if you don't like it, fork it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
On Solaris, if you grep through /bin/ls, you will see that it is copyrighted by Microsoft.
How this is and what the history of this is? I have no idea. I find it very strange.
And like all single-product companies, they're always on the edge of extinction.
And before all you Microsoftistas get in a snit, just remember this: if Microsoft didn't have Windows, you wouldn't pay one red cent for IIS or IE or Word or Excel.
Are you an idiot? There are no real original ideas.
Windows, gui, mouse, web browsers
We might not want to live in a world where the patent office "pushes innovation by ownership," but it's the reality of Capitalism. You can't turn off cash flow, or you essentially turn off innovation and invention.
Of course Open Source Software is the best example of my previous statement put to the test, but I can still hold to it, because even the best OSS people still have to go out and get jobs to make their OSS Lives work. I've seen examples of OSS projects failing all over the place becasue it costs money to even do OSS. The best place to look is the old Linux Router Project.
All I'm saying is, OSS is a very idealistic set of projects. Idealism is an awesome thing, but when it faces reality, it sometimes less than perfect.
Microsoft, and everyone else that has patent claims, has to be respected. It's part of the REALITY of our world today. If OSS software is unfairly stealing the work of Microsoft, then it's liable; I'm liable.
The GNU GPL is, in many ways, the ultimate "cross license." When the German government wants a few more features in KDE, it pays for exactly those features. If you feel the need to stock up on more traditional IP ammo, just make sure you own all the copyrights, like Trolltech, or file some patents, like Red Hat.
1. SCO is going after Linus, really.
2. Linus's kernel code constitutes and extremely small portion of a GNU/Linux operating system.
3. For free software / open source to be seriously derailed (for more than a year or two) they would have to go after Stallman.
4. Stallman will eat them alive.
...that when IBM sees to The SCO Group's encraterment, they do a really, really thorough job. Big flash, widespread aftershocks, debris found over a very wide area. Small sign on tourist lookout saying "Go ahead, Bill, make our day". (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It's called intellectual property, and many of us make a living selling it. Artists, writers, musicians, programmers. They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas, and if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living.
Ah, now that Micosoft came forwards and licensed their Windows source code, we can no longer claim that as 'closed source' it is impossible that it found its way into Linux.
However, since the Windows source code *has* been licensed, it should be possible to run a hashing comparison that will identify whether and what Windows code has slipped into Linux.
There could be a few surprises in there. Imagine discovering that MS had themselves contributed some code to one or other OSS project in order to frame the entire OSS community!
Time to start a "Guaranteed 100% Microsoft-free" certification process?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Microsoft speaking on copying others' features seems a bit absurd. Microsoft has made a living off other peoples' innovations. Now the only reason suits like the SCO vs Linux haven't come up with other OS's is because we can't see whats under the hood. Now, in fairness, maybe Linux developers have a right to view the OS code of any accusers of IP infrengement to make sure they haven't done the same thing. Such a rule might also make a company think twice about filing frivilious lawsuits to tarnish the reputation of open source OS's.
I do security
I realize everyone thinks SCO's actions are sleezy and MS is being oportunistic, but I really think this lawsuit is good for linux as a whole and me in particular. Why? The chicks. The current scenario is:
random girl: can I check my email?
me: sure...
girl: your desktop looks weird, I want to go home now. I'm confused...
but if linux does include stolen code it becomes dangerous:
different girl: mmmm, is that linux you're using?
me: why yes... it is (sly smile)
girl: you're so dangerous, take me now.... on the keyboard...
One can always dream :)
(And before you make wild geek accusations, yes I do have a girl friend and this was intended to be funny :)
It should say that Free Software projects would never steal code from Microsoft. We Free Software authors take pride in the reliability of our work, and Microsoft code is known to crash frequently and to be susceptible to viruses and internet worms. We don't want to adopt those flaws into the Free Software world.
Quiet! You might give them the idea to pull the same thing with Linux as SCO did!
Actually from the comment, I'm sure that Bill has an entire Primary Adjunct of drones already cross-indexing the billions of lines of MS source with the Linux kernel sources!
If he even finds 2 lines the same, I'm sure we'll hear all about it - Probably from the Gartner Group.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Gates is deliberately attempting to misinform the general public here. Reverse engineering of software and protocols is perfectly legal, but he uses the term "cloning" to make this legal activity sound like the illegal activity of copying. Then he uses the misleading term, intellectual property to hide what he is talking about. So he's trying to hint that reverse-engineering falls into the same category as copyright infringement.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
As opposed to the Microsoft's way of "innovating" code from Stac Technologies, Timeline, and SoftImage. But the question has been asked: How does closed source code find it's way into open source code? In the case of SCO, it may have happened, but what about MS? They are so totalitarian they threaten to sue anybody who posts anything resembling their code.
There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software," Gates said. "When people clone things, that often becomes unavoidable.
There is a difference in cloning functionality (window control, widgets, etc) and cloning code. If MS is crying about cloning functionality, then Xerox, Apple, IBM, FreeBSD, RMS, XFree86, and an alphabet like soup of companies can complain about MS. Apple even sued them for it and lost. But how would you know Bill, unless you personally know code from many companies?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So, according to the Dear Leader, "The SCO suit is largely related to trademark and copyright." And what's the rest? Legally protected "IP" or "IP" in the FUD sense?
I have never had more respect for RMS stressing that the use of a generic concept such as "IP" is a bad idea!
Well, I think the problem for Linux is not so big. We must consider the fact that big companies are switching over to Linux (take Unilever for instance). These huge companies do have a legal department that understands all these licensing issues and know when Gates and others are talking B/S.
Loads of big companies will gradually adopt Linux. Small/medium sized companies will notice this and thrust in open source will be back.
Microsoft is stalling the process, that's all. Their monopoly will end, they know this, the question is: how long will it take until we get there.
Unfortunately, probably not.
Apple went after MS for, first, "look and feel" infringement; then when that failed, they tried "trade dress" (usually appled to product packaging or appearance).
Neither strategy worked, and the reasons more or less depend on whom you ask. Strictly speaking, IIRC, the judge in that case declined to agree that a GUI fits either of the above categories. If the law had been caught up with software interface, perhaps the outcome would have been different.
In this case, although (as other posters have rightfully noted) Linux WMs do slavishly copy Windows GUI/widgets, Gates almost certainly is talking about code, not UI elements.
first, no software isn't very real, it's very loosely something that exist. Aside from we see effects of it thats about it.
"Do we really want to live in a world where if i have a thought, I must pay M$ for thinking an idea that they have claimed to own?"
This has been the world for 100s of years. And sure in some ways it sucks to come up with a idea, maybe even think of how to make a business around it and then to find out someone else already did it. Or has claim over it stopping you. But at the same time think of the reverse. You have an idea, maybe something you want to make a business out of. You keap thinking about it and one day someone else pops up and it using your idea. Well shit your plans just got ruined, you've been thinking about it before that person (you think anyways) and now their running with the idea. You can't do shit now. Or will simply looking like a copier. If you had acted and soon as you had the idea taken action to secure it you would have been ok, but you didn't.
I know I continuously see things come out that I had thought up years ago. But I can't do anything cause I didn't do anything to show I claimed it first. They way it is can suck, but not having it sucks to.
Think often, Patent first.
This statement seems misguided. A project, in the singular as you state it, will more likely then not have a single license, maybe 2 if a duel licensing model is appropriate but most have just one. In choosing an Open Source license the original poster was claiming that the GPL is supperior to BSD for the types of development that are now under attack by SCO/MS/Sun/et. als. I infer this from the actual topic for the thread.
The reason, I beleive, they are making these claims is because there is no legal mechanism for keeping BSD code out of propriatary closed source software and because of this your legal position ( should something such as an SCO type law suit ever be in your future ) is far weaker than if you GPL'd your code.
For your point #2, just look at the brilliant success of PNG vs. Linux and BSD'd code vs. GPL's code in general. Now I am not tryin g to slam BSD , BSD coders or anything like that but there is something about the GPL that makes it a stronger force for development than BSD'd code. Perhaps because it is not possible for a closed source company to grab code and bury it deep in there products without ever giving anything back to the people who developed it or the community at large.
For point #3, come on! It's legal to bury BSD code in your product, the GPL is incompatable with code burying, so thats how it's easier. It may be illiegal in both cases but with the GPL your position as the original copyrite holder is much stronger and the potential risks to the accused are much greater ( GPL'ing of there entire code base as remedy for instaince).
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
M$ is big time ganstaz. linux is gettin on their turf.
Can they now close down the MS German office just like they did the SCO German office for making unsubstantiated claims?
I am not sure how smart this is for MS. I would think they would want to be distancing themselves from SCO at this point. SCO has obviously been manipulating the financial system by their outrageous and contradictory claims. If SCO is found guilty for pumping up its stock price by making claims about Linux IP, wouldn't MS then be in a difficult situation? Not even going into anti-trust issues . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
If Trey manages to freeze FOSS out of the 'states, he's going to create the biggest brain-drain, and the biggest boost for non-US economies ever seen.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Gates was talking about cross-licencing, basicly saying "I'm pissed off with GPL becase I cannot trade my little secrets with other little secrets (which is what IT corporations like to do) but I'm forced to do things in the open".
Ciao
----
FB
This sounds like a pretty wacky claim on Microsoft's part. The only example that comes to my mind is maybe samba, which uses the Microsoft SMB protocol.
:)
Now unfortunately for Microsoft, it is legal to reverse engineer a protocol for the sake of interoperability, when the documentation is not available from the company. This is clearly in the best interest of the public, which is most of us
Also check out this web page on How to Reverse Engineer and still be Legal.
i just would like to ask if there is anyone there that they can guarantee 100% that the code in linux does not interfere with any patents or licensing issues? how about famous open source programs such as apache?
i have seen people defending but it is more of a reasoning that since linux is open source, then codes are likely not to interfere with other ip issues. i have not seen a post here that has wrote with a certainty that codes do not interefere with ip issues. just more comments on fud, and lawsuits, etc.
i am just opening my eyes, what if there are some codes that interfere with other ip issues? what will the community do (aside from making updates and removing codes.) this will damage the open source model big time as companies will not be 100% sure that what they are using does not violate any patents and such.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
So, now that they've made that statement, are they open to shareholder lawsuits if they don't pursue WINE or SAMBA in court? Or perhaps they were referring to Microsoft IP they have not put restrictions on, like for instance the CIFS and .Net specs?
include $sig;
1;
I remember the days when Linux was a small esoteric system and most people simply did not know about its existence. Others who knew did not treat it seriously. For the first time I had installed Linux some time around 1993. People were laughing at me and asking why I am wasting my time on it. The reason I did it is that I was looking for a way out from MS crap and from overly expensive Unices from Sun, HP, etc. I wanted to have something that is Unix and that is always with me and I can use it on cheap hardware. It was pretty clear then that all non-MS OSes will be dead soon. Linux for me was a sort refuge from Microsoft repression and I hoped that it will remain an esoteric system for foreseeable future.
This is very regrettable that Linux has got so much attention these days especially from Microsoft. We know perfectly that Microsoft was able to muscle out any other competitor (IBM, Lotus, Borland, Netscape, DR DOS just to name few). Linux is unusual in that sense that it does not rely on the usual commercial cycle of investment-production-sales. But this does not mean that it is not prone to Microsoft tactics. Microsoft did not always use only economic means against its competitors. It was able to fend off antitrust lawsuit without much trouble. Sometimes the tactics was to hire competitors' execs or similar variation. It means that MS has something except for FUD to fight Linux with and there is no doubt that it will do, and it will win.
Using IP laws against Linux is indefensible tactics simply because Linux community is not able to afford to hire enough lawers to defend itself. Probably the only viable solution is to take Linux development and use out of the US and Europe. And this is where globalization plays a bad role: if IP laws are used then they are enforceable pretty much everywhere. Probably China is the most promising country because it has a rather independent policy and its government does invest into Linux.
There is much trouble ahead fro Linux, it had become a victim of its own popularity.
A VERY small number of oss contributers have access to windows source (I'd hope none at all, but hey, there might be someone)
EVERY windows contributor has full and easy access to all open source projects.
Who copied the most code ? If you were on a deadline for a hard feature due tomorrow, and your approach turned out to be utter bullshit (this, unfortunately happens sometimes to developers), you're telling me you wouldn't look at a competing implementation if it were only a mouse click away ?
Get real.
When patents stop a movement that is responsible for a lot of development in a certain field, then patents have stopped serving their purpose for that field.
Since this is obviously the case for software, we either need to get the patent system adapted to the new situation or it should ot apply to this field at all.
Patents have a purpose, and when they no longer serve it, they are no longer a good idea.
Sco nips at the heels of the penquin swimming to its breeding ground. The great white MS, following the blood trail, moves in for the kill. Information is power, and the powerful want to limit your access to it, unless you first pay tribute, i.e. money to them. It's always about power and money, and sorry, but we can't allow you to have much of either one or the other.
". If it's created and it tramples the rights of others, then companies that have been trampled will have the right to come back and request damages from ANYONE that uses the software."
I'm sorry these rights are a recent fabrication - mostly by America - they did not exist when I entered the business 20 years ago in England.
Why should I recognise them now. I sure as hell didn't vote for them. Did you? I doubt it!
Currently Airbus Industrie is overtaking Boeing as the largest manufacturer of aircraft, a major transfer of skills and business from the "Advanced" US to the "Backward" EU (and, before the FUD starts, Airbus repaid its government loans long ago.) The US Government perhaps needs to consider whether the practices of US companies may cause the centre of technology innovation to move out of the US in the longer term - except that for the present administration, the long term is 2004. Oh well, Bill can afford to retire anytime. Pity his developers can't.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
So now is every corporation that doesn't like Linux going to clam they have IP in it. Yea we are just a bunch of thieves. It takes one to know one. How do the great Gates get his GUI??? Apple didn't give it to him. I guess it will come down to the courts and how much each side pays. Oh-well I will go get my MS Certs now.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Its fine to make a living from expressions of ideas, not of ideas by themselves. Also, the time limit on this is reasonable for many fields, but definitely not for the computer field.
Come back with those arguments when first of all there are proper checks in palce to guarantee reasonable patents (instead of just granting them and letting judges figure it out, that way of dealing achieves the exact opposite of what was the purpose of patents, it stiffens invention since just making something already requires having an amry of lawyers to ensure you can deal with the tons of invalid patents on the way)
Laws must restrict the extent of "intellectual property" that simple
american laws was different many years ago. it didn't killed artist, at the contrary.
French laws are different and very different for computer related ideas, and it doesn't hurt people.
You have to think in a more subtle way
to discuss about the intellectual property IS NOT TO REMOVE THEM
is only to assure it's useful for the "common good".
there are NOW some problems with the intellectual property, patents and copyright
there are 3 differents concepts and EVERYONE mistake one for the others (like this very forum)
and for the moment, there are too often used to sue others instead of help people to promote their creation.
Help People was the goal of that. no to give weapons to lawyers and corporation.
we need to discuss how much protection we want to give to _INTELLECTUAL_ "property" and how we want to promote individual liberties.
If the IP were in a GPL product, it would licence the IP under the GPL. You can't use the "we were just doing it to poison the well" defense in court, cause that'll lead to all kinds of neat stuff like criminal fraud charges and a PR nightmare the likes of which they've never seen in Redmond.
If they were found to be doing that deliberately, then suing, apart from any legal ramifications, it'd spell the end of the company. Cause nobody is going to do business with them again, because they're criminally untrustworthy, and they'll do anything including endanger themselves to beat the other guys.
Which is why it's probably not happening at all, intentionally or otherwise. It's a terror campaign.
It seems to be working the other way around. The cash flow flooding into Microsoft has stagnated innovation and invention, not that they invented much before. Their desktop hasn't really changed much since windows 98.
Of course Open Source Software is the best example of my previous statement put to the test, but I can still hold to it, because even the best OSS people still have to go out and get jobs to make their OSS Lives work. I've seen examples of OSS projects failing all over the place becasue it costs money to even do OSS.
It is expected that OSS people have jobs. No one ever claimed you could do OSS and nothing else. It takes a dedicated effort to see a project through. Some people get in over their head and projects fail. It's the same thing with propietary systems.
All I'm saying is, OSS is a very idealistic set of projects. Idealism is an awesome thing, but when it faces reality, it sometimes less than perfect.
I don't think anyone ever claimed OSS was perfect, just better.
Microsoft, and everyone else that has patent claims, has to be respected. It's part of the REALITY of our world today. If OSS software is unfairly stealing the work of Microsoft, then it's liable; I'm liable.
This is where I start to see that you are actually a Troll. If you run Open Source Software you are NOT liable for it. It is not your fault if someone puts tainted code into a program you use. That's the way the law works in the US at least. Besides, I don't think OSS projects would "steal" code from an inferior product anyway.
Time makes more converts than reason
Actually, if IBM and Microsoft got into a patent battle, no one would be safe. There are so many intertwining patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc. that a battle between the two 800 pound gorillas of the tech industry would actually cause people to actually think about what good our current idea ownership system is doing for us.
The defense people offer now is "they're all defensive patents." Well duh. That's because people can use them offensively, and I mean that in both senses of the word.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
patent and IP are TWO differents things
patents need money
world-wide patents need a LOT OF money
"100 of years" of time is wrong
patent, ip and even copyright laws of USA and others countries changed in this time.
and laws can restrict their use without destroy economy and perfectly sane corporate commercial use.
we either need to get the patent system adapted to the new situation or it should ot apply to this field at all
:software running on an ordinary computer".
Actually it is the patent system that changed. Software patents used to be explicitly forbidden. Not they grant software patents left and right. Did congress pass new laws allowing software patents? Nope. Some guy running the patent office pretty much just decided he wanted to cange the rules on his own. That, and an idiotic court ruling that a pure software patent isn't a software patent if you include certain magic words. Basicly you have to say
Fixing the problem of software patents doen't require changing the system, it just requires UNDOING a change that was never approved by congress.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Gates is actually talking about licensing parts of their patent portfolios to other companies. For him, companies should have patents to trade with other companies, and all is right with the world.
However, with Linux and other GPL'ed software, he can't walk up to RedHat and make an *exclusive* agreement to license that patents for some new GUI element. If he licensed the patent for Redhat to use in a GPL'ed piece of software, he'd be licensing it for everyone in the world to use.
From that point on, he could no longer go up to SUSE, or IBM, or any other software company and trade that patent with them, because he's already licensed it to the world.
Not that I agree with it, but that's what he was referring to.
The thing about courts is that
a) intellectual property and business practices would be leaked. Like, if you lost a case to MS for some reason, and were losing your home as a result, why wouldn't you leak any trial documents you ran into.
b) MS could lose. I mean, if you got your case tried in Mississipi, it is all but guaranteed that jurists would side with the little guy over the big company - in fact that is more likely to be the norm nationwide.
Finally, courts are the last stop before violence erupts. The free market should work without undo courts. If there is a lot a more court activity than courts, then the country is a step closer to civil war.
This is my sig.
127 comments at this point, and a quick search showed that not one mentioned Mono! This is very surprising being as, like Wine and Samba, Mono is a project with the specific purpose of cloning an existinng Microsoft technology and making it available on other platforms. And Mono is an even greater threat than the others in the sense that Wine and Samba are Linux only while the Mono project's long term goal is to port to just about everything.
.Net libraries in the open spec. Considering that MS hold patents on some of this technology this makes it a risky situation because even a 'clean-room' clone like Mono or DotGNU Portable.NET can infringe patents, leaving them open even if no copyrights are infringed. The real problem is that, like Java, the true power of .Net lies not in the languages but in the libraries.
There has been a concern for some time that Mono may be on shaky ground IP-wise. Certainly MS opened the C# and IL specifications by giving it to a valid standards body (ECMA), but they did not include all (or even the majority) of the
This is of great concern to me because of a descision I made last winter which was based, at least partly, on the existance and viability of Mono. Up to this point MS has made no moves against Mono, even providing them some back-door help upon occaision. Perhaps they are just using Mono as another nail in Java's coffin and will turn on Miguel de Icaza the minute he is of no more use to them.
However I find it difficult to believe that someone as smart as Miguel would allow himself to be used as a pawn. (Leaving me hope that he has covered his bases on this.) In the meantime the whole SCO thing can influence IP rights in two directions: In one we get a future where IP rights are king and anyone can take you down for the smallest mis-use or percieved mis-use. in the other way we get a future where IP rights are tempered with a little reality.
In my opinion one of those paths leads to doom. In the meantime, I might want to start re-thinking my plans...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas, and if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living.
Uh, no. Legitimate IP is the expression of an idea, not the idea itself! You cannot "own" an idea, only its implementation. Our copyright and patent laws are very clear about this.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Dang, my company just went under because of Fox Lawyers :-(
Why would Linux and precisely Linux be the thing that "Copies MS's IP"? I mean, why couldn't some OS or software-project do it? How come it's Linux and nothing but Linux?
Yes I know it's because Linux is the main rival of MS right now. But I would still love to be able to ask Billy-boy that question.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
It's a well known fact that MS has benefitted from the BSD Internet Protocol stack as well as other BSD code.
Because it is closed source, who can say if your free software project's code isn't in there, GPL or not!!
Screw you, Bill, for spreading this FUD.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
They could give two shits about AIX. They charge for it, but it's so there's something that runs on their Unix machines. They'd happily eliminate it and replace it with Linux; newer versions of AIX even have Linux kernel personalities.
No, what they like is selling "Enterprise Servers" (mainframes), *nix hardware, and stuff to run on it like DB2, WebSphere, Notes, etc. And consulting work.
Had to see this comming, I guess Xerox PARC should sue everyone for using an GUI. When it's all said and done I would say Microsoft has pilfered more code than the Linux camp..
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Oh, sure, because Microsoft never helped themselves to others code... (For those that don't belive me; windows is non case specific. Windows has never been case specific. Yet there is a simple tool that is case specific; ping. Try it out yourself if you dont belive me. (It's actually been a while since I tested this myself, and all I can verify is that on my old 95 machine it was case specific.) So then children, which other OS do we know of that is case specific, and also publishes its code on the web? Um... could it be that free one? The one beginning with the L? (:
Since cloning of closed-source seems unlikely, consider it more like reverse engineering. Cloning is NOT reverse engineering.
Reverse engineering requires creative thought in making something work like something else.
He's not claiming reverse engineering.
What he's claiming is very interesting for people that aren't familiar with the nastiness of big business, though. Sort of an eye-opener for me a few years back, and tech folks should be aware of this if they're interested in IP.
See, you know how most Free Software folks complain bitterly about (at least some) software patents, saying that it makes things really hard to operate? They aren't lying. Engineers working at big companies ran into the same problem *years* ago. You simply cannot build things in a world with this many tech patents. It's impossible. You'd have to check through huge numbers of patents to do anything.
So big business came up with a solution. They just cross-license *everything*. One company is free to use all of another company's (or organizations...for example, MIT and Microsoft cross-license) patents. Most tech companies with decent IP portfolios do this with their competitors. For example, Seagate, Western Digital, Maxtor, etc, all cross license each others' patents.
This seems, at first, counterproductive. After all, isn't the point of patents to give you a short-term edge over competitors, to encourage new development? Nope. Patents in a situation like this still provide one big benefit to their owners -- they maintain oligopolies. If a new hard drive manufacturer comes along and wants to make hard drives, they can't. Seagate, WD, etc own masses of IP, enough to keep the new vendor from entering the market.
This is why patents are pretty frusterating in the world of big business. Go work at a corporate research lab...any patents you come up with don't do your company any good against their competitors. They just keep anyone else from entering the arena.
Now, Gates is troubled enough by Linux to pull the patent oligopoly card out of his sleeve, which normally doesn't get played. MS cross-licenses with *huge* numbers of organizations. They own massive amounts of IP. And yes, it's almost certain that they have rights to a large number of patents that Linux does not have rights to.
Hell, last time Slashdot ran a contest asking for silly patents (a ways back, maybe a year ago), I searched for "computer". First ten hits contained the just-granted patent on the table-lookup optimization for computing CRC-32s. Now, *everyone* does this...modem manufacturers, lots of hardware vendors. Not doing it is stupid. And maybe this patent would have gotten challenged if the owner went after, say, 3com with it. But instead, it's almost certainly in a large patent portfolio somewhere, waiting around for a day when its owner feels threatened by a newcomer to the industry. Then it can pull out its portfolio and start beating folks up.
This is not a trivially fixable feature of the patent system. Most US corporate research (probably foreign as well...I'm just not that familiar with non-US legalities) depends upon the oligopoly benefits provided by patents.
And just throwing out the patent system has other problems. I'm not sure that, say, RSA encryption would *ever* have been developed without a patent system to provide encouragement.
The best thing to do, I think, would be to cap tech patents at seven years, so that companies have to keep frantically coming up with new tech. Wastes more on lawyers -- it costs a couple of thousand per patent, and more patents would have to be produced to compensate -- but that at least alleviates some of the effect.
May we never see th
I've been testing the karma system ever since I hit the limit. Trust me, being a fucking moron and censoring yourself until you look like a fuckwitted asstard wont help your karma at all.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
You think IP involves just code?
Think of how many Microsoft patents and concepts are being infringed with all those thousands of clones out there. They have a history of not suing and I doubt they'll start now. But Gates is sure going to mention it.
He didn't say a single thing about code in his statements. The writer of the article added that in, just to correlate it with SCO in some way (just like Slashdot did).
"Sufferin' succotash."
Thank you for the first comment in this thread that strikes to the heart of the matter.
All the people discussing "intellectual property" on this thread need to review the history of intellectual property, the original reason for its creation, and the social contract that it encompasses when analyzing the current situation in the the field of computer science (and frankly within the entertainment industry as well.)
Intellectual property does not exist to guarrantee the rights of a particular person or group to make a living in a certain way. Rather it is a grant of limited monopoly as an inducement for innovation. In fields were the monetary barrier to entry is small (computer science, music) or where the majority of innovation is government sponsered (biotech, genetics), intellectual property in its current form has ceased to serve its purpose and has instead become an anti-competive bludgeon that quashes innovation. The current system of intellectual property in the US is thus in severe need of reform but such reform is hampered by the business models that it currently protects (as reflected by several postings in this thread.)
It is fairly clear that IP law in the U.S. is out of control. We have companies who spend millions foisting their ideas off on society then complaining thet their ideas are treated as part of the cultural background. We have companies that think it is possible to own the commons. We have legislators and judges agreeing with them (possibly for pay in some cases).
The quickly developing morass is expensive to navigate and makes real innovation nearly impossible. It is rapidly expanding to cover every aspect of life and technology.
What will the U.S. do when the time comes for a cost/benefit analysis and the result is that it is cheaper to leave the U.S. entirely? There are a number of countries out there with a much saner IP situation (even if only by virtue of not really considering IP at all) that would really love to expand their economy and influence by becoming the home of technological innovation.
Up until now, their lack of infrastructure has removed them from consideration. There will come a point where the cost of dealing with stupid U.S. style IP law will exceed the cost of building your own infrastucture in these countries. The decision to move will be a simple matter of economics. After all, corporations do not have patriotism, they know only cost and benefit (read profit).
Looking at history, the U.S. benefitted greatly from being on the other side of that equasion in it's first two centuries. The opportunities presented by a country where one could have a good idea and develop it into a reality free of a million rules and regulations and laws favoring the entrenched dinosaurs were enough to cause innovators and businessmen all over the world to pull up roots and move to the 'the land of opportunity'.
The same legal and economic forces can just as easily drive innovation and business elsewhere.
What would be cool would be if IBM were to lend its legal department to the various copyright holders of Free software to enable the following:
... }
foreach person {Linus Tridge Miguel
{
Maito -type registered -return_receipt true \
-person "Bill Gates" -company "Microsoft" \
-text subst [
$legalease(HEADER)
Mr. Gates, I am the copyright holder of the free
software program $FOSS($person), and I would like
you to either
a) show explicitly where my code contains Microsoft IP
or
b) state publicly that your accusation does not apply to my program.
Failure to comply will be considered an act of libel.
$legalease(FOOTER)
]
}
To the lawyers in the audience: could the copyright holders of the various projects do this and have a legal standing?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Anyway THE GPL IS NOT AN EULA. How many times has it been stated here. All it is is a simple copyright notice. Yes this code is copyrighted do not copy it unless you show all the code thanks. Thats basically what the gpl is in simple terms. MS is so obsessed with EULA's because this is how they extort, oops I mean maximize profits.
He does not get the gpl at all. You are right about misinformation.
The only thing MS may be right in is linking to GPL code. This is a gray area. For example I was reading the Reiser comments in an earlier story yesterday and the BSD community will refuse any fS that is gpl. Why? Because they fear if you link to a gpl product then the kernel must turn gpl as well. Isn't the copyleft license specifically for situations like this? Perhaps more developers should use that.
http://saveie6.com/
See subject.
"Sufferin' succotash."
This Linux stuff is b*llsh*t. Let's get back to basics and support the GNU/HURD system. That's the only one that we should support and develop for. I am sure there will be somebody's body in a trunk or two in the future, but corporate assasinations won't solve the Microsoft problem. With them sitting on $40 bills and the George Bush Jr. puppet at their side we can never win. Let's bring up the HURD community and help out the free software foundation, they have given so much yet ask so little (please help their kernel). Thanks
All,
The term IP is confusing and I would urge that it not be used. It is confusing since it is often used to lump desparate laws of Copyright, Patent and Trademark as well as others together.
By using this term Mr. Gates is raising questions about all of these things lumped into that term, not just Patents or Trademarks.
The real question here is, can any company give us complete assurance that copyrighted or unlicensed material is not present in their software? Most companies DO NOT indemnify you for their infrigements (including MS even with their new license).
The answer to the above question is NO. Why? Because while Copyrights are easy to avoid infringement on in most cases, Patents are not. With Patents, it's like walking throught a mine field. There is no way of telling, short of doing an exhaustive search, if something is patented or not. In fact *MOST* patent attorneys will advise against doing such as search (really!!).
To learn more about patents and their evils in the software industry, please see the petition in my URL.
Thanks, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The Apple vs. Microsoft case was about copyright, not patents. Had software patents been around back then and had Apple patented the GUI, the case might have succeeded.
No wonder I have been having to reboot my Linux machines a lot lately.... I wondered what had happened.
Who'd have guessed?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Microsoft was convicted of software piracy in France in 2001. They were fined 3 million francs.
You can check out the details here. - Microsoft winds up on both ends of software piracy stick
I would think that the facts discovered during the anti-trust trial would make it painfully obvious to everyone that Microsoft is not overly concerned with things like ethics or laws. For them, it is an accounting decision. What are the chances we will get caught AND convicted, and what will it cost if we are convicted. Intentionally break our competitors' products, even if it hurts our own customers? Sounds like a good idea to me!
You think the US is Capitalism??? LOL
i sm .html
Read this
http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/corporat
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
O'Reilly: How much of the technical advantage stems from the original BSD code or from the newer developments coming from the FreeBSD team?
Bostic: Both. Certainly some of it is the original BSD code. Both the network stack and the filesystem work came from the original BSD code. Doing a good network stack is a very difficult project -- the BSD stack has at least 15 years of development in it now, and lots of very bright people spending serious research time on making it work. Linux and Microsoft both started from scratch, and it showed.
That said, FreeBSD has done a much better job of leveraging the community for quality than Linux has. Note the phrase "for quality" -- that's what makes that sentence correct. Linux is still very much directed by a small core, while FreeBSD has pushed the core developer group out into a larger set of people. One of the things I admire most about Jordan Hubbard is the job he's done in herding the cats and pushing FreeBSD's quality forward. He's done a better job of distributed management than we ever did at UC Berkeley (although, in our defense, he has better tools and infrastructure than we ever had at UC Berkeley, for example, the Web and high-speed networking).
"MS could cause a LOT of problems without even having a valid legal leg to stand on."
I think the more GENERAL the accusations that are made, the problems they cause. MS knows this and that is why they are not being specific. Specific claims require specific proof which can be addressed. General claims are FUD, and would be considered racism if applied to a race and sexism if applied to a sex. How does Gates' claim apply more to Open Source than proprietary software, besides not being able to CHECK the proprietary software!? I think the inability to check proprietary code makes it much MORE suspicious of IP infringement.
I believe I recall this being an old reason not to use Linux: "you don't know what is getting put there . . . there could be IP issues." Of course, this was a stupid argument because that goes for ALL software and Open Source is the easiest way to ensure compliance, but since SCO started spouting out total lies (if they make an unsubstantiated claim and then later deny that same claim, that is clearly a LIE), the sheep are getting nervous and are considering the above FUD true.
What I don't understand is why ALL copyrighted code is not required to be published? I mean, before code, ALL copyrighted material were published. That was the REASON behind copyright, so material could be published without having it copied by anyone who wanted to.
If copyright only applies to the binary that comes out, then a copyright shouldn't apply if even one 0 or 1 are out of place, right? Why do we even look at the source code to see if infringement of copyright occurred?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
at an infinite number of keyboards.... oh, no im not saying the linux community are monkeys... but there sure are a lot of people at keyboards....... don't hurt me.
It wasn't some guy suddenly deciding to patent software. The Supreme Court decided in Diamond v. Diehr that the USPTO's regulations at the time were unconstitutional. In case you don't follow the link, Diamond v. Diehr was about a method for vulcanizing rubber that used software connected to sensors to determine how best to heat the rubber.
So the USPTO (part of the executive branch of government) was prohibited (by the judicial branch) from following their current regulations. They got no help from Congress (the legislative branch) by creating new laws to help them guide new regulations. The USPTO can't unilaterally revert to their previous rules. Either someone needs to bring a new case to the Supreme Court to challenge the current USPTO regulations, or Congress needs to pass laws that will pass a judicial challenge.
It's called intellectual property, and many of us make a living selling it. Artists, writers, musicians, programmers. They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas, and if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living.
Ahh... but you are not painting a picture of a house and then claiming that anyone else who paints a picture of _any_ house is infriging on your IP. However if I were to paint the exact same picture of a house... then I am copying your work and imfriging on your IP.
Granting IP Patents / Copyrights on a concept is stupid and not the original intent which was to give the original artist/writers/musicians/programmers some protection against having their work stolen -- to encourage innovation.
What about the BSOD screensaver for X? ;-)
Perhaps its the MS _ BSOD he's on about
siggy played guitar
The fact that SCO is trying to get people to pay for Linux makes me sick. But I am still confused as to why "analyst" think this will push people to MS products. Unless SCO decides to put a $1,200 price tag for a 10 user connection license (Windows Server 2003 10 user), Linux will still be cheaper.
I don't/won't give SCO a dime, but I wish the press would stop spreading FUD.
"Under the GPL, all tweaks and applications developed for the operating system must be released to the community. That restriction does not hold true on commercial versions"
All applications must be released to the community? That's just plain untrue. Isn't there a way to let the people reading that article know that he's lying?
I don't know, that quote made perfect sense to me.
Let's say IBM's distro and Red Hat are entirely GPL'd. Red Hat has some great idea that Microsoft wants. If Red Hat were pure closed source, Microsoft could say "Hey, I wanna licence that idea from you. Let me use that, and you can use SMB something something". As it is, if Microsoft wants to take something from Red Hat they would have to GPL the rest of the project, or hopefully have the Red Hat module work at arms length from the rest of their product. Once Microsoft has GPL'd their code, IBM linux can jump up and grab that code the same as Red Hat can. I assume that's what he means by not just being able to licence one of them.
Also, I don't see where Billy's saying Linux is a Unix clone. The word Unix isn't even in that quote.
Although I happen to feel creators should have rights, I'd like to point out -- though everyone labels the anti-IP crowd as "communistic" -- it is things like "a right to make a living" that are actually closer to the Communist way of speaking.
But more relevantly,
This betrays a very fundamental (and possibly intentional) misunderstanding of intellectual proprty. As a matter of fact, no one is "selling ideas" -- or rather, no one is granted a state-fabricated artificial monopoly to sell them. You want to pay for an idea, go ahead. But the idea isn't protected by IP law. Only the expression of the idea is. That's the major thing messed up with patents on software algorithms and on business methods.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I've been testing the karma system ever since I hit the limit. Trust me, being a fucking moron and censoring yourself until you look like a fuckwitted asstard wont help your karma at all.
What about cussing until you look like (are?) a fuckwitted asstard? Will that affect your^H^H^H^Hsomeone's karma?
I remember some years ago, when it was found a security bug in zlib... and that some microsoft programs (office and so on) where affected by the bug. So proprietary software steals open source software, open source software cannot interoperate with proprietary software. To me all the sco rumors are microsoft directed.
Lotus 123 had copied the look and feel and it worked like Visicalc.
The case went to court, and Lotus won, thereby setting jurisprudence on the matter. Ever since, we've been able to replicate the look and feel and functionality of a particular piece of software without fear of legal action. The only thing that's off limits is reverse engineering the code or actually cut-and pasting the original code to the clone.
So I sleep sound at night. Don't let the turkeys (SCO) bug you down. Let them drown in their own drool.
Amerika, the land of Greed. By the Greedy, of the Greedy, and for the Greedy.
I think, SCO, Linux && IBM have made Bill feel very left out of the fun & games and this is his only way back into the news (other than if he decides to release the source code to WinXP or something)
:)
*imagines SCO, IBM, Bill, Linux as 8 yearolds*
SCO: I saw it first!
Linux: No I saw it first!
IBM: But I wanna use it!
Bill: Mommmyyy!! They dont wanna play with me anymore!! *waaaaah*
heh
-Rob
I think people are missing that MS doesn't have to have a real case, and they don't have to win in court for a litigation strategy to be advantageous to them.
On a code basis, they aren't going to have a leg, but they just need to press on their patent portfolio. The two points of real weakness probably being Samba and Apache as another poster pointed out.
Hit these two projects with some trumped up patent case that is just strong enough to keep them from getting summarily dismissed, which isn't hard to avoid.
MS has something we don't, deep, deep pockets. All they have to do is spread fear and cost the projects enough money. A couple of years of that, and the show's over. IBM might step into all these cases and stop them, and they might not. Enough of it, and MS could make it pretty much a retarded move to adopt OSS from the PHB's point of view, and they would set us back years, even if they didn't win the cases.
Then, as another poster pointed out, Germany and some other countries would be our hope, but in the USA it would be enough to knee-cap us.
Then again, maybe I am overstating the case, but it looks like a very real and potentially terrifying strategy to me as an OSS coder working in the US.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Go ahead and sell expressions of ideas all you want. I can live with that. But don't claim that you can sell me an idea.
Once you tell me an idea, that expression of the idea might be protected (I can't repeat your words verbatim), but don't tell me I can't take that idea, think about it (adding my own ideas) and express it to others.
To prevent me from doing that is, in my opinion, thought control. I don't care if you try to do it with a NDA, a EULA, or a Software Patent: I think it wrong, at least in a 'free society'.
You see, Harper Lee can make sure no one distributes copies of "To Kill A Mockingbird". Heck, I'll even give you that she can stop someone from writing an unauthorized sequel; But she can't stop people from writing stories about a white lawyer defending a black man in the american south.
The point is, Microsoft has benefitted hugely from the ideas of others (look at the history of 1-2-3 and Excel, Windows and Macintosh). For them to benefit from other's ideas then and complain bitterly about people using their ideas now is hypocrisy.
My father is a blogger.
Surely they would never do a thing like that!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I suppose Microsoft will soon be claiming that the Kerberos auth in GNU infringes on their IP. This is a load of fud and Microsoft knows it. Source contamination with Microsoft code would be nearly impossible, as getting the source code is damn near impossible to begin with. Even with the shared source program, you can't get source for a lot of the fundimental features of Windows, as Microsoft claims releasing that code would compromise security.
What's more like is the same "embrace and extend" garbage that we've seen for the past decade. Microsoft improves on open standard (which is good). But Microsoft patents the modified code (that's bad). Free interoperable software is being developed (that's good). But Microsoft will cease-and-desist any projects that show near-Microsoft functionality (that's bad). You get a free frogurt (that's good). But the frogurt is cursed (that's bad).
The argument about clones inevitably infringing IP certainly raises some eyebrows. Patents cover implementation, not function. IP holders often forget that in their zeal, but developing similar functionality doesn't necessarily violate a patent unless the same procedure (or code, in many cases) was used to reach the same end. On the flipside, because Microsoft has used the BSD license to its advantage, they've locked up quite a many protocols as Microsoft-only. With the addition of encryption or file protection, this may get even dirtier, as Microsoft will probably claim 1201 protection under the DMCA.
In the long run, open source development won't be hurt by all of this IP fud. Project coordinators will pay more attention to the origin of their code, as will code contributers. Linux won't die so easily. Even if Microsoft pulls a fast one in the DC Circuit Court and somehow gains ownership of Linux, the vast distribution of Linux will make stopping the spread impossible. This isn't like DeCSS; Linux code has been available freely for ten years. You can't expect that to just go away.
Of course, if it was the case that MS code was in Linux/FreeBSD/etc we'd be seeing a lot more crashes and security alerts.
Everytime I read this kind of statements where the term "intellectual property" is used to cover almost everything, I wish more people would have read and understood this.
To quote the core of that page:
"Since these laws [copyright, patents, trademarks etc.] are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish."
IMHO, Samba is the 2ed most useful service / component found in Linux. As I understand it, the Samba team has accomplished this by reverse engineering the protocol.
I found this in the linux kernel:
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10
So Microsoft should have to open up the word format as a public domain "tax"? You can't give something to the public domain and then try and use your donation as a "guilt trip" to someone else to get them to put something you want into the public domain.
Thats just bullshit.
Intellectual Property Comes in the form of 4 things:
1) Copyright. It is hard to make a case for copying the code to MS products in GPL code.
2) Patents. This is the primary form of IP that MS produces.
3) Trade Secret. This is a form of IP that really should have been patented, but the business didn't have the foresight to file for a patent before product release (non-US) or within a year of releasing the product (US). Undeniably, trade secrets are discovered by reverse engineering.
4) Trade Marks. These are used with a product to distinguish one brand from another. Lindows is an example of an area where MS is fighting in court over IP of that nature.
So here's the question:
Can you think of any cases where Linux and/or other OSS are violating one or more of these 4 kinds of IP?
Does MS sue OSS people? Not really. MS sues people with deeper pockets who have knowingly or unknowingly stepped on MS toes in the proverbial sense. Patents are a defensive thing in the business world, not an offensive thing.
Yes, no doubt, Bill isn't happy that there are OSS projects treading on MS Patents, but the damages will only be sued for when they amount to something. That is how patents work. Don't expect a lawsuit for another 5 years if OSS is successful...
Just for completeness, there's another kind of IP: mask works. This is appropriate in the chip manufacturing world. Think of it like the negative in the photography world, but this kind of negative produces a circuit on silicon. MS doesn't have any IP in this category yet...
"You violate patent 56254, 65475, and 325723. That'll be $1B"
Politics is about MONEY. Big corps buy our politicians who get elected and vote in oppressive laws. We can scream at these bought "employees" of corps all we want, but if we really want to change anything, we need to buy our OWN politicians.
That is where Howard Dean comes in. He is being bought by the "little people." I say, don't waste your time with the current representatives, unless it is very clear they are not getting paid by some special interest. Right now, the only politician I know that gets most his funding from the masses is Howard Dean, so he is getting my support.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
..and encrypt your source code and shove it in a repository WAY out of reach of the Sheriff's office, in a very untrackable way.
Like, shove it on a CD, drive 200 miles, and use an internet cafe to upload it to 60 different free web hosting accounts in 30 different countries. If you live in a border town, cross the border. Don't use your credit or ATM card *at all* that trip, and don't buy gas with anything but cash for a week later.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
What really pissed me off in the interview is the points Gates made to Research and Development of Linux. Microsoft pay $6b for R&D every year, but Linux has none. Firstly this is not only the untruth, it is a stupid political trick I have seen so many time (typically in Denmark, socialists cry when the money is taken away for their core-values at a liberal goverment, without the mention of the activities that actually were cheaper and more effective). Untruth because even Linus Torvalds works at a R&D-lab for open source today (OSDL). Linux is of course not about R&D Management, it is the evolutive reason Linus uses in his arguments, and I bet the IBM, Sun and others together pays even more for R&D every year (and that is more programmers-hours, less marketing/suit-hours).
(yes this can be compared with sex)
I doubt most businesses would care if fvwm95 got banned. Does that give MS the right to make general accussations against Linux or all Open Source software?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Wouldn't it be nice if we could get journalists to stop reporting stupid claims of "IP" theft?
It's like saying "They stole our karma".. it's a fictional thing that can't be proven.
Intellectual Property takes one of several specific forms, well defined by law. It's not a general thing.. like "Hey I had that idea, and you used it, so you stole my IP".
Copyright - Original works cannot be copied verbatim. This doens't protect ideas, just specific works. Example: You can't make copies of Windows and sell it without permission.
Patent - Must be registered. Gives absolute protection over the use of a mechanism. Example: firewire. Every firewire device pays Apple a royalty.
Secret (trade secret) - A method where nobody who knows your secret is given access to it except under strict contract. Not really a form of IP.. if someone figures it out and is not under contract, they are free to disclose it. The only value of this kind of so-called IP is if you can manage to keep it a secret. Example: Formula for Coca-cola.
All these companies running around saying "our IP has been taken" is just a bunch of stupid spin-doctoring, and the media should stop catering to it. If SCO has a valid case, they can take it up in court. The same goes for Microsoft, or anyone else.. but running around claiming "IP" theft without specific details is like saying "some people got some ideas from us". Well.. guess what MS.. you and every other software developer out there free or not, got ideas from someone else at some point and used them in their software. big deal.
Microsoft wouldn't have a PRAYER in a "look and feel" lawsuit against anyone. Indeed, they MADE themselves by cloning everything else.
Not to mention, a lawsuit against Linux wouldn't be well received. Linux is the only competition MS has right now. To do that would be to invite more than the impotent action taken against them by the DOJ.
Which is why they are doing it by proxy, through SCO. By givng SCO a little dosh, so they stay around at least long enough for this frivilous suit drags on, MS gets to reap the FUD.
Corporatism != Free Market
can't STOP WINE from existing.. it's not within their rights.
DO you think Wine needs permission from microsoft to emulate their APIS? Where did you get that idea?
Second, as long as Gates and others are going to toss around the generic term "IP" instead of stating something specific... it's all meaningless babble. IP falls into several clealry defined categories, none of which you necessarily violate when you "clone" something.
Unless we used one of their patented methods, or violated their copyright by copying their code, there IS NO OTHER SUCH THING as "IP" that has any legal meaning.
This relates to teh SCO case because of the tossing around of the term "IP"
However, Gates said the controversy has exposed a fundamental weakness of Linux--that the General Public License (GPL) makes it difficult for companies to engage in the cross-licensing deals that have become standard in the software industry.
what Gates doesn't get is that linux doesn't need cross-licensing - OSS is big enough that OSS projects can get their technology from other OSS projects without having to cross-license it. OSS is not a single company (like microsoft) that can't afford to spend money on reinventing the wheel. or if you want to see it as a company, then plenty technology is available within.
If it could be shown that Microsoft planted the code, that would constitute permission to use said code, and it would be a non issue.
Per Gates' claim:
There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software.
It's interesting how quickly he's forgotten the 1988 Apple lawsuit, and in fact, done a near180 in his position on look and feel, and cloning of functionalities/interfaces. Obviously, his position shifts to reflect the competitor Microsoft perceives to be the greatest threat, and given the perceived insignificance of Apple, demise of Be, and continued lack of mass-market competition from Sun, open source is the only realistic threat.
*scoove*
Sorry, it just seems there is a pattern:
1. Company makes product
2. Open Source version appears
3. Company tries to lock in customers
4. Open Source version prevails
5. Company spread FUD and makes unsubstantiated accussations
6. Open Source wins?
. . . give them hell.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Considering Microsoft's claims of ownership over technologies like CIFS, does this mean Microsoft may also launch SCO-style attacks against Free Software/Open Source?"
Who do you think coaxed SCO to employ its latest tactics? Who provided the money needed for this latest attack on open source?
The dark lord who has now shown his hand.
"Always two there are, master and apprentice."
Most of the SCO FUD comes during weekday office hours.
Slashdot and other OSS advocates sites should post the anti-FUD and anti-SCO stories, especially after close of business on Friday. That way, with luck, they lead the news listings on google for the whole weekend, like the story about tide turning against SCO already has.
Dear Mr. Gates:
According to SCO's Darl McBride, his company owns Unix and all Unix derivatives, including Linux. If you ever find any Microsoft owned code "cloned" into Linux, please be advised SCO is the company to file IP lawsuits against. Yes, SCO is Linux.
Yours,
On the whole, out of bazillion or so OS programs, there have to be some "rotten eggs", if nothing else. But if this means that M$ is going to swing its patent stick on OS, it seems that Bill is to loose this fight. Linux is here to stay, just like P2P, period. In one form or another. Besides, this can be an area, where it can also hurt to be big company. Whenever M$ gets the upper hand, it can kill a guy or a small company at best. That is, if the guy is in US- otherwise probably not (so easily). But whenever OS guys find something dirty inside M$ merchandise, they have someone to sue. Someone who can't just evaporate and who has big $$$...
He's almost certainly talking about SAMBA. Microsoft probably (I haven't checked) has patents on several aspects of the SMB protocol and the NT Domain system. SAMBA would then reimplement these patents without a license. Therefore, Microsoft IP (patents) could very well be in open source software (SAMBA) without authorization.
To my knowledge, Microsoft has not moved on this issue. They probably see SAMBA as still being too small a fish. It wouldn't be profitable for them to sue a few developers into bankrupcy, but if a big company with deep pockets banks on SAMBA, they might reconsider.
In the interim, Microsoft spreading vague FUD on the issue is cheap and very beneficial to their bottom line.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I guess you're saying you don't need Kerberos, asshat!
Take a look at this Halloween-document of Ms Germany: http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/MS%20Germany And additional information about MS http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/index.en.h tml
You are close. It may be the property of MS, but applying the phrase 'intellectual' to the MS Windows UI stretches credibility to the breaking point. I wonder if there is any case law to challenge them on false use of intellect? Any lawyers out there know?
-Charlie
(Yes, for the sarcasm impared, this was meant as humor)
by no lesser (or greater) a person than me.
All you monster-killing, FPS-ing, Croft-lusting nerds out there had better get this through your adolescent heads:
Microsoft is an old hand at this game. They don't want to kill Linux, they want to kill everything, they want it ALL. In your wildest dreams you can't imagine how dirty this company is going to play in order to win. They won't stop unless and until some sort of coalition sues them for libel/slander/defamation and forces them in the Supreme Court to put up or shut up, AND the case is heard by a knowledgable court/jury. Not like the nitwits that originally juried the MS/Apple interface case. It's my understanding that among that jury only two people had a college education and _nobody_ owned a personal computer.
For all its rightful intelligence, the U.S. Supreme Court is bereft of understanding in matters such as IP and computers in general. So, rather than just screaming "Linux r0x! Apt-get rules! Fuck Microsoft!" start intelligently answering questions about Open Source software (even the silly ones.) Develop a philosophy about a human's right to give away the products of their efforts if they so wish. And send some money somewhere for a legal fees slush fund.
This baby's going to court. Big Time. And it ain't going to be pretty.
"Linux is a form of Unix, like FreeBSD was [...]"
WAS ?
When FreeBSD died ? Or isn't it a form of Unix anymore ?
The use of the term "clone" is very suggestive.
Microsoft would not be the dominant computing company it is today if Gates hadn't been clever enough to sell MS-DOS to hardware manufacturers who were making *clones* (even the term used) of IBM PCs.
Today, though, if anybody were to do the equivalent, Bill Gates would assuredly cry foul and insist that the behavior were a gross violation of fundamental intellectual property rights, and strictly against the law.
Now that Microsoft is the dominant industry leader, they want to make damn well sure that nobody can use the same (legal) tactics they used to gain market share.
Bastards.
It happens in business and politics. Something new gets started because of relatively liberal rules and pervasive freedom. Celebrating and arguing strongly in favor of those, somebody manages to get into a very strong position; and then they will make a philosophicaly about-face. Now they want as restrictive an environment as possible, to insure that they stay in power.
-Rob
...does this mean Microsoft may also launch SCO-style attacks against Free Software/Open Source?
Yes they will, if they deem it necessary, for instance if OSS really starts threatening MS on the desktop. Think RIAA.
if M$ code it in linux or os software then its a sad world we live in....
if m$ code is in linux or oss when it wouldn't work as good as it does...
/me sheds a tear.
Software patents are IP theft.
... nothing.
E P0 394160&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
Software patents have been granted on such things as the progress bar.(1) If any developer uses as much as a progress bar in his software, he'll potentially be at risk.
Software patents kill our intellectual property. They grant a company a monopoly on a common idea. Doesn't matter if it's a patent litigation firm or IBM, we can't use the idea anymore. The monopoly renders OUR copyright on OUR code worthless. They're stealing our intellectual property, and we should do something about it.
Software patents are not there (yet?) in Europe. A plenary vote on a very negative proposal is scheduled for the beginning of september.
FIGHT for digital freedom, or tell your grandchildren how you did
(*)http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=
Mussolini said it best. Facism is best described as corporatism.
It is a merger of business and government, for private enterprise. It is EXACTLY the same as communism without the rhetoric of "public" ownership. Corporatists claim "competition" as the raison d'etre. But, it is more of an oligarchy, where the prices are set standard across the city first, then state, then country, then the whole damn world. And all government does is make sure that the corporations are heavily supported by tax breaks, junkets and every possible form of pandering and legislative changes available.
Of course, now we hear about the next round of globalisation, where labour is being shunted from one poor nation to another, and the corporations STILL get rewarded? Did not MCI recently have a scandal where the executives plead the fifth? Are they not now also the recipient of the largest communications project in the Iraqi Liberation project? Is is not obvious? Competition IS dead. It has been dead since the NAZI corporations and the Bush/Harrison crime family won World War 2. You may think the US won, but it was fought for ideological reasons... The battle between individualism (Britain, France, Canada) versions the power of corporatism and strenght in numbers Germany and Italy. Japan was the same, no? Well, now look at what we have. Corporate rule and an emerging global police state. And Bush helped the NAZI corps along until Congress had to punish him with the Trading with the Enemy act. For shame!
Don't worry, you can take it all back. Just refuse to support corporate products that exploit your own nation. It will be tough not having cable TV for a while, but you can easily for community cable, Internet and phone systems. For a start! Keep competition real.
is this statement:
Under the GPL, all tweaks and applications developed for the operating system must be released to the community. That restriction does not hold true on commercial versions.
I'm surprised nobody is jumping on it yet.. because it's bullshit.
IP comprises many conflicting areas of law, and it is no judicial term. In Germany the proper word is "Immaterialgüterrecht" immaterial good rights. Well, software patents are bad for businesses.
I think the article is correct. Can you introduce code only into the Red Hat version of the kernel? No you can't, as soon as you do that the code can be used in any distribution of the Linux kernel plus you've just granted all your rights away.
Damn... all this and openpatent.org seems to have been inactive for a few years now.
after all, it's only propaganda, and if you understand that you won't be distracted from putting your energy into positive change.
3 .html
one of the most detrimental effects of propaganda is distraction and thus redirection of energy. thankfully, in the case of linux there seem to be enough folks who aren't distracted and just keep coding.
bill gates' words can either energize you or paralyze you. if you are reacting to bill gates' (or SCO's) words you are probably paralyzed, and every bit of energy spent in reaction means exactly that amount of creative energy is redirected by propaganda.
here's some more food for thought (different issues, same principles):
Collateral Language
http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Aug2003/barsamian080
Agreed. I do not understand what Bill is trying to say when he says "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux". Is he refering to the so called "viral nature fud" of Linux?
I wonder if the top brass at Microsoft understand their own EULA's? It doesn't take a law degree to understand the GPL. It does take a law degree to fully understand what you're agreeing to when you apply a Windows service pack.
Of course, the assertion that OSS has stolen code from Microsoft is about as stupid as they come. If it's so easy to steal their IP "crown jewels", they have a real problem with internal security. All the lawsuits I've read about so far point to Microsoft stealing code from others.
...and how Microsoft is claiming we SCO'd them. I dont' believe that has been said. Gates refered to Microsoft IP, not code. Microsoft's IP can (and surely does) cover more than code (look and feel, networking techniques, crappy vague patents, etc.). I'd be worried more about that than I would be about MS trying to be sneaky and steal some GPL'd code and put it in Windows, or submitting Windows code to the kernel or something like that. Why pull a big elaborate scam when a violation of a vague patent will do just fine?
Monopoly at it's best. Instead of eliminating the competition through inproving your own products, simply bash and sue the others using what should probably be unlawfuly aquired IP ("Method for rasterization of a rectangle through means of an electronic device...OK *stamp*". Scary how much even that parody might be factual given the USPTO, even though I bet that one belongs to IBM
If there is any reason to be afraid, it's that. "FUD" could turn into "deep shit", if they really put their minds to it.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The United States is dying to lose it's share of the world economy. All this innovation by litagation only hampers real technology growth and invention. You'll see other nations like China rise more quickly than they would have since the USA is busy trying to run itself into the ground while making quatertly profits go up 1%. It's a lot easier to hit a nonmoving target. All China has to do is play catch up in that case.
Hell look at the politics going on the two major parties are doing the same thing by constantly blocking and recalling each other, and not actually getting any work done.
I think Microsoft has already lost the battle, and peaked at 90% of the market. Microsoft has no room for growth and they only lose money if they sue basicly not for profits.
Why is it when you said "the rights of companies", I got this mental image of medieval kings protecting "the rights of Lords" from serfs? Careful how you use the word 'rights'. The legal definition has been twisted by our new Lords into something else.
The text only refers to Microsoft IP. Remember that Microsoft owns Xenix and SCO bought rights to distribute it.
Yup, it does.
...
And with the same certainty MS can claim that some of what they claim IP-rights on is allso in other, possably free, software. Even when it's *not* copied/leeched/cloned *at all*.
With the amount of IP-rights claimed by MS (and IBM & others) it would be nothing less than a miracle if/when you can create anything worthwhile without at least come very near to violating one of more of those.
It also makes it effectivily (allmost) impossible for a small company or private person to create software or to contribute to a project : they simply do not have the financial resources to either check that what they came up with allready belongs to somebody else, or to pay the (stiff) fee for a licence.
It will effectivily stiffle, if not kill, all smaller developers, and leave only the bigger ones.
New companies *cannot* evolve anymore, because they will not have to chance to generate enough money from what they do to "buy themselves in" to the circle of the big players.
But hey, what am I ranting about ? This has probably allready being said a number of times
Bill Gates confirms BSD is dying.. "Linux is a form of Unix, like FreeBSD was"
True, but remember the origin of the word: the last defense of helpless consumers faced with a relentless force.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
This accusation sounds rather ironic and hypocritical, considering that pretty much everything Microsoft has ever put out is a clone or a copy of something else.
That's how Microsoft has always done business: if you can't buy the innovators, clone their product and give your version away for free until the innovators goes out of business or is otherwise unable to compete.
-- This sig for rent.
I think what he means is obvious, if you buy a SCO license you have a valid license to use all Linux. If companies believe this and stampede to buy SCO licenses, it validates their claim in the public eye and FUDs the GPL for years to come, causing immense harm to the adoption of Linux.
"Intellectual property" is a lie! If you sell me property then I OWN IT, I can do what the hell I want with it. Please use the correct terms such as copyright and patent protections. There is no such thing as "intellectual property", it was invented by lawyers to change perceptions of legal rights that have nothing to do with property law.
Thanks.
Bill gates has repeadetly stated that the point of all of microsofts patents was to prevent another company from suing them. He really views patents as a deffensive mechanisim rather than offensive (as in the case of SCO). Microsoft is making enough money selling products, they don't need to extort money from the OSS community.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
. . . then the IP in questions isn't IP. If there's only one way to express something, it does not qualify for copyright protection. Originality is one of the necessary qualities for copyright protection.
Mod me down if you will, I know how the Americans regard the EU as a panacea of suppression, however in the UK you cannot infringe a copyright/patent unless you SELL your good.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
If billg wants to start FUD wars, he will loose.
SCO is dead. I predict it will not last 18months, even if they are right and there is SCO code in Linux. You don't get too far in buisness by sueing your customers. Example: RIAA will find out here too - I am NEVER going to buy a piece of music from the affiliates of the RIAA. I will never listen to radio stations that plays songs from affiliates of the RIAA. Like I will never buy software from SCO.
If Microsoft starts getting litigious with it's customers (virtually all Linux users are also Windows users) it will suffer the same fate.
Bill, listen here - don't even hint at litigation with Linux users, just create better solutions where you can for a good price - heck start the Microsoft Linux distro and charge what you charge for WinXP ! Add some proprietary database and a few extra tools and you'll grab 90% of the "free software" market. If however, you feel like killing MS, then start suing or even barely hint at sueing your customers.
That does not make sense either. If it did you could buy a SCO license and keep using Linux. That is not too bad for a one time install. Bill in the past objects to the GPL because you can not link or now in this new fud use any gpl product with a non gpl product. See it infects! Look at SCO?
Anyway this is confusing and Gates must be refering to the GPL.. Obviously Linux is only copyrighted with its license and does not equal the gpl which makes his marks confusing.
the whole reason m$ would say this is to get people to think that the opensource community is stealing things all the time...they have no choice but to strike now the sco issue is beginning to really turn against sco, so m$ has to do something now or when they try to do the same thing themselves at a future date people laugh at them and say...sure microsoft its there just like it was in the sco bs ordeal....and because of that they are required to assist it and attempt to get linux gone now.....but once again like i have pointed out about sco...this kinda stuff only applies pretty much in america...what about other countries..honestly id really like billy to go over to china and tell them he can control there software and they have to listen...they havent yet...so why will they now....the world's os is opensource its not a companies the only way for him to get rid of opensource is to get the community to quit programming and since that wont happen he needs to learn how to work with it to still make money..if he doesnt they will fall so far behind that they are screwed in ways they would never believe.........because no matter what ever happens as long as people continue to code in the opensource community then whatever fud comes out is only a passing phase someday opensource will be so much better,im not saying its not better in areas. but so much better that it will be unavoidable as choice at its present rate of development look how far its come in 10 years compared to proprietary models...give it 10 more years and the world will only want opensource it grows to fast....billy and the rest of m$ has not grasped these most important concepts and because they havent they will fall...if they do somehow gain the understanding that these concepts are fact then m$ will be around in 10years...
You see, Harper Lee can make sure no one distributes copies of "To Kill A Mockingbird". Heck, I'll even give you that she can stop someone from writing an unauthorized sequel; But she can't stop people from writing stories about a white lawyer defending a black man in the american south.
Case in point: "A Time to Kill", John Grisham.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
...I see the Blue Screen of Death on Linux.
I think you could properly refer to the GPL as a "(re)distribution license", as it dictates how one may distribute the code and any modifications to it.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
Why is software different from music? In music, if I write a song, the song is mine. I can't patent the use of _____ in that song, or anything else about the music itself. Anyone else can write a different song, so long as it isn't the same as mine vocally or melodically.
The virtual world shouldn't be so legally different from the physical one. If you invent a cotton gin, and I figure out how to make it three times as efficient, then my cotton gin isn't covered by your patent. In the software world, if you patent LZW, and I develop an implimentation of it that is faster or compresses better, I still can't distribute what I've made without licensing your patent.
Software patents wouldn't be so despised if they followed the rules set forth by regular patents.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Maybe if Open Source prevails in all of this one of the results will be the end of software patents. Is that not really the problem here, after all?
Either way the whole IP issue is a freaking hose job. The kind of mess you get when the country is being run by a bunch of ex big business CEO's. He was right about one thing, this is going to be a sticky issue for open source. Not because I believe they're infringing, but because they don't have the mega-bucks to take on companies like MS and IBM who might claim they're infringing to hang on to their market. Time to add abusive litigation to the RICO act and for IP reform. Just when you think it can't get any more pathetic, someone steps up and proves me wrong.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Unlike Unix, Linux folks didn't have the source of Windows / didn't study the source in a college class. As far as "look and feel", "workalike", "mimicry" -- Apple sued Microsoft for the very same thing, and the judge threw it out, so the precedent is that is A-OK.
The only thing left is reverse-engineering protocols, which Kotar-Kelly has decreed Microsoft illegally maintained its Monopoly with anyway.
Classic Fud.
...your tinfoil hat.
Interesting.
I seem to remember an Apple trying to C&D those who made Aqua themes for windowing systems because it diluted their "look and feel."
Am I mistaken?
I see that there's nearly 5 pages of Aqua or Aqua related themes on themes.org.
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
Someone PLEASE, PLEASE, drop a MOAB on M$ and on SCO. They are both TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS.
They are both threats to freedom.
Gate$ is the anti-christ.
DROP BOMBS ON THEM UNTIL THEY ARE BOTH SMOKING CRATERS!!
- Linux is a Unix kernel clone.
- There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
Don't Red Hat, etc patch their distro kernels? In which case, shirley, as the kernel that comes with the distro isn't a standard kernel and the Red Hat one differs from the SuSe one, etc, there are such things as Red Hat Linux, etc.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
Who has never created an original product.
gates wasnt even seeming to say anything negative about the cloning and seeping of IP into cloned products. as he said, it is inevitable. sounds to me like he's on our side with this one, but you are all flaming trolls so you cant see through his name, or his company's name.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
I am the author of a fairly well known open source project, and after reading this article I checked the patent office and realized that Microsoft does indeed have a patent on the process. Until I read this article the thought of it infringing on a patent never even crossed my mind. Why should it? I just wanted a program to do something that Microsoft (or anyone else) did not offer.
What's even more concerning is that the source was recently merged into another very well known application that I'm sure a good portion of the users here use. Something that Microsoft would love to kill off if more people started using it.
Here's a great big, fat, FUCK YOU just for you.
Keep out of the Linux field you fucking scumbag.
Keep away from it. Leave us alone. We don't want your trash and we don't want to hear your filthy maw spewing your filthy lies.
You are a thief and a terrorist. You steal on a daily basis. Everything you do, have, sell is based on work you STOLE from other people.
Open your books for inspection. Let's see your code base. You won't reveal your code because you are a thief and you fear more than anything that you will be exposed for what you are, a low life thief.
You should be arrested as a terrorist, tried and convicted and excuted in public by hanging. And may the hangman wear a penguin suit..
You're a scumbag. You are trying hard for the most hated being in history, right next to SATAN and Darl McBribe..
Fuck off and die in the woods. I hope you have a brain hemmorage and you die a slow and painful death. May you live out your life in misery and pain.
P.S. We hate your guts....
Yeah, like M$ ripped off Apple and Apple ripped off Xerox. What total crap.
This is just more of the usual IP and anti-GPL FUD. Microsoft does not want anyone to think it's possible to do things differently from their share nothing, license the hell out of it and charge for binary way. Sorry Bill, people do make things and give them away and what they make works better than your crap.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Except, in a "Capitalistic" world, the better, cheaper product should win out. But patents change all that, as the governent hands out patents just for being the first to apply Bachelor level techinques to new problem sets, the result is a kinda of feudalistic intellectual property state, where the old and stale will be able to hold off the new, and better, indefinetly. Its like a system where a guy with a patent on a garden spade could collect royalties from every steam-shovel.... And, he doesn't have to grant royalties to anyone. Its not capitalistic, its feudal, they become your liege-lord, you have to do what they say, you have no choice to go anywhere else --there is no competition, you're a serf.
,that is what is is rapidly becoming, a way for the old, and worn out, to defend their position, and impose stasis, on what would be a more dynamic enviroment, because it is easier to dominate, and manipulate a static thing, than something that changes, and in the end all real inovation will halt , to serve the wants ot the 'status qou.', to preserve the position and standing of the "now elites," regardless of merit, regardless of whether they should continue to hold that position, even by capitalistic standards. They become barriers to free trade indirectly imposed by goverments, directly exploited by the patent holders, to protect themselves from the harsher realities of capitalism, namely that "you have no right to succeed, or to continue to succeed." But capitalism suceeds because of that harshness. It like evolution, those that can adapt surrive in ever changing environment, those that are powerful, but cannot adapt die out like the dinosaur. And this is how it should be.
A more capitalistic plan would be to have companies submit detailed costs as to how much work (time and money ) it took to arrive at the solution to whatever the patent covers. Since IP and patent law isn't common law, and is an invention of the government, the law could be easily changed to allow 2 ways to use patented methods:
1. negotiate with holder to pay royalties to use (as it is now).
2. Pay (10 - (MIN (y, 8)) * (R&D cost) to government. Where Y is number of years since
patent was granted. Goverment keeps a 1/4 of it of the payment and rest goes to patent holder. Giving them a return on R&D. Then the patent would be free to use to any person or corp. officially located in the country. Officially located in would be determined by where you are located for purposes of federal income taxes.
Patent law was supposed to product the R&D investment, that is its reason of being,
it is not supposed to raise companies into feudal lords, and king-makers. But
Lets forget that WinNT was nothing more than a poor implementation of OS2, and that WinXP professional is almost what we were promised in 1995, and that every piece of their office suite was purchased(here's a deal you can't refuse/aquired), from some other company... tell/show us what code you feel is MS ip or SHUT THE F**k UP BITCH
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Microsoft, on the other hand, has lost many lawsuits for stealing code. They have mostly expanded by buying firms who they could not ripp-off through "cross licensing" or other industrial espionage. Now that they have destroyed all other M$ based comercial software firms and driven all their "developers" to India, they are forced to start their own research effort and will finally pay people to innovate. Their OS functions about as well as you would expect something from a cheats. Their vulnerability is that they can't keep up with free software development and that most people have come to realize that Microsoft's promise of riches through hoarding code were true only for Microsoft. Free software works better for most developers and users. It's only a matter of time before they realize this.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They have "stolen" things from OSS. But its not illegal. The Bsd Licences allows comercial use of the code without making the code that uses it open. And that in my opinion is true freedom.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
They totally ripped off the buttons from the User Manager in NT4. Totally- indisputable tsk tsk.
I can't believe I was so stupid, but I'm the one who put the Flying Window symbol at the top left corner of the screen as Debian Linux boots up!
Does anyone know how I can fix this error? I had no idea that it might be intellectual property.
Disclaimer: Above statement is a joke, but not for the humor impaired. Humor impaired people, please rate above statement as troll, and then reply explaining how I am wrong.
I find it interesting that SCO and MS are just finding out that they can slander linux if they wish. Up to now most MS anti-linux banter has been semi-based on fact or at least some semblance of fact. They don't need to do this. There is no damaged party as long as they don't mention IBM, Redhat, et al. They can say it kills your grandmother and rapes your farm animals. They don't need to prove a thing or worry about the repercussions. A nasty drawback of the GPL. No liability, no defence against slander.
Unless they do something stupid like mention the specific code in question or the source that might have put it in...
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
I can't honestly see how including the "Windows 2000 Server" logo is at least not trademark violation. And although I strongly dislike Microsoft, both their products and politics, I would support them in that. Using that logo is just plain stupid and immoral.
It's in Microsoft's best interest to support SCO's claims on Linux whether it makes sense or not. PHB's aren't reputed in this forum to be the brighest lights in the intellectual sky, they'll eat this up and, should it prove untrue, forget about it in the time it takes to book lunch. For MS it's a no-brainer, win-win scenario.
Someone should start suing software companies for infringing on the ip of say isac newton einstine or all the other people in the world who have contributed to the sum of human knowledge. I am sure microsoft uses alot more of alan turings ideas than linux uses of theres.
The fs compression code that MS stole from Stacker, Inc., and was sued over, and lost, is a better example. Nor is that the only case where MS was found to have stolen proprietary code. So, given that, it's not surprising that MS feels that free software developers would steal; after all, they (MS) clearly do so without hestitation, why would they expect any better of anyone else?
:)
The flip side of this, of course, is that it's much harder for free software developers to steal and get away with it. Proprietary code isn't open to public review and scrutiny, so copyright violations can only be spotted by reverse-engineering, which is difficult and unreliable. If you're worried about copyright violations, stay away from proprietary code, and you'll have a much better chance of being safe!
I recognize that there are limits to what the GPL and LGPL can do. On one hand this makes them powerful corporate tools (would IBM spend as much money on developing Linux if it was released in such a way that Sun could take it and never release the source code?) but on the other it can kill a product too in certain circumstances.
Many operating systems use fairly monolithic kernel systems (yes there are microkernels out there, but they are not as common as the monolithic ones). In this case, the TCP/IP stack since it is kernel level would probably have to be statically linked. Manufacturers would not be able to comply with the license without either changing their kernel architectures or releasing the whole kernel open source.
BSD style licenses work very well when you are predominantly:
1: Entering a market with no credible commercial competitors (BIND, Apache).
OR
2: Primarily interested in doing research or playing with concepts where you don't care if commercial competitors take your innovations and use them to build better and more competitive products.
GPL and LGPL are better where:
1: You are competing against credible commercial competitors
AND
2: You do not want to subsidize those competitors. This is why IBM is committing so many developers towards Linux arather than FreeBSD.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
All your code are belong to us.
He does not get the gpl at all. You are right about misinformation.
Oh, I bet he gets it, all right. He's not an idiot. My guess is this: he's hoping 90% of the rest of the population doesn't get it. He merely wants people to be afraid of the GPL, and will do his best to misrepresent the GPL at every opportunity.
This is no different from him slamming other software companies at any given moment; he's just striking Linux at the only point he has, the license.
This is good: it means MS has given up on the "MS-Windows is technically superior," and, "MS-Windows is cheaper."
At this point, cheap shots are all they have left.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
This is untrue. Only 22% of the US national debt is foreign-owned and China doesn't even hold 1/3rd of that. Japan, Europe, and many, many other countries rank higher up on that list.
It is also untrue that China makes "most" of the products used in the US. This FUD is worse than the FUD in the original article.
Sure, that's the window manager, but the stuff that looks like Windows is...guess what.... Windows! It's running in a window under vmware. This screenshot hardly makes the case that fvwm95 looks like windows.
There can't possibly be anything Microsoft-based in Linux... it's far too stable.
This whole article feels like a *OSS* is dying troll. This part is especially good:
Linux is a form of Unix, like FreeBSD was
So Bill thinks that FreeBSD is dead or he thinks it isn't a form of UNIX. It might also be a referral to the AT&T lawsuit and that the BSD's codebase was officially cleaned.
Ah well, just some random observations. Hope they made sense, sleep deprevation can do that to you.
The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
"One thing about the GPL is that you can't just license IBM Linux, or Red Hat Linux," Gates said. "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux."
Thank you! , I thought I was the only idiot who didnt understand wtf he was saying here.
[alk]
Free software terrifies them because they can't steal it, buy it out or otherwise break it. If stuff "just works" Microsoft's revenues would be drastically reduced. Hardware dongles are the only thing that can stop free software from taking over every funciton their poor quality software now performs. The things that makes free software work, trust co-operation and sharing are all the things that wreck Microsoft's revenues. Make no mistake, they are fighting for their lives.
We must fight harder for something more important, our values. They are using billions of dollars to convince us all to be paranoid jerks. Their latest advertisments promise us all our dreams come true, higher learning, business sucess, love and happiness, all if we simply "submit" to their hard working M$'s IP. It's part of the same song they have always sung. The message of free software is that you can do it yourself and that people will help you the same way you help others.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
/* WIN32.C
*
* (c) 1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
* Developed by hip communications inc., http://info.hip.com/info/
* Portions (c) 1993 Intergraph Corporation. All rights reserved.
*
* You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
* License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
*/
Software alone should be an exception from patents. Copyrights are ok to protect branding but patenting algorithims is like patenting a shortcut for a daily commute. People built cars and roads to you could use them as you wish. Same thought behind people building hardware and compilers.
To win you must first admit defeat.
Then you may claim your victory!
If it proves successful for SCO, why not? Come to think of it -- I may start claiming ownership to everyones BIOS...Baybe needs a new pair of shoes.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Okay, that is finally it. I have been holding onto this idea for too long. In a way, I am surprised that I have not seen or read anything like this idea, but here it goes:
What about Open Source/Free Software code having been used by Micro$oft?
Given what is known about Micro$oft, it is reasonable to suspect that Micro$oft has used Open Source/Free Software code to enhance its software.
What do you we know about Micro$oft? We know:
Given all this, it seems more than reasonably likely that Micro$oft has unlawfully appropriated Open Source/Free Software code into its operating system and tools.
This brings me to the question:
If they did use GPL'd code, is the Micro$oft now required to Open Source all of the code that depends on the appropriated code? In this case, Micro$oft might finally be able to acurately claim that Open Source/Free Software is "viral".Can the Open Source/Free Software community receive a billion dollars from Micro$oft, as SCO is asking from IBM? (A billion dollars would go a long way for the EFF :)
Micro$oft may be using its closed source approach to conceal illegal activities. It seems it is time for the Open Source/Free Software community to ask Micro$oft to demonstrate that their code is free of taint before they can continue to accuse Open Source/Free Software programmers of "stealing" code.
Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or worse, the pot calling the white porcelain cup black?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Who here believes that any general software concepts should be patentable? How about having a "window"-based interface? How about icons? How about virtual memory? The fact of the matter is that the patent system as we know it is incompatible with a wired world.
The very nature of technology is to abstract and combine. Any new piece of technology or innovation invented this year will be a piece of another innovation next year. It's not like you are patenting your way of making software...you're patenting a building block that all later pieces of software must incorporate. The current patent system allows certain companies to OWN necessary steps on the path to better software. Imagine trying to build a computer today if someone owned the concept of a file. Just as the early concepts, like that of a processor, file, memory, hard drive, and so on, combined to make the modern computer, all of the things that are so innovative today will be necessary components of the next generation of hardware. Allowing the earliest software companies to patent necessary steps to advance the general state of sofware can only cripple the production of computer code in the US.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
"One thing about the GPL is that you can't just license IBM Linux, or Red Hat Linux," Gates said. "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux."
Well, I am certainly happy using 187 Linuxes. How many Windowses are out there?
I'm pretty sure the network tools in Windows are of BSD origin. And of course, the BSD license allows that.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Just hardware dongles? How about something built into the system.. like say (gasp) Palladium!
I usually don't respond to AC posts, but this is just so wrong . . . If Open Source code contains copyrighted code, the only things KEEPING it in there is the fact that it is NOT PUBLISHED. Did you just come to slashdot or what. How could you be reading the same articles and comments as me and most something as incompetent as that . . . no wonder you are posting as AC.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The GPL only threatens software companies whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications.
The GPL only threatens software companties whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications AND who rely on full control of their sector as part of their business strategy. If Microsoft loses control of their environment, the can't survive, because they're not able to quickly evolve and adapt to a new environment. The GPL threatens their environment, so they have to do everything they can to kill it.
I like to think of the GPL as a hybrid between a Developer License and an OEM License. As you say, it's not an End-User License. You can use code that has been licensed with the GPL without agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
1) the European Patent system just changed. Hello! there is a recent patent directive ("directive" is a polite term for "Federal law", except that you don't want to use the F-word in Brussels politics. In fact, the European Constitution to be adopted soon will remove the word "directive" and replace it by "European Law" -- I digress) which does exactly that. It's now at the transposition stage (directives don't get signed into law. The states are required to transpose them into state law; but if they don't in a timely manner, they get fined heavily (Brussels just doesn't pretend it's highway money)).
2) Linus Torvalds is from a Swedish-speaking minority of *Finland*
3) Linus Torvalds lives in California (which last I checked was still one of the United States of America).
4) s/Europeans/Indians/ or Brazilians or Chinese or whoever. Though US pressures on IT-rich third-world countries to abide by "certain IP standards" are quite heavy once that country's industry starts appearing on the radar. And it's bloody effective.
One wonders, by the nature of software, how much of the work/solutions developed within the Open Source community has 'leaked' into proprietary software.
What is to prevent a developer working on a proprietary software project, when encountering a complex problem, from reviewing source of OSS projects and integrating the OSS solution/code into their own projects - since there really is no independent third party review of proprietary code bases to ensure theft isn't occuring in that direction...
Bill Gates has an issue with some code being used in another named operating system? You have got to be fucking kidding me.Did we all not have to endure loosing some fine software start-ups because a certian lammer borrowed/Incorperated not only a few lines of "IP" but entire Original Ideas? Oh, that's right,he bought them out after leaning on any court action long enough to drain any legal funds that might have staved off an otherwise slamdunk theft charge....What was I thinking...
So can someone say that they own the IP for "video games" in general?
I mean, can some company/individual (eg: the creator of "pong") say that they own the IP for a computer application that moves an object on screen using external input (keyboard, mouse, joystick), detects collisions between the object and other objects, calculates points based on certain conditions.....
Would this guy be able to stop all game companies from creating such similar applications (eg: Pacman, Everquest, Flight Sim 2002, Quake III)?
Ok, so this is a stupid scenario, but does leave some questions unanswered by those who grant software patents or regard the term "IP".
I was going to mention Grisham, as a matter of fact. What are you some mind reader?
Your name and this comment remind me of a joke in a Little Lulu comic book I once owned:
Q: "Have you ever had your palm read?"
A: "No, It's always been pink, like it is now."
My father is a blogger.
"Their" is "belonging to them". Their money, their buggy software, their hubris.
For your entire first paragraph, "there" is the word you want. If what you are saying could be replaced with "is no spoon", then use THERE.
The objective of Granting IP rights is to not suppress competition and innovation but rather to help promote it.
When the machinery stops functioning in the proper manner then it's OK to ignore the machinery.
As thing are, the Patent office doesn't have the means to toss out foolish patents like swinging sideways on a swing.
A great deal of IP in software is invalid... not IP right assignment protectable, especially software patents, and even business methods.
You cannot patent natural law, physical phenonmenon or abstract ideas... and that just the basic three. It follows on that mathmatical algorythims are also not IP protectable, etc...
he reason why such things are being granted such rights is because of nothing more than the given offices of governmenyt that do such IP rights granting are in it for the money as is teh legal system.
Neither the legal system of the offices bof the givernment really don't have any power over the natural forces of physics... and that includes teh physics of abstraction creating and use.
It just a matter of time that people begin understanding that such IP rights are along the lines of claiming the world is flat.
It's all about economy and computer technology is not supposed to be an industry with power over all other industries, as it is evolving to be by the greedy, but an industry of assisting other industries to be productive.
There is the direct values you can see the greedy produce at the unseen expense of it's taxation of productivity and financial resources that would other wise more directly benefit the people of the world. I.E. Many countries are converting to Linux because of the productive value they can use the software to help them achieve. It has become clear that they do not need to pay companies like MS when there are plenty enough of the people willing and able to produce compariable value assisting tools.
Choice..... that's the problem companies like SCO and MS are faced with in their old style business, as is the music and entertainment industry.
The church and kingdoms tried to suppress the people with the flat world concept....
Now we have what is becomming old style business trying to suppress the peoples choice.
I'll bet Bill is looking at zlib sources and wondering why code patterns are showing up in Windows too. Oh, that's right, they copied it.
The (Free)BSD license must be changed. It's no secret that ms is using code from BSD in their 2000/XP code base. While the ability to do so shouldn't change, the BSD team should do what it can to prevent sco/ms type actions.
One of the sco leeches has already stated that they will be looking at BSD next.
The BSD code should be changed, where they revoke license rights if the company using any BSD code either instigates, or supports another company instigating, sco type tactics. They can lay out a roadmap of sorts, where prior to any lawsuit, prior to any contacts by any attorneys, the company's (who adopted the BSD code) engineers will show all code in question to BSD, or to any affected entity, and will be given ample opportunity to replace the code, suggest a mutually agreeable alternative, delete the code, or take some other action that the parties can agree upon. And if they do take the case to court, the complaining party must agree to refund attorney's fees if they lose all, or even part of their case.
Refunding attorney's fees even if they only lose part of their case is important because it makes sure the complaining company's case is damn solid, which in turn will give the affected company/entity more motivation to come to an agreement with the complaining company.
It's up to BSD to do this. Not the linux kernel maintainers. It is the BSD code which can be (and is) adopted by proprietary companies for use in their own code. And they are permitted to not reveal the source code. That's why ms is using BSD code, and why they are getting their OS's to some semblence of stable (they have many miles, and years to go).
So what say you BSD?
What open source projects need is originality, not just cloning everybody else's ideas. Course, that's easier said than done.
Gates should put up or shut up. Maybe it's time to sue him for product libel so that he has to prove what IP supposedly made it into Linux. SCO has had a restraining order put on them in Germany for their unsubstantiated claims, and the same might happen to Microsoft.
Of course, as far as Windows is concerned, we don't have to guess: courts are establishing with regularity that Microsoft is violating other people's IP.
If you are suggesting that Windows source is not available you are mistaken. Government and corporate entities have it, and University researchers have it. An NDA is required, but professors and students have access to the code. According to a friend who worked on a project that had access the agreement was quite reasonable, it expected publication of research, it was even portable if the researcher moved to a different university. If MS was poisoning OSS projects people would have spotted this already.
This is the company that copied the Mac interface right down to details like throwing away variable-sized elevators in order to look more Mac-like (and got sued for that one too).
What are "variable-sized elevators"? What is the story of this being thrown out of windows? Please elaborate
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
"Considering Microsoft's claims of ownership over technologies like CIFS, does this mean Microsoft may also launch SCO-style attacks against Free Software/Open Source?"
.Net dominance strategy. This is the whole purpose of CIFS. I am supprised that there is not more independant news media that have picked up on this blatent monopolistic usury of the public! The CIFS licence is unenforceable as it is an obvious attempt to exclude internet communication competition from non signers. The net needs to seek international legislation to prevent exclusive standardized protocals, and ensure an open standard. It is fine if governments use other net channels for law enforcement and the military that can be blocked but not a monopolistic corporation like Microsoft!
Well this is the very heart of the matter to close access to the internet from platforms other than MS approved software, Ms is trying desparately to co-opt htm. ISO standards do not mean squat to MS and they threaten their
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
The United States is dying to lose it's share of the world economy. All this innovation by litagation only hampers real technology growth and invention. You'll see other nations like China rise more quickly than they would have since the USA is busy trying to run itself into the ground while making quatertly profits go up 1%. It's a lot easier to hit a nonmoving target. All China has to do is play catch up in that case.
... which yields higher stock value, or reinvested, which yields future growth).
... millions are impoverished (their tools are taken away), thousands are told it has become illegal for them to share their hard work with one another, and the pockets of a few oligarchs, monopolists, and their attorney's are lined with the blood, sweat, and tears of their victims (exchanged for US dollars at a great exchange rate ... for the monopolists).
... until congress passed a 19-year cap on airplane manufacturer liability, at which point airplanes began to be built again (albeit sold at three or four times what their market price would be otherwise, simply to underwrite 19 years of liability!). Now add so-called 'intellectual property' to the mix, in the form of copyrights and, more harmfully by far, patents, and you have the ultimate negative-sum game: make the hard work of others illegal, eliminate all competition, and benefit yourself. B. Gates has played this game for years, holding the technology and the industry back a good fifteen years or longer and wiping out vastly better products in the process. He, and his company Microsoft, have cut a swath of destruction across the industry, from Silocon Valley to Tokyo. Not through fair or just competition, not by offering a superior product (as anyone who has ever used Windows and compared it with another product, be it GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, or what have you will attest), but through misinformation, deceit, copyright violations (and even real-world, physical theft of competitor's software, for which they have been convicted in more than one country), an abuse of their monopoly position (for which they have been convicted, but remain unpunished, in America), and now, finally, through the most appalling abuse of the already broken American legal system we have seen for quite some time, they are for the first time going to start using their patent portfolio to destroy that which they could not otherwise conquer.
It is even simpler than that.
Lawsuits, even the most just and justifiable kind, are ultimately negative-sum games for those who play. Wealth is lost to both parties, regardless of the outcome, as it is absorbed in legal costs and attorney's fees (rather than paid out as dividends
Litigation of this nature is particularly heinous, as it is extremenly negative sum
America has been playing this sort of negative-sum game with itself for quite some time. It destroyed the aviation industry to the point where the manufacturers of small aircraft stopped building small airplanes for a time
This isn't the end of Linux, of free software, or of open source. It is the end of American preeminence in the software industry, and frankly, this country has earned exactly this sort of ignoble end to its dominance in the field, both through the appalling policies of washington that have done everything to destroy and dismantal the digital progress of the last decade, and the apathy of its people, including you and I, to allow such a disgustingly corrupt and wicked government to move forward with its agenda unchecked, unquestioned, and uncriticized.
Enough!
Either we get off our butts and get involed politically, or we shut up and accept our places back on the couch, our creativity outlawed and our voices silenced, once again absorbing the opinions and attitudes so graciously provided by our betters via the traditional media in mindless, drooling silence.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
There is no red hat version of the kernel. Linus owns the trademark and gets to say what Linux is and isn't. You can call it something else though.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Pity the effort was wasted here. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Assuming that this is the case, how would the OSS movement ever know if somebody was slipping CSS code out into the open. They wouldn't, they're'd be no way to check.
What I'm scared of is a trump card. Linux becomes popular. Suddenly, Microsoft discloses a bunch of code that they document way the heck back to 1999, let's say with respect to display drivers/engine. Identical code happens to be in Linux. Now Microsoft says "all Linux users, you have 30 days to either A) remove any tainted software from your system or B) pay us a one-time licsening fee equal to about 3/4 the cost of windows or C) get windows at 1/2 normal cost." Meanwhile, the OSS movement comes up with an open-source solution, but has its credibility forever and irrevocably damaged. Who knows how many trump cards Microsoft (or any other closed-source vendor that *needs* microsoft's cross-licsensed IP) holds...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
I felt that linking the Tamagochi story would have been a bit over the top. (-: Now I'm reassured that people actually read those links :-)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I know later ones like BASIC-PLUS-TWO did, but I'm reasonably sure that the canonical BASIC on STOP-10 did as well, at least left$() or something very much like it. And bingo, here it is, from 1974, first printing 1968 [warning, huge PDF], page 8.10 (PDF page #80), ya gotta love Google! (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...litigiousness - there's lots more besides. The Amazon one does have to do with MS and the MacOpinion was a (successful) reply-generator (see above).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If, in the unlikely event, SCO prevails, then M$ will be up to bat next. Gates and company are letting SCO do the deed, throwing themselves on the sacrificial altar hoping the win. If they win, then M$ will be next, following the precedent of SCO. If SCO fails, M$ will just let it slide, acting like the "good guy" playing nice. "Linux has our IP in it but there's room in the world for both of us so we wont do anything about it."
This claim by Gates (hitting on SAMBA, apache, and WINE) is just bluster right now. It will become a true shot across the bow if SCO wins (they wont).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Microsoft will certainly legally challenge Linux and the GPL. They are just waiting for the right moment. Let's assume that SCO's suit amounts to nothing. That's be a great time for Microsoft to try the same thing all over again. Even if it lost, after several years of threatening lawsuits corporations would be afraid of adopting it. And any momentum it had would be gone.
Let's face it, Microsoft cannot beat open source on price or quality. FUD is its only weapon.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Palladium is the end of all of all hardware dongles. it's a hardware dongle you need to use the system. think of it as a dongle build in to All hardware.
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
If they do launch attacks, they will not be able to stop linux. Most users, if not all, would die for linux, and that mean it will be impossible even if microsoft buys, bans, and strangles linux. They will fall, linux will conqueror, and sco will be ruled as the gayest bunch of hippie lawyer assholes in history.
Oops, I meant Palm PC. Or did I?
I'm looking at a Word etched on all the Windows in my Office and wondering why Microsoft Excel at copyrighting the dictionary. Wait 'till some Publisher has you on their FrontPage being sued real Money for your Project's moniker adjacency (and ripping out your server's PowerPoint), a grim Outlook to Exchange for freedom, ain't it?
Microsoft had the chutzpah to sue Stac! The page illustrates both Microsoft's suit and that the judge had been convinced that Microsoft hadn't done it deliberately (fat chance). The rest of your responses are of similar quality (but see above on MacOpinion), e.g. there are heaps of high-tech companies without anything like the lawyer overburden, care to try again?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I took a close look at the useful Windows 2000 documentation provided by MS with the laptop I bought a couple of years ago. That would be essentially zero useful documentation, but I digress. Nowhere in that documentation or in the EULA is there list of ideas or concepts or features or processes or specific implementations of the foregoing which belong to MS. If something should occur to me which overlaps something claimed by MS, how am I to know? As they haven't seen fit to lay public claim to their IP, how can I tell if I infringe?
The fact is that the nebulous concept of I.P. is so pervasive that you could say the same thing about any piece of software. You could claim that Microsoft's Operating Systems contain the I.P. of thousands of companies and individuals out there and you'd be right. And of course they've lost court cases on these very issues.
Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Some website actually documents all of microsoft's "innovations." So far they have concluded that MS has invented Clippy, Microsoft Bob, and maybe the laser mouse. Funny, considering when Bill Gates speaks he says the word "innovation" at least five times.
Your words have probably spurred an entire generation of young geeks to start using Linux....
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
Just for the record, there is no IBM distribution of GNU/Linux. Now carry on...
Since open source is more available than closed source, what is to keep corporations (greed) from using open source as their own and sueing for copyright or patent infridgement in the distant future.
It's quite simple. We need more Open Source consultants, especially in the US, to push low-cost free software solutions. Every shop that switches to Linux / OSS is another voice of dissent if M$ ever tries to pull crap.
Don't just sit on your butts. Get out there and help cut off their income stream!
Didn't you read the article? Microsoft doesn't subscribe to the GPL. Ok, the author threw that bit in, but this makes even less sense then thinking GPL is an EULA. It's not some off the wall newsletter.
From the article...
My favorite bits are the concept of toolian or whatever the hell they call that allocation limit work around nowadays ... what a piece of crap, no wonder overflows are so hard to predict and debug in MS code. You can tell MS code a mile off because it smells like an Italian Restaurant. There are alot of meatballs writing it and the spaghetti is hidden in the source.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Both of you are talking about differnent things. ./ , when both posters blow their
You talk about "the right to live" , and your parent
about the "world he prefers to live". I have
not looked, but it would not be surprising if
the slashdot moderators have grade this exchange
"insightfull" -- for real, such grade is
too common in
horn on differnt winds.
Bring 'em on!
Of all the looking around I've done, it looks pretty clear to me -- IP and the world of patents have little to nothing to do with the actual code. Basically what I mean is that Gates can be perfectly within bounds, and spot-on correct, without a lick of MS code in anything he's pointing his finger at. What's important in what he's talking about are the claims in Microsoft's patent portfolio. And the way patents are deliberately written to be as broad as possible while still being legally enforceable (not to mention the side arguments about the apparent ineptitude of the USPTO when it comes to researching prior art), it's entirely possible MS has patents covering many aspects of Linux functionality. As to how enforceable those patents prove to be, that has yet to be seen.
Seriously, folks, I'm not trying to be a troll here, I just think it's important we get the issues straight -- what Gates talks about is not copyright, i.e. who has whose code in what, but rather the IP, i.e. who has patents covering what. And patents are a lot stickier, and full of a lot more of that gray area a previous poster was talking about, than simple copyright. Copyright issues you can resolve by rewriting something, whereas patent claims are typically interested in what something does, and are therefore much harder to work around. (Admittedly, patents also technically cover the implementation as well, but there's all kinds of fudge factor going on there.)
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Mr.Gates needs an update for his jargon file:
Reverse Engineering (which is completely legal) is not the same as Cloning.
Anyone with half a brain would know that cloning something like CIFS isn't very practical given that that would require cloning windows DLLS and stuff - which don't work under Linux/*BSD/etc.
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
There are times... when I look at what Bill Gates has done, how he has had a large hand in creating and driving a lot of today's IT related economy... and I have a tremendous respect for him...
THEN there are the rest of the times, when I realize that he is just a pile of shite.
-K.
Who says it has to be entirely state-run? From my point of view (maybe not the same as the original poster's), medicine should be run like the school system: parents can get their kids a decent education from the gubmint, or a possibly better education with their own money from private schools. As for food and housing, there are housing-assistance programs and food stamps/government cheese. Neither mean that the government runs the entire industry, but both help give the poor a decent shot at living, if nothing else. Why should medicine be different?
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
because they have been around longer.
/., IIRC - that if IBM wanted to, they could shut down almost every other software company in existence by just abusing their patent portfolio. They don't because there's no real advantage to them to do that.
It's been pointed out repeatedly - including here on
So Gates would be wise not to try it since Big Blue is still bigger than he is.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Microsoft don't *need* to sue some OS project that imitates their products (Evolution et al.), precisely because they are imitators. They know that the fact that people are copying them means they are winning. As soon as Microsoft need to copy something OS that is not BSD-licensed, then they will know that they've lost the edge, and will start suing, like SCO.
alex
Will you also ack that doing so reduces the righteousness of suing people using similar names, regardless of the other party's intent?
Agree, especially since there is no such thing as "X Windows". (-:
If Microsoft hadn't accumulated such a rich track record of doing exactly what Stac Electronics accused them of doing, I might be tempted to allow them the presumption of innocence. But to do so in light of all that they've done would be a pretty mindless (and in some circumstances suicidal) act of pedantry.
It works for everyone else. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I dont know alot about IP laws and all of that matter, but... Can MS be held liable for using Unix ideas or open source ideas?
For example, Unix as far back as I know has had the ability to stop and restart pretty much all services, without rebooting, Untill win2k came along, if you changed your network settings in windows you had to reboot, now 2k and xp stop and restart the networking services. No reboot.
There are many many "ideas?" they have incorporated into windows that has always or for quite some time has existed in *nix platforms.
Its no news that MS has always taken 90% of their "innovative ideas" from others OS's but where can the line be drawn?
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
Who says it has to be entirely state-run?
The previous poster. It's funny how you actually get modded up for not bothering to read.
It's called intellectual property, and many of us make a living selling it. Artists, writers, musicians, programmers. They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas, and if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living.
You don't have a right to make a living or the right to make a profit or the right to a "return on your investment". Indeed copyright law, at least in the US, isn't intended to do this in the first place. Simply to give the creator "first bite of the cherry", if there is money to be made from whatever, so as to encourage them to create and publish.
well of course there isn't they use Windows.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
The rest of their software and stuff is mainly IP and Copyrights of other Company's software which Microsoft first led to starvation after unfair competition and then is bought at a dumpster price.
Oh maybe one exception should be mentioned. Former Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) VMS Engineer and Guru David Cutler was hired by Microsoft, which gave Microsoft their Windows NT 3.51.
Robert
"They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas, and if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living."
What we're saying is that they have no right to make a living by restricting the freedoms of the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with saying that certain means of making a living is wrong.
Just because _you_ can't think of a way to make money when ideas are copyable doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, artists and inventors have been producing excellent works and being paid for them long before there were ANY IP laws.
Engineering and the Ultimate
"I love Open Source Software, but I also respect the rights of others, however evil they might be."
IP is not a _right_. It is a grant of monopoly FROM THE PUBLIC to others in order that society can benefit. As it is given by the public, the public can remove the benefit/grant at will, when it is being misused. This is much different from other things (free speech, etc) which are believed to be rights of people, not grants from the public.
Engineering and the Ultimate
' We might not want to live in a world where the patent office "pushes innovation by ownership," but it's the reality of Capitalism. You can't turn off cash flow, or you essentially turn off innovation and invention.'
Completely incorrect. In fact, it has been noted by many that the free flow of information is what makes progress happen. The Internet and advances in communication are what are making the technological advances of today, not patents and copyrights.
Engineering and the Ultimate
- There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
"Linux, the project" is a kernal, that forms the core of "Linux the operating system"--that thing that RMS calls "GNU/Linux." Red Hat, who compiles, sells, and supports their OS, can call it whatever they want--Red Hat Windows, Red Hat Linux, Red Hat GNU/Linux--whatever.
That said...
- Wtf does "licensing any Linux" and "licensing all Linux" means ? I'm assuming Gates mean licensing any Linux-based distro, in which case you adhere to whatever licensing terms the distro is released under, licensing terms which in turn are compliant with the GPL (since Linux is included).
Think about what the GPL licenses. If MS were to release "Explorer for Linux", they couldn't limit it to Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux--they'd have to let anyone who wants it to take it up and build their own Linux around it.
This is a limitation on the choices that deveopers of proprietary software are used to--and, as with most of the GPL's limitations, it's by design, not happenstance.
That blurb from Gates means rigorously nothing whatsoever. But most people aren't even aware of what the GPL is, and when they quickly read something like that, they decude "uuh, Linux is dangerous to my business" or something. That's just ridiculous.
Linux, as GPL'd software, IS dangerous to a software developer's business. The GPL is compatible with hardware vendors, system resellers, and custom-installers, but "old skool" software shops (Like MS!) are directly and intentionally threatened by the GPL.
Gates, I believe, does understand the GPL--he just doesn't think that it's a good thing. (And, to be honest, the argument that proprietary software drives innovation and/or adoption isn't an unfounded one. OSS is a long-term investment, not a short-term one.)
He didn't get moderated; he has a karma bonus. STUPID!
From what I've seen, SCO hasn't yet taken any linux users to court... but that doesn't stop the huge flood of anti-linux FUD from them either. Keep in mind that court is only part of the battle. Spreading a lot of bad word-of-mouth and propoganda can be commmercially damaging for the reputation of 'nix, in the long-run too.
Oh yes, and evolution and many is pretty much a ripoff, but that still doesn't make the general anti-linux FUD right.
He didn't get moderated; he has a karma bonus. STUPID!
Talk about "troll", your informative reply turns into flamebait with the pointless parting insult.
Create a new protocol creating the respective Windows client and server software?
Unless some kind soul patented a method to share files remotely, in which case development will move to the Caiman Islands.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That there is a strange parallel forming between the ways that certain people are talking about the GPL and the SCO / Unix licensing issue?
I think it is just possible that statements by Gates such as "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux.", should be a clue to what SCO is planning (e.g. The way UNIX licensing works, if you license any UNIX, you have to license SCO UNIX. )
Perhaps the true purpose (revealed) behind the SCO fiasco is to lose in court. But first, they must create a strong set of viral licensing parallels so that, by loosing the lawsuit, they can set precedents that will damage or destroy the GPL.
Do not underestimate the richest man on earth, or his ability to be clever, manipulative and use people's own passions to defeat them...
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Boy, you hit my biggest sore point on Micorsift products.
/wink
Early on, Windows 3.1, I found their help very "unhelpful", non-intuitive, etc.
Now, about 15 or so years later (from my first use of Windows), I find help for their other OSes and even products (Word 97, VC++ IDE, etc.) to be very very poor.
I have grown up a bit, technically, since my pre-DOS days (running old Unix and other older OSes on military communications systems). I am a fledgling C programmer and cutting my teeth on Java.
I have found some very helpful manuals, write ups, etc. for the technical areas I have since studied.
I still find Micorsift products help and other documentation to be very lacking indeed.
I am in a much better position to comment on such things now, as I have been a technical documentation writer and help system author for over five years now, for very specialized CAD software.
Micorsift could do a lot better in that area, if they wanted. It takes a lot of work, you really have to get into the heads of the "average" user, you have to provide detailed and exact data and instructions. I would much rather have detailed (almost to the point of boring and redundant) help and documentation than little or none.
I suspect that there are two reasons for the lack of helpful documentation from Micorsift:
1. It is not given the attention it needs to make it actually useful and
2. If they publish too much, it could reveal, in their view, too much "trade secret" or general IP material.
So, about the only way you can tell if are not infringing on their trademarks or IP in general, is that you have not received a letter from M$ notifying you of your infringement.
Regards,
Fredrick
Yes, O great chocolate lips - at least, I will when you actually start reasoning instead of relying on prejudice supported by the standard not-quite-debating techniques; you know: handwaving, appeals to authority, ad hominiem, begging the question, the false dichotomy and so on. (-:
Seeing the source isn't as important as understanding the source - that is, what it does, possibly quite different from what it says it does. Your inaccuracies WRT things like Win3.X's DR-DOS crash, and your handwaving of the point that it was the only encrypted code in MS-Windows all point to you essentially getting your stuff second- or third-hand anyway.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You must be new here. Disney has made the decision that they will spend any amount of cash to prevent _Steamboat Willie_ from entering the public domain. Therefore any item copyrighted from that point forward will never enter the public domain.
Although the Supremes have given a few hints that they just might draw the line at 99 years as the limit of beyond which Congress can't keep redefining the term 'limited duration' in the Constituition.
Democrat delenda est
The above was taken as a joke. Seriously, however, do you know what I might be referring to when I say someone has "infringed my 'IP'"??
Out of context, you don't know if it's copyright, trademark, or patent rights. The laws governing these different areas is not at all similar, but yet they are lumped together. THAT's what I was referring to. The confusion over what *type* of "property" is being referred to. I wasn't arguing about what's covered by these laws and what's not. That should be obvious.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I think it'd quickly get lost in the noise. It's not as if it's necessary to make up anything greedy about Microsoft, it'd be like taking a heater to Tahiti.
Consider DR-DOS again. It really doesn't matter in terms of an evilness indicator whether The Canopy Group bought DR-DOS solely for use as a lawsuit weapon or not (it seems pretty obvious that they did). What matters is that it was only available as a weapon because of Microsoft's cheatin' heart. DR-DOS was a better system across the board, always led Microsoft for features, escpecially useful features like being able to DISKCOPY A: C:\BOOTDISK.IMG which don't make it onto any sales brochures but do make an administrator's life so much easier, and should have been a lot more popular than it was. The overwhelming preponderance of nails in its coffin were hammered in by Microsoft. They did not compete on features, robustness, utility or any honest measure of usefulness, instead they competed by badmouthing it, doing shonky deals with OEMs and pulling evil stunts like the Win3 installer with the encrypted DR-DOS detection code. It's also important to note that the code did not detect non-Microsoft DOSes, it simply and only looked for DR-DOS and nobbled itself on sight. Nor was this a one-off. DOS ain't done, after all, until Lotus won't run - and look again at their TCP cheats of only a few years ago.
This is not a matter of advocacy, nor is it a matter of dragging in any and all possible distractions in order to make Microsoft in some way look like just a particularly large corporate "regular guy" or claim that "everybody does it". Two wrongs definitely do not make a right, and a simple "the ends justify the means" causes more wars and suffering than any known combination of raw greed and simple zealotry.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
but if linux does include stolen code it becomes dangerous:
... it's a lot harder than it looks.
different girl: mmmm, is that linux you're using?
me: why yes... it is (sly smile)
girl: you're so dangerous, take me now.... on the keyboard...
Yes, but then you have to learn how to code while being distracted
> --- All Of The Above --- >