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?"
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
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!
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 *
Besides, using the term "clone" is so vague as to be meaningless. There's a big difference between copying something directly and achieving the same results through reverse engineering.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
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...
The BSD TCP source is used by just about everyone, because when it was written it was the best. The 4.4 version is pretty much the reference product. And the Berkeley people had the wisdom to release it under the BSD license, which means that everyone else quickly adopted it and thus followed some sort of standard.
There is no hypocrisy involved. Microsoft's campaigns against open-source are misguided and misleading, but they have made it clear that they think a package like the BSD TCP stack should be released under a very liberal license. It would be a disaster if it had been released under the GPL- companies would have used their own inferior implementations, which would probably end up being somewhat incompatible or would break the standard. Although it's arguable whether Microsoft has played fast and loose with the protocol, I think we can agree that it's far better that they start out with the same implementation as everyone else rather than code their own...
As for libpng, same deal. The PNG team simply wanted to replace GIF with something that wouldn't get people sued, so they release libpng under a BSD-like license. If they hadn't, Microsoft simply wouldn't have supported PNG at all.
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
I suspect that the IP they're referring to isn't just source code. Off the top of my head, for example, check out this fvwm95 screenshot. I'm sure MS considers the Windows UI as its intellectual property, and though IANAL I suspect they may be right.
I'd spend the rest of my life puzzled as to how something Microsoft patented could have ended up in Apache without it automatically being prior art either in Apache or httpd.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
". 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!
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/
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 are wrong on 1 point. Their is no cross-licensing. Their are only gentlemans agreements. They just dont sue each other. Mutual assured destruction.
It goes on it most inductries. Heck, I suspect most companies have no idea what their engineers have patented until its time to go to battle with someone.
Microsoft is a stagnating company. The share holders expect continued growth. They rule the desktop, but can't seem to break into any new markets. The server market is one they are fighting hard to win.
They know how to play dirty and leverage one monopoly to make a new one, so they keep making windows clients only work well with windows servers.
The open source people clone the server protocol and Bill gets steams. The funny thing is they can't really sue. If they sue, they have to make claims on the record in court and those claims would be great in the next anti-trust suit.