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?"
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
Hay, if they clime open source stole some of their IP, then they'll just have to open up their source codes so we can see if they've stolen any GPL'ed code from OSS.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
and how do you know that Microsoft is actively poisoning OSS projects with MS code SPECIFICALLY so that it can legally destroy them? What do you know about project contributors other than their email addresses?
That was classic intercourse!
If you can't beat them, sue them.
Microsoft is seeing the end. The end is near and they are starting to prepare for it by using the courts as a an offense instead of building a better product. The only defense (instead of building a better product) is to sue the product thats beating the shit out of you and tie them up legally.
This exact thing is happening to me. I created a product that is better than my one competitor out there. I sell it for a fraction of the cost and it's better technology (of course it's based on Open Source). I've taken 20 - 30 new customers from my one competitor in the last six 5 months. Not bad.
Well, what does the competitor do? They pull a credit report on my company, start making "wild claims" (read: FUD) about me and the company to their existing customers, even went as far as changing their product to make it hard for their existing customers to leave. Recently, I'm hearing that they are using lawyers now to find out information about me and my company... It's an ugly world.
What am I going to do? hahaha. Ignore eveything and keep going on. I won't stop. They'll have to show up with the Sheriff's to pull me out of my office. My belief, this is not about winning a court case, it's about "killing the little guy by legally strangling them."
The days of innovation and competition are over.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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!
these rights are a recent fabrication - mostly by America - they did not exist when I entered the business 20 years ago in England.
Exactly. They didn't even exist here in America when I began programming.
Why should I recognise them now. I sure as hell didn't vote for them. Did you? I doubt it!
Nobody voted for them except the head of the patent office. It wasn't approved by congress at all.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Cough cough Mono.net cough cough
http://saveie6.com/
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.
patents you come up with don't do your company any good against their competitors. They just keep anyone else from entering the arena.
This sounds like it could be an OSS killer, since OSS would probably have a hard time entering into cross-licensing agreemants, and certainly hasn't yet. So the questions that arise in my mind are:
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
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.
You my friend are a moron.
Your idiocy is painfully apparent in your statement
"Some Company, Inc." makes HUGE improvements to your code, adding a bunch of new features, and fixing some outstanding bugs, increasing performance by 20%."
If the company makes such huge improvements should they not be allowed to sell it? HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? You don't walk into the grocery store and demand that all your groceries be free do you?
How on earth do you expect "Some Company Inc" to pay it's software developers?
Nobody loses anything from having BSDL code out there. If people want to use the free version they still will. If they really need the extra features they'll pay of it. Can you imagine how much more they'd have to pay if "Some Company Inc" had to code the BSDL portion as well?
Nobody loses from BSDL code.
Take your ignorance elsewhere.
[fade back to true reality]
- You write "Project Foo".
- You release "Project Foo" under the GPL License.
- You host "Project Foo" on your web/ftp server for download.
- "Some Company, Inc." looks at "Project Foo", and sees that by using it, they can save some development costs, and speed up their time to deliver a similar project being written in-house. But are they going to use your code? Hell no.
- "Some Company, Inc." reverse-engineered your code
- "Some Company, Inc." makes HUGE improvements to your idea, adding a bunch of new features, and fixing some outstanding bugs, increasing performance by 20%.
- "Some Company, Inc." then creates "SuperWidget 5.0" using your code inside it, and it becomes their sole proprietary flagship project.
- The only way to obtain "SuperWidget 5.0" is through a very expensive licensing agreement, $10,000 per copy, and no, you don't get the source.
Yes, "Your" version of the code is still available on "Your" web/ftp server. Your code is now 20 features and 50 bugs behind "SuperWidget 5.0". Nobody can benefit from "Your" code with these new features, because nobody knows about your code. Those programmers in Some Company Inc. probablly got family to feed.BSD is just as free as GPL except BSD gives the everybody else free beer and GPL gives YOU free beer.
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?