Microsoft Calls for Truce With GPL and Linux?

An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article discussing Microsoft's efforts to reach out to the open source community. The company is hoping to find a common ground with softare released under the GPL, so that OSS and Microsoft products can interoperate. From the article: "The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, 'This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that.'" A related article mentions Windows server Expert Jeremy Moskowitzs' call for a truce between the Linux and Windows communities.

Comments

Re:Media Transport Protocol

[gowen]

That's how XPS will work too. It's a patent encumbered "open" standard. Everyone who asks gets a patent license, but a developer can't transfer their license to end users. So it can't be used.

Oh, and the fact that its a pointless re-invention of an already well-supported, trul open standard (PostScript), using an entirely unsuitable XML schema, is neither here nor there.

It's time to make a list.

[khasim]

I think you're on the right track there. Since Microsoft is talking like this, how about a list of all the items that they could deliver.

#1. Media transport protocol - specs so it can be implemented in a GPL-friendly app.

#2. Whatever it takes to allow Linux-based workstations to authenticate via Active Directory - again, GPL-friendly.

#3. Specs so NTFS disks can be read/write under Linux (GPL-friendly).

What else? If they want to talk about "cooperation", then we should be able to give them a list of items that they can start "cooperating" on.

Re:It's time to make a list.

[mrchaotica]

That's a load of BS. If Microsoft cared about open formats, they'd just use the perfectly good ones we've got now, like OpenDocument, PDF, OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL, Java, Ogg, Vorbis, FLAC, Theora, HTML (as opposed to "MSHTML"), NFS (as opposed to SMB), and god knows how many others.

If Micrsoft cared about open formats, they would have stayed on the OpenDocument standards committee! But instead, they're trying to sabotage OpenDocument by claiming their format is open, when it's actually not.

Other than your unsubstantiated assertion, I have not seen any evidence that "OpenXML[sic]" is acutally unencumbered (including patents). Until then, I'm going to continue to assume that you're a shill for MS, and nothing more.

Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish".

[walt-sjc]

You are making the same irrational argument GPL FUDsters always make. If you don't want to adhear to the terms of the GPL, don't use GPL code. Period. It is perfectly reasonable and possible to create your own libraries and applications that are not GPL and run them / sell them on Linux. There are MANY MANY examples of this. The GPL is not stopping Microsoft or anyone else from supporting Linux or other non-windows operating systems. The GPL is what the GPL is. It is ONE and ONLY ONE license available for open source software. There are many others.

But you ignored my original point. MS has NO INTEREST in supporting ANY kind of open source effort in any way shape or form. They have proven it by their past statements and actions. They have refused to play nice in every standards organization and interoperability effort. Sender-ID is one example. Open Doc is another. Restrictive "anti-oss" licenses on documentation and code. Refusing to release basic protocol documentation in violation of agreements with the EU. I could go on and on and on. Any talk Microsoft spews is just that: talk. It's all one sided with MS. Do things our way. Bend to our will. You must change, not us. That attitude and behavior is going to get them NOWHERE with the OSS community. They KNOW this. This "new" effort is just another PR FUD scheme. The MS schills will all hail this as "an opening up", "embracing" move. Bullcookies.

Here is what MS would do if they wanted cooperation with the OSS world:
- Eliminate the license for Sender-ID and offer a non-revokable license to use any related patents
- Release full documentation for CIFS and the active-directory extensions they made to Kerberos, again with nolicense or patent restrictions
- Release full documentation to the Word / Excel / Powerpoint binary file formats, and adopt opendoc
- Fully support PNG and modern w3c web standards (css2, etc.) ... And I sure others could chime in with other fine examples - both of what they are doing to inhibit OSS and what they could do to support it.

Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish".

[mrchaotica]

It doesn't matter if there are other licenses or other ways.

That doesn't make sense, because using the other licenses (e.g. the LGPL) is the way to interoperate with GPL systems!

TFA, and thus my response, are about GPL. Not any other aspect of *nix, not other licenses, nothing. GPL software. Secondly, -you- missed -my- point that it's not just MS. It's -anybody- trying to connect their non-GPL code to code that does use the GPL.

Generally speaking, most GPL code is in applications. The only reason anyone would be trying to connect their proprietary code to it would be to make a proprietary version of the application, which is exactly what the GPL is intended to prevent!. There is no problem making stand-alone applications for Linux because most system libraries are LGPL (or similarly permissive), not GPL.

So you think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to ask others, be it MS or random Joe Coder, to reinvent the wheel simply because the license on your software precludes their use of your code with theirs, possibly due to reasons outide their control.

First of all, they usually don't have to reinvent the wheel because most libraries aren't GPL to begin with, as I just said. Second, yes, it is reasonable because the point of the GPL is to prevent people from using it without reciprocating!

How was it, again, that you are better than MS?

Microsoft wants to force you to use its product, by "embracing, extending, and extinguishing" the competition, and it wants you to pay dearly for the "privilage" (by handing over both money and control). The GPL just wants you to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Here's the bottom line: You can't directly link proprietary code to GPL code becasue that's what was intended! However, direct linking is not required for interoperability. Therefore, Microsoft has no excuse for lack of interoperability.