Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.)