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.
This is the way Microsoft fights.
Look for proprietary Microsoft "extensions" in the near future. All for the sake of "user friendly" and "customer needs".
This is the tactic to "cooperate" with OSS as long as the money flows into MS's coffers.
This strategy would suck the economic oxygen out of OSS.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there. Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products. Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc. Step 3) There is no step 3. OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Microsoft, show your intention by opening Windows Networking!
Are you posting from a different dimension?
Open Source Software developers have been working very hard for years to create interoperatibility for working within MS Networks. Just look at OpenLDAP, Samba and a number of other systems that have been written to bring *nix and MS products into a state of being capable of communicating with one another.
Microsoft has had a history of moving the goal posts, for no apparent reason other then to undermine the efforts of the OSS teams working on things like Samba, OpenLDAP and many others.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
So they want to benefit from all the work done for OSS projects without contributing any work back?
Am I missing something?
-Derick
You need to consider: since when has the Linux/FOSS community ever deliberately made something not-interoperable with Windows? There are a few times and reasons, I'm sure, many of them strictly legal reasons, or adhering to some standard instead of adopting broken behaviours... but Microsoft really has no place to complain about their treatment, at least from a software development point of view.
Ignoring the blatant lie that the GPL is incompatible with "intellectual property" (the GPL *depends* on copyright for its effectiveness), this whole article is clearly designed to obscure the real issues.
The article is correct in that "Open source is a way of building software", but the GPL is primarily concerned with Freedom, not the practicalities of building software. You'll notice Microsoft never refers to Free Software, only Open Source. Open Source *is* primarily concerned with the development methodology, and by concentrating only on this issue Microsoft implies that Freedom is unimportant. There's a great danger of thinking only of Open Source, and then ending up in a situation not much better than if you had used proprietary software. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean Free.
If M$ wants to appease the OSS group, they need to open the windows API spec. They don't need to publish any source code. Just the specs. The old DOS api is fully spec'd, so why not windows? After all, competition is good for the consumer and promotes innovation. Isn't that what M$ claims it's trying to promote?
When all else fails, run.
That wasn't a news article. It was an interview. Notice how the reporter didn't get any opinions from major open source players. The entire text was either a quote or a paraphrase of Bob Muglia. Seems a bit one-sided if you ask me.
"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."
OSS products are by definition "open", meaning that it is up to MS to make the next move by publishing its API's, stop changing API's, stop doing crappy things to the OSS community, and to change it's licensing to allow FOSS programmers to use suposedly "open" MS products.
Er.. Open Source is generally based on open standards. It also tends to implement them without proprietary patented extensions.
Where exactly is OSS not being inter-operable?
Wine -- Make Windows software work on Linux
Open Office, Cygwin,etc. -- Make Linux software work on Windows.
Samba -- Make Windows servers work with Linux clients
Samba -- Make Linux servers work with Windows clients
VNC,X -- Make Windows terminals work with Linux servers
VNC, Remote Desktop client -- Make Linux terminals work with Windows servers.
All of these are done by open-source developers. So, tell me, what more would you like open-source people to do? And do you see ANYTHING that Microsoft has done?
It is easy to throw blame around if you ignore the facts.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
How does OSS inhibit Microsoft? How does making all source code available to them for viewing inhibiting their ability to integrate? How does working with open standards available for everyone to use inhibit Microsoft?
I don't see your point. Seems like only one side is using closed standards, proprietary code and closed APIs. I don't see how open source is to blame in this matter at all.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
This is not good news. This is a PR stunt and only a PR stunt. This allows Microsoft to say "See...we tried to play nice but they wouldn't play with us. It's their fault not ours; we wanted interoperability but they wouldn't have it." Bullshit. It is almost certain that the type of "interoperability" they desire will only come in terms of closed-source, for-profit products and encumbered IP. I have no problem with this, mind you, but do not delude yourself about this truce: anything they offer that is truly open will likely be end-of-life and irrelevant shortly thereafter.
What does a "truce" with Microsoft look like exactly? Do you think MS is going to open up their proprietary protocols and data formats to the OSS community? How would that work, exactly? What exactly does OSS gain from a truce with Microsoft given that we can assume that they will not be any more likely to open their formats and tools than they are now?
Don't get me wrong: it is perfectly within Microsoft's rights to keep their IP closed and to charge access for it but do not deceive yourself about them wanting to suddenly play nice. What happens if/when some of that proprietary stuff leaks into OSS? Could that be what they are hoping for? Hoping OSS developers, lured under the guise of a truce, think they have rights to use information that they do not - poisoning the well, perhaps?
What about evangelism? Under this supposed truce, are we supposed to stop pointing out the weaknesses in Microsoft's products and methodologies in return for the same? Why would we do that? Who wins in that situation? Certainly not OSS which relies heavily upon word-of-mouth and grass roots efforts to spread; Microsoft wins because potentially fewer people are made aware of other choices that may exist both for operating systems and tools.
I realize this could be taken as an anti-Microsoft rant but what it really is is a "Don't trust Microsoft" rant. These guys are convicted monopolists who have a reputation for stabbing their partners in the back and putting them out of business. Why would/should we trust them when they say they want to make nice?
start opening your formats and protocols, dammit... I'm sick tired of following the internet standards in my programs to see that they won't work with Microsoft Software. An example: The Microsoft "Web Folders", supposedly compatible with webdav, didn't work when connecting to an apache webdav directory. Days of research thrown into the garbage.
From the article:
> It's time for the Windows and Linux communities to drop the religious war and [snip]
There _is_ no "Windows community". It's just a giant company and a lot of customers.
> [snip] until the two communities put aside the whole "religion" issue, said Jeremy
> Moskowitz, a consultant and authority on Windows 2000/2003 Server, Active Directory
> and SMS [snip]
{sigh} There's no "religion issue". There's free software users who write a lot of
code that they want to remain free. It's their work -- and they want it to stay free.
If you don't like the terms, don't use the software. That's it. There's no religion
there. Now, maybe the Microsoft corporation has a "religious issue" -- like, maybe
it's their religion to dominate the software industry and they don't like there
being anyone else supplying software to the world...
Anyhow, this article seems to be mostly shilling for MS. The author tries to trick
the reader into believing the author's presuppositions and also relies pretty heavily
on quotes from this Moskowitz "authority".
> "At the end of the day, both Windows and Linux bring things that are good, and we
> can all get along and we should look at how we can leverage the strength of each
> to the benefit of the other," he said.
Bleh. What garbage. The free software community wants to get along just fine --
they're _giving_ away their work for goodness' sake.
The whole notion of a "truce" is silly. Other than writing better software, how is Linux attacking Microsoft? Nobody on the FLOSS side is, AFAIK, suing Microsoft for anything. Heck, OSS licenses don't even prohibit running so-licensed software on MS operating systems -- which is more than can be said for some MS EULAs regarding non-Windows systems.
So, just what is it they want to stop?
And why should we accept anything less than unconditional surrender?
-- Alastair
Open source already operates according to open standards...
All microsoft need to do, is implement and support the same open standards. This "war" they talk about having a truce in, is because their products are using proprietary formats and/or protocols, which force people to use their products.
People like choice, whereas microsoft try to take away your freedom of choice because that's easier for them than offering a better choice in a free market.
If they would make sure all their products complied with published standards (or help create such standards, where non already exist, and in an open way involving any interested parties), then opensource would have less of a need to compete and fight against them.
All i want, and i`m sure many people agree, is freedom to choose. I absoloutely despise the idea of being forced to use any particular product, i want to be able to choose whatever suits my individual needs best.
Currently i won't use microsoft products, because they seek to remove my freedom of choice... If they implement open standards and provide me this freedom i would consider using them based on the merits of each individual product.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, " Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
- Where are they whenever there is a CIFS meeting ??
- Where did they go once ODF was being finalized ??
- Why don't they let the Mono guys present at Windows Conferences ??
If Microsoft wants interoperability they must realize that interoperability does not mean everyone else bending over backwards for them. It means working with other Companies/Individuals to ensure that EVERYONE benefits from it, not just Microsoft.
The suit from Microsoft continues with the company-mandated propaganda, "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible", Muglia said.
How is this a truce? How is this even slightly different from the FUD Microsoft regularly churns out? Is this the new strategy - to portray themselves as reasonable people being unfairly targeted by the open-source community?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.