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.
A new progression:
Got to give it to Microsoft for not going down easy, at least.
Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
Maybe now they will truly release the Media Transport Protocol. Currently they have released the protocol but forbid it in the use of FOSS. But I doubt that will ever happen.
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
The GPL is like a nude beach. It's an agreement that you are no going to wear any clothes on this beach.
Microsoft wants to hang out on that beach but not remove thier clothing.
I can't blame them; but The sunbathers all know that Microsoft is just there to ogle.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
diplomacy is how to say "Nice Doggie" while you look for a really big stick
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time
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!
So, what do you call WINE, Samba, Cygwin? (Tons more, but I don't deal with Windows often enough to have more names...)
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
The last time Bill Gates spoke of peace I was a boy. And many Free Software nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he had them hanged. I was very young, but I remember Gate's notion of peace.
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?
Asked what the reaction from the community had been to Microsoft's outreach on this front, Muglia said it was "skeptical but intrigued. What people are starting to discover is that people who write GPL code are not evil and people who write commercial software are also not evil, we just have different approaches."
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."
Linux and open-source companies remain Microsoft competitors, and the goal is to do a better job than they do at solving customer needs, and ultimately to have customers choose Microsoft solutions. However, if customers choose not to, Microsoft needs to be interoperating and working well with those companies.
Microsoft "seems" to be coming around to the idea that perhaps the best way to beat OSS is to join it. Making their stuff interoperable gives people flexibility and perhaps that would keep them from completely switching over to OSS from Windows, if they get the idea that they can do it at any time and always switch back if it doesn't work for them. It's a canny bit of work by Redmond, but the question now is: can they actually make things interoperable?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
- Stop treating me like a criminal -- get rid of WPA.
- Stop treating me like a criminal -- get rid of DRM (and the whole "trusted" thing).
- Stop behaving like a criminal -- get out of the "protection racket" by forcing me to pay money to make Windows secure.
- Stop behaving like a criminal -- play fairly with other companies.
I think that a good first step would be to fire the entire legal department. Let a tech company be run by geeks.If they do all of this, they might get me back as a happy paying customer.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Let's see. On one side, we have Microsoft, singular colossus of the industry, abuser of monopoly power, left with naught but a nano-scale layer of public trust. On the other side, we have a great mass of Open Source/Free Software advocates, where the moderate voices are undermined by those whose rational distrust of Microsoft has turned to irrational paranoia and hatred.
I hope there's a Plan B, because this whole "Us vs. Them" thing isn't leading anybody anywhere.
This sig intentionally left blank.
"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.
MS needs time to focus on one threat at a time. Their single greatest threat is Google. If they can get everybody to play nice with them for a time, they can take out google. Once that is done (or perhaps even before), they will simply go on the attack for the next target. Gates has the same ethics as Hitler (try to crush your enemies and own your friends when you are able to).
Now, is the time for the FOSS world to be more like the UK and America of old, rather than to roll over.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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?
Sure, anyone can turn over a new leaf. That's always possible. But that won't stop the incidental music from Psycho from playing in my mind whenever I hear of Microsoft working with others. There are some areas where I think it might be safe. There's been no work on Linux' IBCS module for a long time. This would benefit Microsoft, as they could then run Linux software natively. That wouldn't hurt Linux too much, as many Unixes have been able to do this for a while, and the code is out there anyway. However, it would benefit Linux, precisely because other OS' can run Linux binaries but Linux can't run theirs without IBCS being brought up-to-date.
MPLS for Linux is another dead project that would be highly valuable to revive, and equally valuable to Microsoft to have for Windows. MOSIX and OpenMOSIX development has been at snail's pace over recent months - boo! - and Microsoft's clustering technology would certainly benefit from a comparable system, making a joint venture into improving this technology a definite plus for all sides.
If such ventures don't work out, Linux doesn't suffer because the level of work in these areas is small anyway. You can't lose by not getting what you wouldn't have had anyway. On the other hand, if they did work out, it would be an opportunity to develop extremely valuable technology with resources that would be extremely hard to muster by any other means.
To those who are contemplating any kind of alliance with Microsoft, however, just remember that the Computer is your friend. It says so. And if you don't agree, it may use you as reactor shielding.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
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."
Microsoft provides basic standards supports, though often with proprietary or non-standard "extensions". HTML/CSS, for example. Once could argue RTF was a good effort, though years of binary .DOC make RTF more or less obsolete. Microsoft also conforms to basic internet protocols, TCP/IP, FTP, etc. Very basic support for the most fundamental standards.
Linux (and related software) does all that. Linux also reads and in most cases writes Microsoft's filesystem formats. "mtools" provides a second, user-space support for native microsoft discs. Linux also supports Joliet (Microsoft's cdrom filename extensions). Samba supports Microsoft's file service protocols. These usually come preinstalled on major linux distributions.
Microsoft does NOT provide even read-only support for Linux ext2 filesystems. Microsoft does NOT automatically recognize unix/linux rock ridge cdroms. Microsoft does NOT provide support for mounting NFS file systems. These are all examples of well established protocols in widespread use for over 10 years!
But...
the fact that they're reaching out should be incentive enough for the OSS community to respond in kind
Remember how they "reached out" to Sun regarding Java?
Sure, if "respond in kind" means a bunch of cheap, fluffy talk, and not actually implementing anything, or writing a poor implementation with proprietary "extensions", sure.
But the truth is, almost every documented, and even many poorly or utterly undocumented Microsoft protocols are well supported by Linux and related software.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
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.
I am not disagreeing with you, but we need to be careful.
If it's true cooperation, then yes, it would be in the interests of both sides, and we should put aside any rancour.
But Microsoft has a long and established history of starting out with what appears to be cooperation, but then twisting it around for their own ends, at the expense of whoever they're cooperating with. If we don't trust them, that's not being vindictive; it's merely being cautious.
Microsoft is so large, and we've seen in the past that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the left elbow is doing. How do we know that this Muglia guy represents a substantial policy shift at Microsoft? How do we know that Ballmer isn't going to "fucking bury" Linux (or Linus), and possibly that Muglia guy with him? Microsoft has consistently waged war with FOSS, whether in the open or using political coffers; how do we know they're not going to continue that?
The FOSS movement has not changed its stance: interoperate with us, we'll be glad to interoperate with you. The SAMBA team has bent over backwards to figure out how to interoperate with Microsoft, not to mention all the FOSS developers trying to work with the MS Word format.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has sequentially moved from "I don't care of I'm pronouncing 'Lie-nux' wrong" to "it's a cancer" to "it's un-American" (way to go for convincing overseas companies to use Microsoft) to "okay, it exists, but we have a lower TCO". Now they're saying, "Hey, FOSS is great. Say, can you change that FOSS license a little bit?" Meanwhile, they've campaigned against the Open Document Format, told Peru that not using Microsoft would be their death knell, and have alternately played the big bully (having been found to be guilty of monopoly abuse on three continents) and the poor helpless company (we're going to get crushed by the onrushing torrent of FOSS software, so won't the government please help out poor little Microsoft?)
Now they're sending love notes to FOSS? Well, you know what, Microsoft? Let's see you put some action behind the rhetoric. Open up the MS Word format. Or open-source your Visual Basic compiler. License your Windows Media Player under some sort of OSI license. Or, heck, give the French Prime Minister a call and ask him to meet with Richard Stallman. But these press releases? We've seen 'em all.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
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!
Microsoft offering an olive branch reminds me a lot of the cease fire right before Tet Offensive.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I also get nervouse when I change hardware (video cards, optical drives, etc.). If I have to re-install XP, will I have to beg Microsoft to let me re-install because it looks like a different computer?
Rest assured that if DVDs did NOT play under any computer, consumers would be complaining to the studios. Microsoft is big enough to have some clout. Instead they have kissed RIAA's and MPAA's collective arses.
Perhaps you have not heard of Windows Live Onecare? Sell a product prone to viruses, and charge people to keep it virus free. It is one thing for a 3rd party to offer this service, but for Microsoft to do this, there is now no incentive to fix security problems with Windows if they can fix it with Onecare. People who don't pay get infected. About the patches, it is obvious that you have not heard of Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA).
There are more cases of them playing ball with other companies right before they pull the rug out from under them. Other posts on this page cover that topic well, including the IBM and OS/2 deal. Don't forget the whole Dr-DOS fiasco. Then there was the Netscape battle where they unfairly connected the browser and operating system. Ever heard of JAVA and the law suit over that? How about "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?" And how about opening up the APIs so that office application writers are on a level playing field with Microsoft Office?
The point is bad things happen when you let the lawyers have too much control. Microsoft even sued Mike Rowe for registering the domain MikeRoweSoft.com. That is simply going too far.
I bitch when I have a legitimate reason to. In this case, I do.
You, sir, are so completely full of crap that your breath stinks.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
A friend took a job with Microsoft a few months ago. Before that, he worked with me on
an open-source system that is moderately widely deployed. We even got a paper into a
decent technical conference on the open-source system.
MICROSOFT WOULD NOT PERMIT HIM TO PRESENT THE PAPER. They flat-out refused to permit it.
This is dispite the fact that all of the work that was done quite a while before he joined MS, and
made no mention of MS.
Apparently, even "acknowledging the exixtence" of open source software is something MS
is not willing to countenance in the rank and file employees.
This is not "friend of a friend". I was also an author on that paper, and this happened
after Jan 1, 2006, so it's not "stale data" either; it's current policy.
Let that be a warning. Sign NOTHING with Microsoft. NOTHING!
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
"You got to be trusted by the people that you lie to so when they turn their backs on you, you get the chance to put the knife in." -- Pink Floyd, "Dogs" (Animals, 1977)
In all seriousness, Microsoft likely understands quite well what Open Source and what Free Software is all about and they know they are not prepared (and quite possibly incapable) of operating under any such banner. Control is their game. Control of standards, markets, minds, and of ideas. They will never let go of that. They cannot.
They are not "seeing the light" at all, but continuing to formulate and play out strategies to convince all who would listen (or not think too clearly, at least) that limited openness is all you really need and freedom has to do with price and TCO. Don't worry. Just relax and play along, all will be fine. Really!
But think of how many billions of dollars Microsoft stands to lose (and is already losing given that a quarter of Dell's server business, for example, is shipping GNU/Linux instead of MS-Windows) and you can probably think of just how far they will go and how many resources they will dedicate to keeping their golden goose from heading for the hills with that smiling penguin.
--Udo.
include $sig;
1;
Which people are discovering this? I don't think anyone has any beef with the people who write software. It's the management of companies like Microsoft we have a problem with. The coders are all right and always have been. You think we look upon you and Gates and Ballmer and the rest as coders! It is to laugh. Your agenda is other than making good code. If making bad code makes money, bad code it is. Do you think we're morons? Try not insulting us if you want to build bridges.
No, dude. You're only just now barely realizing that the world is passing you by. The world evolved - past tense. You just missed the train and now have to hire a heliocopter to get you to the party. But you're trying to pass it off like you're Alan Arken and Peter Falk arriving late at the wedding.
What you need to do now to make up for it is to do what they did in "The In-Laws". Hand over envelopes of cash to some OSS projects including some GPL projects, no strings attached. That'll show us you're sincere. You can even deduct it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
- 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.
This is fantastic! So, when can we expect to see Microsoft release an NTFS API that allows users to safely read and write to those volumes?
Yeah, Microsoft is calling a truce... I soooo fucking believe that.
You'll be able to hear the music on the soundtrack go all ominous.
"I've got a bad feeling about this."
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
The Rich Text Format (RTF) is a specification that was used in Microsoft products starting in 1987. However, as far as I can tell, version 1.0 of the RTF specification was published in 1992. The assertion that RTF predates "everything else in the opensource world" is not just false, but amazingly out of touch with reality. For example, the RTF specification was published:
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.
How about opening up DirectX? That's about the only thing I'd care about here anyway.
Property is theft.
BULLSHIT!
C# is an ECMA standard. Parts of the .NET API are encumbered by Microsoft patents and not legally implementable by Free Software (which means Mono can never legally be fully compatible, AFAIK).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
SFU: Let devs, systems admins port applications
.Net Runtime as EMCA standard
SFU: For talking to *nix clients using nfs, ldap and interact with AD
Hah. You've never actually used SFU, have you? NFS support doesn't work unless you authenticate against AD- that means making your AD server your NIS server. SFU's "porting kit", btw, consists of (get this) GCC, CYGWIN, and a number of other free softwares.
RTF Format: As an open spec that predates everything else in the opensource world
Ah, no. TeX predates RTF by about 10 years.
Check again. The ECMA submitted runtime lacks the entire WinForms interface. That is, if all you want to do is make text-based hello world programs, that's fine, but it's a far cry from usefulness.
Open XML as EMCA standard
It's ECMA. Again, OpenXML is worthless. It's got almost zero marketshare. I wouldn't want to pick up that tar baby either.
Wix install set: For open software to create installers for windows
But only ON windows. It relies on API that aren't public to do so. This negates cross-compilers, and makes farm-work difficult.
IBuySpy Portal(Dotnetnuke is based on)
Again, zero marketshare.
It is easy to blame when you look at only one point of view
I agree.
Sure MS should be releasing docs for smb, cifs, AD, rdp(dont know if they actually control it) etc.
They indeed should be! See below:
should they for free (open) that is debatable....
No it's not. They were so ordered by a US Federal Court. They are convicted criminals, so it's not debatable at all. They continue to break the law, and they continue to hurt Americans and the world at large by continuing to have turd-covered shills pretend that Microsoft is some kind of company. It's not. It's an illegal monopoly. Move on.
First the FUD: "One of the things I have learned is that engineers who work on commercial software really can't work on open source on GPL and engineers who work on GPL can't work on commercial software. You really have to separate the two," he said.
That's a load of crap, unless Microsoft is the one not letting GPL programmers also work on commercial software. Has Microsoft ever heard of Red Hat, or are they really that out of touch with what is going on in their industry?
Ahh, and then the trick: "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. Licenses like the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and commercial software, on the other hand, are quite compatible with one another, he observed."
What's the main difference between the BSD license and the GPL? If Microsoft were to use the GPL in a piece of their software, they would have to give us the code for that piece of software, and with BSD they would be able to just take the code, use it, and never have any further obligations.
In other words, this call for a "truce" just translates to "stop using a license that would make us share our code with you if we use some of your code!"
He doesn't understand what the Free Software movement is: The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said
The goal on the GPL side is to provide everyone with Free (as in 'freedom') Software that they can use and contribute to. The goal on Microsoft's side is to make as much money as possible, however they can.
Msft is still funding the scox-scam, among msft many other backstabing, system-abusing, practices.
It's like somebody saying "hey, let's stop fighting" while they're stopping on your face.
So you think that the GPL is unfair and unreasonable. So ignore it! That's right, just pretend that the GPL isn't even there! It even says right in the GPL itself that you can do this. (Paragraph 5: "You are not required to accept this license.")
There's your answer. Act as if the GPL doesn't exist, and do whatever you want with the software (as long as it's legal, of course)! Comb through the source code. Check out how it works. Make a bazillion copies. Change it around, and make your own version of the program. Better yet, combine it with another brilliant program of yours to make a super-program. Sell it and make a million--
Oh, wait. That's against the law --you'd be breaking copyright. You wouldn't want to do something illegal, would you?
Fine, just bundle it for free when you sell your--
Oh, darn. That's not legal either.
Umm, be a nice guy in general and post it on the web for people to download? Donate the program to a charitable organization?
Nope, that's against the law, too. Damn.
Hmm, what to do? Well, maybe you can ask the original programmer to sell you the rights to the program, so you can use it. Or perhaps you could give royalties. With enough financial incentive, maybe the programmer would be willing to transfer the rights to you.
But sometimes software is created by more than one person, and you'd have to negotiate with each of the authors to get the rights to the complete program. Sometimes even contacting one of the original authors can be a big hassle.
If only there were some way for the authors to state ahead of time, under what sort of conditions they would be willing to give you the rights to their program. This way, if you didn't want to negotiate, you'd still have the option of just fulfilling their conditions, and they've already agreed ahead of time that you get their permission --without your even needing to contact them! You know, some sort of text that they could include with their program (or put up on their web site) that explains all this clearly. They could call it a "document of giving permission". Hey, come to think of it, someone should come up with a word in the English language that means a "document of giving permission".
I'll let you take it from there. Let us know if you come up with any great ideas.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]