Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Attempts to Quash OSS Recommendations
An anonymous reader writes "Inside Higher Ed has a story detailing Microsoft's attempt to alter a report created by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, complained about recommendations in the report to look into 'open source' and 'open content' at higher education institutions across the country. Elliott, who is on the voting committee, waited until the last minute and tried to have the report changed after a public vote. Although she does have a point that 'open source' is a development model, it still has collaboration at its heart. Can Microsoft argue against 'open' and win?"
It all depends on how you define winning. Does it mean having a few senators and congressmen in your pocket? Does it mean having a public debate where it is clear that your position is correct? Does it mean spreading enough FUD that people are confused/fearful enough not to take an "undesirable" action?
My interpretation of a Microsoft win is to perpetuate a perception that OSS is a hippy commune free for all not to be trusted by the government. It fits with the current mode of debate in DC. Adopt an rediculous position that cannot be supported with facts or logic and label anyone that challenges it a extremist fanatical zealot.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, sent an e-mail message to fellow commissioners Friday evening saying that she "vigorously" objected to a paragraph in which the panel embraced and encouraged the development of open source software and open content projects in higher education.
Why does anyone take an MS VP 'opinion' over those of people actually working in higher education. Why is anyone even listening to her? What does she have to do with the process at all? What's her background in higher education? Why is MS a part of such a discussion anyway? Why would anyone not think that the only reason MS is involved is to find ways to extort more money out of higher education?
Elliott, though. She thanked Duderdstadt for his suggestion but objected to his proposed inclusion of "open source" ("it's a method of coding software, and one of several available, period") and "open content" (a "term which can mean different things and enter us into some copyright debate"). She suggested language that struck those phrases.
It's worth pointing out that the Internet itself is the result of an OPEN collaboration, not entirely unlike OSS, which is also an open collaboration. The right thing to do would be to let her "never sign" the report, and thank her for her 'input'.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Rubbish. The GPL might prevent companies trying to sell me stuff my tax dollars have already paid for once... If anything it's better than the (often blatantly ignored) rule that software developed with public money is supposed to be public domain and uncopyrightable in the first place (NASA gets, or at least used to get, this right, at least).
Of course companies would "have a beef with it", but government is by the people of the people and for the people. And corporations aren't people, no matter what mere law says.
You mean like I'm not allowed to use Windows XP despite having paid a portion of the school's copy ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Business should be a "sport" not a "battle"! Most industries follow that model, there's only so much work one company can do RIGHT, so it's more like sports where different teams lead each season. Nobody expects the winning NFL team to hurt or maim the other players.. that's not sporting. The other teams still show up next season and play again. Microsoft, Oracle, Walmart, and others see business as "WAR".. trying to win all the games at any cost.. trouble is that it's not "fun" anymore. And you have 1000's of people out of work because some already rich company wants ANOTHER .1% profit so squashed their companies with half-rate low cost products and FUD advertizing.
Unlikely. People at that level have teams of people to read and analyze everything.
More likely she planned to wait until the last moment, and squeeze it through so that nobody noticed. If it had come up for debate sooner, she might have lost, and OSS supporters might have put even stronger language into the doc.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)