Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates On the GPL — "We Disagree"
Dionysius, God of Wine, writes with a link to an Ars Technica story, quoting Bill Gates: "'There's free software and then there's open source' he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, 'there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.' Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,' he claimed, bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and business. (Yes, Linux fans, we're aware of how distorted this definition is.) He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."
Nothing wrong with greedy. Just, when you're competing with 'free' you better bring a lot to the table.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
news why? Seriously did we really need to be told that?
load "$",8,1
OSS typically goes after mature late life cycle applications, such as OS's, Office suites, etc.. If Microsoft was truly on the cutting edge of innovation, I dont think they would care either way....
:)
Meaning, people can say what they like, but in my opinion OSS is capitalism's way of preventing companies from profiting on a product the developed indefinitely... And this is a good thing, in my opinion..
That's ok - as long as rich people with lots of money are the ones who decide what is handed out and what isn't. When the hoi polloi start making those kind of decisions, we have a problem.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
"If you steal drugs, you should be able to charge for them".
There, much better.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
This sort of "article" is just flame bait. It doesn't provide any new information nor does it push any sort of point with facts or clarity.
Sure, but he has a problem with some people choosing to not charge for them?
Yes, and as such those who can't afford the drugs may die. Perfect system huh?
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
Conversely, if you basically steal the idea that other people have come up with, and implement them in a proprietary manner, you shouldn't go around claiming you invented it.
The list of things that MS basically borrowed or copied from Xerox, UNIX, Apple, and general computing research is basically
Mostly I just remember things like Kerberos being hijacked, made incompatible, and claimed as their own invention. Fuck, they'd pretend to have invented TCP/IP if they'd been successful in forcing everyone else to adopt their version of it.
Not to Bill Gates: We disagree too.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You are sooo right.
Because if somebody else invents better drugs to give away for free, you're sunk.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
'Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software'
I've been using Linux since pre kernel 1.0 days. This explains why there is still no IDE support and I am stuck with that damn A.OUT executable format. I really wish they'd at least add support for more than VGA graphics. I know it's asking a lot, but I'd also like DVD and USB support.
Can I improve Windows? Unlikely. Not without getting a job there and spending several years moving up the ranks to be in a position where I can fix* things.
Can I improve Linux? Yes*
Why? Because the source code is there for me to play with and fix the bugs* in the software. I can't do this with Windows. I can file a bug report and perhaps they might fix it in a service pack or just write back and say it's intentional.
*Granted, what I think is an improvement might be a step back in someone else's opinion, but at least I have the choice. Like Neo did.
Summation 2
He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."
Sure, so who cares if a few million die as a result. You made your money!
Ask most successful business men about if they would rather own something completely or have a market where there is healthy competition, and most will tell you that they will do anything to block competitors.
So if we look at the GPL and many other open source licenses we have a problem where the intellectual property can not be completely controlled. Now in a market where you can make money by fairly offering support and ancillary services why would they view this as bad?
If you own the intellectual property behind a product you have the ability to 'strike out'. You can screw up marketing, sales, development, etc and still be protected from someone else doing the same thing better. But if you sell services for GPL/Open products you have to conduct business the 'proper way', and deliver a better product then your competitors.
I'm not trying to bash the windows here, as if you look at Bill's investment work outside of Microsoft he tends to do the same thing; look for something that he can take 100% ownership of a marketplace. And I doubt you will find too many CEOs of large companies who would not take the chance to do the exact same thing. Even though most of these people have business/economics knowledge of how capitalism should work with healthy competition & innovation; they would much rather be unmerciful and dominate to make more money now, and find a way to be charitable, or 'play nice' later. Basically if they can own it, they will, and if something stands in their way they will try to crush it, denounce it, or produce FUD against it.
Or is it the fourth?
First, free software was basically open source, and it was published in source code in magazines and on user group tapes and places like that.
Then there was freeware, which was binary only. I don't know if this counts as some kind of free software or a separate term.
Then RMS said that "free software" was software that couldn't be made non-free. A lot of people thought that was a bit over the top and 10 or 15 years later the term "open source" was settled on.
So we have GPLed "free software" and MIT/BSD/CC/... "open source" software.
Now we have this:
"There's free software and then there's open source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries.
What he's calling "free software" means "free samples", not even freeware. And I'm sure that RMS will disagree with his identification of the GPL with "open source".
Sheesh.
He sits there with that eight hundred pound disaster known as Vista and then thinks he has still has some position in the community to poo-poo another development model? Well, at least he's not calling the FOSS community communists any more, and for all that "squandering" it's pretty amazing just where you'll find open source, including on Windows boxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Did Gates just compare Windows to drugs? huh?
So all the jokes about MS giving software to schools cheaply like a drug dealer are right?
After that, I can't think straight....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
As well as increasing the self-sufficiency of developing nations.
There's a real lack of foresight by a lot of charities. It has a lot to do with government funding of independent charity, it creates a real conflict of interest. The people who run the a more controversial (to voters or $ contributors) organizations have to pick policy with the goal of being invisible to congress.
"The Revolution Will Not Be Funded" is a good read.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
the GP post never mentioned wanting tesco to give away food.
... wait for it ... FREE! So do you think it right that tesco tell you you CAN'T produce food from your own garden and either use it yourself or give it to friends?
However, if you have a back garden, you can grow potatoes for
Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software
That is an incomplete statement. How about we add a little bit to it: Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software to make money off the original work they got for free
There, that's more like it. When you realize that's the "complete sentence" that's running through his head, it makes sense. Fortunately, not everyone thinks that way. Just because you can't improve GPL'd software to make a profit, does not mean you cannot improve it.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Open source does not have a corporate cost associated with it.
Yes it does. The biggest contributors to Open Source and Free Software are large corporations like Red Hat, IBM, Novell, and Sun. They do it because they don't make their money on that software specifically, but products and services based on it. By sharing contributions, they also receive contributions in return, and are able to make a better product, and more money.
Companies do pay for it. They pay for it because they get value in return.
But all businesses face competition, and the most devastating tends to be from competitors who follow different business models. Clones are much easier to see off.
The most interesting thing here is Gates acknowledges the competition and is starting to fight [more]. Entirely following Ghandi's script: "First they ignore you, then they laught at you, then they fight you, then you win."
The link provided only provides paraphrased quotes based on notes made by a field reporter. Get me a full transcript where the quotes are put in context of the presentation, and then perhaps we can have a good discussion about this.
He clearly meant that, "Closed-source creates a license so that nobody can ever improve the software (implied: unless the original developer can be bothered)". He knows this all too well, having run Microsoft for the past nearly 3 decades. If there's one thing every Microsoft operating system has showed the world, it's that with Microsoft's closed-source software, nothing ever gets fixed unless Microsoft deigns acknowledge the problem and then gets around to make an effort to fix it. Nobody else can do this, since they don't have access to the source.
"Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that anybody can improve the software,"
there, fixed that for ya. =P
http://kered.org
This is a fallacy. Everyone borrows from everyone in the computing world, it's called "standards" like in the case of TCP/IP. It's just not about creating new things- it's about maintaining better things.
Microsoft LICENSED the GUI-interface from Xerox in exchange for stock, same as Apple. In the case of Apple, they took something that was being sold for crazy amounts of money and released a similar product(Windows) that ran on dirt cheap hardware (but had better memory management).
If this is your definition of theft, then it's endemically impossible for open source to create or have created anything. Ever.
It's rare that a large corporation ever really "creates" anything too radical in computing. What has Apple invented? Mac OS X is a well implemented version of Mach with BSD Compatibility layer, running a DPS-based OPENSTEP window manager. Apple creates nothing anymore, they just implement things well.
What separate(d) Microsoft, Apple, or Be (for example) from the stodgy unix model is:
A) Not using a monolithic kernel (Microsoft, Apple, BeOS)
B) Not using X (")
C) Not relying on consortium development (Apple pretends parts of os x are open source, but they are not community developed)
Beyond this formula, technologies are forked(in a sense) and improved to be made into commercial software systems. Most of the innovative new technologies that work their way into these industries come from start-ups. In this sense, unix-based systems remain so close, yet so far away as long as they keep maintaining ridiculously expensive and schizophrenic technologies like X.
So perhaps Bill Gates would have been better off saying that they should be able to sell their work, not their invention. There is truly no open source equivalent to things like DirectX (SDL is a sad mockery), Visual Studio, or Microsoft Office (I really wish OpenOffice compared). People buy these products because they're still top notch and useful, not because they're unaware of free alternatives.
Will someone please point me to something innovative from the open source world that isn't just a free alternative to something else?
Actually, his definition of "nobody" is pretty simple. Anyone who doesn't contribute to Microsoft's bottom line is a nobody.
Ballmer has made that clear, by committing to the end of life for Windows XP even though, Vista in his words is "a work in progress". Moving everyone to Vista contributes to Microsoft's bottom line and nobody important (i.e. anyone outside of Microsoft that doesn't contribute to their bottom line) disagrees.
His example with the pharmaceutical companies points exactly to this mindset. Most of the new drugs created today are "lifestyle drugs" instead of drugs that actually cure your illness. In the former, you're on the hook for multiple payments for years. In the later, you just pay once. Universities or University Hospitals that actually focus on finding a cure tend to follow the collaboration model since reputation gives you tons of benefits, and it gives society tons of benefits. For profit pharmaceutical companies care more about lock-in to squeeze as much out of their clients as possible for as long as possible and use various techniques (like patenting a minor variation once the original patent expires) to extend the life of the patent. Without Generic Pharma, the "nobody"s of the world would be on the hook forever and without both them and University Hospitals, no actual improvement in the pharmaceuticals would happen because any improvement that lowers costs or reduces the need for the pharmaceuticals would hurt the bottom line, even though it would benefit society.
Similarly, no-one can improve Windows XP except for Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to kill Windows XP and move you to Vista and you have no choice but to use Windows. It sucks to be you. You or anyone other that Microsoft (e.g. Sun, Apple, IBM, etc) can improve Windows XP with any feature that you need from Vista (if there is such a thing) or Linux or Mac OSX.
I think you kind of missed the overall theme of what I was trying to say...
:)
I agree that there are a number of Linux and BSD innovations out there, and simply being OSS does not mean that you are "old" so to speak... My main point is that OSS is critical to the functioning capitalism marketplace because it forces balance. You can think of the technology industry as the same thing as building a wall of bricks. Each product (brick) that is built sits on top of another layer of bricks.
If the XEN, KVM, and even Ubuntu groups had to start off or license proprietary OS's and even Databases to lay their products on, then they simply would not exist because it would be too expensive to be useful. Meaning, if you look at the code base of each of these products versus the overall code base of all the Linux modules they lay on, then these innovative projects seem more like a "weekend" projects than anything else. In time, I suspect you will see the next layer of "bricks", which means that the products of today go into the background while another even more innovative layer of bricks sit on top of them... Starting to see my point here??
Even billionaires know how to play that game.
Seriously, if I was Gates, I'd make comments like this every now and then just to stir up some Linux fanboi hysteria... Not like he has much else to do these days.
I'm just waiting for him to invoke Goodwin next. Gates: "You know, the Open Source movement in many ways resembles a kind of socialism first promoted by Hitler and the Nazis...."
My girlfriend is in starting premed and the fees are already over the top. After med-school, do I really see her working for free? Hell no.
Oh, working for a great cause sounds fantastic, but it is not realistic given the amount of debt that you are in, coming out of school.
Your argument on equipment is quite silly - and is a logical fallacy. Just because you have a couple of examples where people did not use them does not necessarily invalidate their use.
A lot may be achieved without the gear, but a lot more can be achieved with them. It's called progress.
Those people (doctors sans frontiers) are there for charity - and I've heard of enough heartbreak cases from them, as well.
Do you have a more coherent argument than bringing up examples of someone who did something contrary and saying that just because these people do, everyone else must?
If anything, I'm proud of capitalism. If I do something, why shouldn't I be expected to be rewarded for it? If I develop a cure, what is wrong in asking people to pay for it? If anything, the system promotes competition and ensures that the brightest rise to the top.
Now, there may be exceptions and there may be people who have done great things without any help. But even these people (like Mr. Torvalds) need a day job where they can get paid for what they do.
I do not understand your comment on quality people because quality people may find ways of expressing themselves, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't ask to be paid for it.
The pharmaceutical industry isn't in the business of curing diseases, because that isn't as profitable as making drugs that you have to keep taking for the rest of your life.
Take HIV for example. They've invested a lot of money making drugs that let you "live with" HIV, at a staggering recurring yearly cost to the patient. If they made a cure, even if they charged through the nose for it, they would lose out on a lot of money. This is why if there is ever a cure for HIV developed, it will be in a publicly funded lab, not in a pharma company.
Look up a drug called Mectizan. Or Coartem. Two good examples of profits not being made on a drug. We would all LOVE to cure HIV. The company that pulled that stunt off would be the darling of the industry for the next 3 decades, and that image almost matters more than the profit itself. Remember the whole Vioxx mess? That wouldn't have been half as publicized had it not been Merck. For decades Merck was the gold standard of the industry, a reputation they well deserved. So when it came time for them to be dethroned, it was a big deal.
I'm not saying that they don't often go after diseases that are big money makers. All of diabetes treatments that are out there are indicators of that. But to make a blanket statement that "They won't cure a disease because of the bottom line" is just showing ignorance.
Chris Knight is my hero.
there would be no evil profit-killing generic drugs. Yay Closed Source!
No, seriously, Gates chose probably the worst analogy he could possibly make. I mean, comparing closed source software developers to the kinds of companies which gouge people in need as much as they can? The kinds of corporations directly responsible for things such as the lack of proper medications in the poorer countries in the world? (because although there's often enough money to manufacture the drugs they have patents and hence international monopolies, which means even if they give the drugs away for free there's a limited supply since no one else is allowed to make them)
Basically our esteemed William used the worst possible example of the dirty side of Capitalism to characterize Closed Source software. Oops!
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Hey, I'm not in pharma. All I see is an industry that seemingly hasn't actually cured anything in decades, and is not interested in research into types of medicine that aren't patentable. Maybe that's just a matter of ignorance and sensationalist tv documentaries, I don't know.
What I do know is that the pharma companies have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, and that investing the bulk of R&D money in treatments, not cures, simply has to be a part of that.
Now there is GPL and open license, and M$ complains of competing with free software.
Hurts to wear the shoe on the other foot, doesn't it?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Some jackass moded you -1 offtopic. It's pretty clear nobody bothered to read BillG's speech and understand the context. But then, this is slashdot.
The relevant parts:
He also pointed to one specific problem that he'd like to take a shot at: getting pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for the infectious diseases that plague billions of people in the developing world. The track record is horrible, and familiar. While billions of dollars have yielded treatments for baldness and erectile dysfunction, Gates said, there's comparatively little on the shelf for malaria, tuberculosis or HIV.
Even the treatments that do pop up are more dumb luck than dedication. The anti-worm treatments that have proven so effective for humans against Guinea worm, for instance, were only developed because Americans and other first-worlders wanted a way to keep their dogs worm-free. "Luckily it worked for humans", too, Gates noted
The core problem seemed to intrigue Gates, who offered it as "a paradox": If a drug company ever invents a treatment for something like malaria, it'd be immediately beset by calls to give the drug away. "So they choose never to work in those areas," he noted sympathetically. "The current incentive system isn't doing it."
In other words, his point is, companies need to be profitable to exists. They need to be able to charge for their products, their IP, etc. They might want to do the right thing, but they can't do it at the expense of profits. Somebody needs to figure out how to bridge the disconnect between "doing the right thing/goodwill" and profitability.
And no, open source doesn't solve this problem. It has it's place, but this isn't it. Specifically, BillG was asked if he would consider open source uses in health research. It goes directly against his point that profit-making is the primary incentive for any company. If a company wants to provide healthcare solutions, and charge for the software, and keep their IP to themselves there's nothing wrong with that. Their whole incentive to be in the space is profits. They just need to figure out how to be profitable and do the right thing.
Of course, there are many companies with open source models that are profitable - but that still doesn't necessarily apply to the healthcare segment. For example, if you need to spend millions of dollars to create s/w to model protein folding, you want to be able to recover the investment. If you can't monetize the investment, your incentive to do the R&D is drastically reduced!