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."

Comments

Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[smellsofbikes]

Nothing wrong with greedy. Just, when you're competing with 'free' you better bring a lot to the table.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[ZephyrXero]

Wanting to make a profit is not evil. However, lies still are. Saying that nobody can improve (read innovate) in open source is a flat out lie, and he knows it.

Also, if he really cared about making a profit he wouldn't still be clinging to his short sided, quick buck mentalities he started the company with decades ago...

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[hardburn]

The Internet? UNIX?

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[Dancindan84]

I don't know... an XML based open document format registered with ISO?

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[pressman]

Improvement and innovation are two different ideas. Innovate implies a radical change from the status quo, whereas improvement is gradual change to the status quo resulting in a better product.

Photoshop was a huge innovation originally over traditional darkroom techniques. Early non-linear digital video editors were a huge innovation over linear tape-based and traditional film editing techniques, so Avid qualifies as an innovator.

(I'm a video editor and photographer, hence the analogies)

Since version 3, nothing in Photoshop has been terribly innovative though the program has seen numerous improvements.

Direct-to-disk video recording is a huge innovation over tape based recording and it's accompanying tape-based offline workflow. Panasonic, Sony and Red have shown some innovation there, but most everyone else has just improved upon existing technologies and work flows.

Linux, when it was released was a highly innovative OS and method of distribution. Now, however, most of what goes on in the OSS world (as it applies to Linux) is a matter of improvement rather than innovation.

The idea of innovation has become so diluted that it's now meaningless and people simply equate it with "getting stuff done", no matter how small the change.

Innovation isn't so much an active process as it is the result of inspired genius that strikes occasionally. Improvement is an active process of evaluation and execution. Innovation comes in spurts and then the innovations are improved upon and evolve.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[BasharTeg]

You're right that his "improve" on OSS argument is empty, because I think what he was trying to say by "nobody can improve on it" is "no business can improve on it." But most importantly, I think OP really dicked up what he was saying. Notice how the word OSS falls outside of the quote. Notice how they were referring to GPL software. Bill Gates is saying he has a problem with the GPL, and the OP's obvious GPL bias translated that into ALL open source software. Bill's point was that businesses can't take GPL software and improve upon it or link proprietary software to it without the viral nature of the GPL taking over. His arguments are against the GPL, not more liberal open source licenses like BSD or MIT.

The proof is in the pudding, they made use of a BSD based TCP/IP stack and TCP tools for many years before they rewrote them. Obviously they don't have a problem with BSD licensed software, only GPL licensed software. Yet OP feels the need to tag the quoted subject of "OSS" rather than "GPL licensed software" into the tiny micro-quote of Gate's words.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[CrimsonAvenger]

RMS has also suggested that Software Engineers be paid by the government, so that their work can be free. Frankly, the only thing worse than Windows Vista would be Windows Vista designed by a government committee.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[BlueStraggler]

Linux and GNU did not invent OSS. They were, in fact, a counter-revolution (OSS v2), in response to the revolution of proprietary software that overthrew OSS v1 in the early 1980s. Proprietary licensing took off with the rise of personal workstations and PCs and the subsequent rise in the portability of software. The GNU philosophy is that the old way of doing things was better, and cleverly co-opted the software licensing model to try and turn the ship around. Unix arose in the OSS v1 world, but right around the time that proprietary software was getting a foothold. As a consequence, it got caught up in the heart of the OSS/proprietary schism, and became embroiled in intellectual property lawsuits, which is why a Linux became necessary. But Linux didn't invent this approach to Unix; it simply capitalized on the fact that BSD was locked down in court battles for years. TCP/IP arose much earlier, before proprietary licensing was a significant force at all, so it is very much a creature of the OSS v1 world. If it wasn't, we either would not be using it today, or we'd be paying a hell of a lot more for it.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You're right that his "improve" on OSS argument is empty, because I think what he was trying to say by "nobody can improve on it" is "no business can improve on it."

Businesses improve on GPL products all the time; IBM, Sun, even Apple. They do it for profit too.

Bill's point was that businesses can't take GPL software and improve upon it or link proprietary software to it without the viral nature of the GPL taking over.

Yeah, that sure is a problem for him. Also, I can't take Stephen king's novels, improve on them and resell them without the viral nature of copyright laws taking over. Gates is just being two-faced. He wants to make a profit selling copyrighted software, but he doesn't want to pay the people developing copyrighted GPL software their required fee (any code added and distributed in future).

The proof is in the pudding, they made use of a BSD based TCP/IP stack and TCP tools for many years before they rewrote them. Obviously they don't have a problem with BSD licensed software, only GPL licensed software.

Microsoft's business model and entire culture is based upon locking in users and making it hard to switch to competing products. Pretty much everything they make includes such a component. They don't like GPL software because it makes this sort of lock in impossible and forces companies using it to constantly offer the best product all the time or lose out to competitors. Actually keeping their products competitive based upon real features and merits is not as profitable.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[Lobster Quadrille]

Hello, Mr. Troll. Here is why you're wrong:

Real tech support Have you ever tried calling MS tech support? I have. Unless you are a large corporate account, the people you talk to are less clueful (yes, I just made up a word) than you.

Open source, by contrast has massive repositories of information on forums all across the internet. A bit of Googling will get you a long way. Barring that, a reputable IRC channel will answer any other questions you have.

If you really want to pay for support, there's always Red Hat.

stability that the people making the "free" won't get bored and move on to something else Open source software is maintained for far longer than commercial software, because MS and other commercial software makers are constantly trying to sell you the latest upgrades.

stability from knowing that it's not a one-man project According to Wikipedia, Red Hat employs about 2,200 people. Novell picks up another 5k. The actual Linux kernel has many more.

knowing a problem can be fixed without requiring an armada of high paid consultants Until recently, my father was a consultant for one of the companies that MS outsourced their support contracts to. He made an awful lot of money, and it wasn't really MS paying him, it was the end-users.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[Mateo_LeFou]

free software development won't gravitate toward 'new and radical' because it is (in the main) not in a competitive race for market share. There's not as big an impetus to wow users and get them to switch, etc. 90% of the things people like doing with computers rely on technology that was boring in 1993. The bells and whistles are *market *differentiators.

you're trying to make FOSS look bad for losing a game it wasn't built to play.

It's pretty much the same as saying 'So tell me what source code has Microsoft released? What protocols or standards have they tried to open up for competition?'

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Nothing wrong with greedy. Ok, then show one example in which greed actually helps anything beyond the short-term gain of the individual.

Greed is the reason capitalism results in better products than extreme socialism. People desire personal gain. They work hard or smart or both to make money. Many different people all do this and the market rewards the "best" with the most money. As a result a lot of people work long and hard to create things people want. Innovation in a market and the creation of new technology is often the indirect result of greed.

Now there is a caveat. You can look at the success of capitalism in two ways. Capitalism works because it leverages human greed for the benefit of society. If humans were not greedy, a system that leverages other motivations could potentially create the same or superior results. If the average person suddenly did not care about personal gain and profit would they work just as hard to benefit society? Probably not, but it is something to consider. Many scientific advances in academia are innovative and benefit society and (psychologically speaking) are largely motivated by a desire to impress members of the opposite sex. That's a pretty powerful human drive as well and I'm sure a social construct that rewarded innovation with sex would be effective as well.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[Knuckles]

I dunno, an integrated desktop that actually works together, instead of lots of competing stuff that fights over file extensions and clutters your start menu?

A unified package database that upgrades my whole system with 1 click?

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[PitaBred]

So... you're saying that he's upset that he can't just take software like he did with the BSD TCP/IP stack and wrap it up and sell it for his own profit? Poor guy.

The "viral nature" of the GPL ONLY takes effect if you want the benefits that come with getting the free step-up that the GPL software provides. By all means, use free software to develop your closed source stuff... that just means you have to develop it from the ground up and not try to take any shortcuts by including other people's code that they generously allowed you to use. Unless you want to be as generous as they are.

It's basically a legal stick saying "don't be a douchebag". Which is apparently necessary because there are so many douchebags like BillyG out there.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[CowboyNealOption]

Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software'

I think Bill must live in opposite land, because the meaning he is associating with the word "nobody" is the one I associate with the word "everybody".

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[hardburn]

It wasn't called either OSS or Free Software yet, but early efforts on UNIX and the Internet fit into the modern definitions of the terms. All the critical bits of Internet infrastructure software (bind, sendmail, the BSD TCP/IP stack, etc.) were developed in an open source fashion. UNIX was given away by AT&T for the cost of the media, and was improved on by many others (most notably BSD), who often gave away their own changes, too.

FOSS is a lot more than just Linux and GNU.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[WebCowboy]

Are you stupid or something?

No, he's actually more informed than you are.

The Internet came from ARPANET, a project of the Department of Defense ...the protocols of which were non-proprietary and declassified so educational and research institutions could participate in its development and growth.

and UNIX was invented by AT&T

UNIX was NOT invented by AT&T. It was invented by a team of computer scientists led by Ken Thompson and Dennis Richie at Bell Labs. Bell Labs was not wholly owned by AT&T until the 1980s, long after UNIX was invented. The "official" UNIX was not truly owned by AT&T until then, when Bell Labe became a wholly owned unit of AT&T.

Neither had anything to do with OSS.

The internet, and ESPECIALLY UNIX, had EVERYTHING to do with OSS. UNIX was indeed open source (but it wasn't fully Free)--when you got good ol' UNIX for your PDP-11 or whatever you got full access to the source. Also, most drivers and apps were distributed in source form back in the day.

Stallman really got the Free (libre) software movement going when vendors started removing the source code from their distributions, and he and others became frustrated when buggy software would crash their systems and they had lost the ability to patch and recompile their software to work with their specific setups. So, UNIX is in fact a very major reason open source exists today, because a one quite open ecosystem was becoming increasingly closed, and GNU was established to create open source software that would be protected from a similar fate.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[Nursie]

Err, what?

FOSS does some of the most innovative stuff on the planet, as compared with MS.

Who had a 3d desktop extension system first? Hmmm... was it compiz?
Who had 64 bit support for x86 way ahead of the game? I think it was Linux.

Bittorrent took off under the auspices of open source. Firefox.

The list is endless.

Charge for drugs?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Isn't this the same guy who says that when they cure cancer, he'll buy enough of the cure to distribute it to everyone in the world for free?

Re:Charge for drugs?

[stoolpigeon]

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.

Re:Charge for drugs?

[colmore]

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.

Re:Charge for drugs?

[Sir_Lewk]

Wow, you successfully managed to make an incredibly charitable remark about curing cancer sound like a bad thing.

And this is...

[fishthegeek]

news why? Seriously did we really need to be told that?

Re:And this is...

[ZephyrXero]

Well, with all Bill Gates philanthropy stuff he does today...sometimes we need to be reminded he's still evil ;)

What do you expect considering that....

[tgatliff]

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.. :)

Re:What do you expect considering that....

[bnenning]

Basically closed source benefits developers. OSS benefits users.

Closed source benefits *some* developers and harms others. If Apache were to vanish, developers selling web servers would benefit, but web application developers would suffer.

Copyright is not free market capitalism, but a restriction on capitalism designed, originally, to benefit society as a whole. OSS is capitalism trying to route around the damage of our current, absurdly anti-capitalist copyright laws.

Well said. In free markets, prices tend to approach marginal costs. The marginal cost of software is essentially zero. The "correct" way to handle software (or drugs or other IP) is to get paid for the scarce act of creation, not the non-scarce copies. But we don't know how to do that, so instead we use copyright as a kludge to create artificial scarcity. It was an ok solution for a while, but now it's been throughly corrupted by special interests.

Poorly worded

[Fred_A]

"If you steal drugs, you should be able to charge for them".

There, much better.

Drugs...

[onion2k]

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."

What if you invent diseases?

Well, viruses.

Well, a platform that viruses thrive on.

Re:Drugs...

[Shakrai]

Well, a platform that viruses thrive on.

Human beings? ;)

Interesting...

[AndyCR]

Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software, It's pretty amazing that anything gets done, since what he describes as impossible is almost the only way Open Source software improves.

Re:Interesting...

[orclevegam]

He can't seem to fathom the concept of people developing software because they enjoy it rather than because they want money in return. That's because he's never done software because he enjoyed it. In fact, I'd say he was never really a programmer. He's always been a business guy that just happened to have an interest in computers. Gates isn't a geek, he's a suit, and we would do well to remember that. He's less concerned with the programs than he is in how they can be leveraged for profit. Had he developed an interest in something besides computers, like say construction, he might not be as successful as he is now, but I'm sure he'd still have done quite well, he'd just be sitting at the top of a company specializing in construction instead.

Move over Chewbacca...

[PinkyDead]

Cos this makes no sense. It makes no sense.

And we all know what that means.

Flamebait

[CheckeredShirt]

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.

Drugs

[DoofusOfDeath]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,'

Sure, but he has a problem with some people choosing to not charge for them?

Re:Drugs

[AndyCR]

I think his point was that if you choose Open Source software to modify and base your commercial software on and it is under the GPL, you must also Open Source your commercial software. He is arguing that that prevents proprietary improvements, and that that is wrong. What he can't seem to understand is that it -isn't their work to make proprietary in the first place-, and you can't base a commercial project off of Microsoft's code unless they specifically allow you to either. He's completely missing the fact that it's no different with the software he himself produces.

You're free to use GPL's tools to write proprietary software (John Carmack used the GNU toolset to write Quake on NEXT, and later donated $20,000 to the FSF as thanks for use of their tools), but you can't take a GPL'ed program, add a few lines of code, and sell it as a proprietary package. Bill Gates sees this as wrong, but somehow doesn't see that not being able to get the source code for Windows, add a few lines, and sell it as a new OS is the same darned thing.

Re:Drugs

[jimicus]

Sure, but he has a problem with some people choosing to not charge for them? I think it's fair to assume that if there ever comes a time when it is possible for an organisation to come along and create and distribute drugs for free to anyone who wants them, the incumbent drugs companies would fight tooth and nail against it.

Re:Drugs

[somersault]

the incumbent drugs companies would fight tooth and nail against it They don't need to, the government already disapproves of the general public experimenting with drugs :P

Oh really?

[FinchWorld]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them'

Yes, and as such those who can't afford the drugs may die. Perfect system huh?

Re:Oh really?

[geekoid]

Too different things. your trying to create a strawman.

There are organizations they buy the drugs and then distribute them free.

I mean, really you can't expect someone who manufactures a product to be able to do it for free.

Conversely ...

[gstoddart]

I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them

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 ... everything Microsoft makes. Other than implementation specifics (and, I guess MS Bob) I'm hard pressed to think of a single instance of a technology which they completely invented from scratch.

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

Bring a lot to the table

[symbolset]

You are sooo right.

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,'

Because if somebody else invents better drugs to give away for free, you're sunk.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if somebody else invents better drugs to give away for free, you're sunk.

Nah, you just give out enough free coffee cups and iPods to the doctors that they prescribe your expensive version anyway - after all, it's not them that's paying for it.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[metlin]

Except for the fact that the amount of resources required to conduct research (particularly pharma research) is over the top.

You can't just hire a bunch of folks who spent 10 years going to school and ask them to produce something for "free". Also, that electron microscope or that gene sequencer does not grow on a tree.

Software is a little different, but even then, programmers aren't the same as computer scientists. And while being paid for a service is great, I still do not mind paying for good technology because it pays for someone who loves technology.

I am all for making everything available freely, but I believe that the market should determine if that is feasible. Viva la Laissez-faire!

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Instine]

I think that with pharms, there is a huge utilatarian/ethical issue. People are very demanding about mediacal ethics in trials. Yet once the trials are over the madness of restrictive competition (good for somethings, but not for all) is thrown in, and ethics are out th window.
How about, you make 10 times your dev investment back, you then have to relinquish your patent?
Still highly lucrative and incentivising, but does away with the awful restrictions placed, usually, most significantly, on the populations most needing and most without.
And before anyone talks of free markets, what the hell is a patent if not the most ristrictive form regulation going. This would be Far freer IMO.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! There is nothing in the GPL that forces anyone to give anything away for free (money). It explicitly says you may charge a fee for the distribution of the software. And as far as your analogy goes, it doesn't put a burden on the users (owners who use the building) except if they decide to go and build another building based on the first for someone else, they would have to release all the specs of the building.

Anyway, this analogy is ridiculous. Just to put it simply, GPL affects you if you distribute and/or modify the code. Go read the GPL, you can charge a billion dollars for your software, if no one buys it than it's just the market rejecting that price. I'm sick of people who want to spread misinformation because their business model is becoming harder to sustain.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[darjen]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' Of course you should be able to charge for them...

But, that doesn't mean you have a moral right to claim it is intellectual property and forcibly prevent others from using their physical property rights to sell them.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[PopeRatzo]

There is nothing in the GPL that forces anyone to give anything away for free (money).

See, that's what I thought too.

I'm a little bit confused by Mr. Gates assertions that somehow there is some gun to the heads of everyone who uses the GPL.

This reminds me of the new standard that CEOs are using for suing their competitors. According to them, if they have a competitor that has cut into their profits, they have a "fiduciary responsibility" to their shareholders to sue the competitor in order to "protect the interests of the shareholders". Even when there is no reasonable cause of action - no damage, no harm, no violation of patent or trademark. Even if there isn't a reasonable expectation of winning the suit, a suit is brought to cover the ass of the CEO for letting the competitor make headway.

I get the feeling that Gates is sort of doing the same thing. Even though he knows his charges are completely bogus, he feels he has to bring them anyway because something he considers "competition" has appeared in his rear-view mirror.

Nice system these "free markets", huh?

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Chris Acheson]

Laissez-faire would imply the absence of patent and copyright laws, would it not? After all, those are instances of government-dictated feasibility.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Hatta]

Most GPL code is written by people paid for their work. Especially most of the code from the most popular projects. There's no reason you can't pay people for drug research and then open the results. Seeing as the public is paying for ALL drug research anyway (whether through grants, tax-breaks, or just the purchase price of the drug), why not fund drug research publicly and give away the results?

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[mapsjanhere]

There is one grain of truth in it; while you're able to ask for any amount of money, you are in fact limited by two factors:
- you can only sell one of each item to any one customer, since the customer can freely copy it
- your fee is capped by how much money it costs to have a competent guy take your source code and get it running on the customers system without giving you a penny
So it's very hard for you to make any "real" (Bill Gates type) money with GPL compared to lets say a proprietary CAD program that can charge $1000/seat/year.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Firehed]

Tell that to My "We were just bought for $1,000,000,000" SQL.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[EvolutionsPeak]

Actually, I think suing someone is outside of the free market. It involves the judiciary regulating each of the two parties. That is why it is an unethical and unfair thing to do to sue a company for no good reason rather than actually have to compete in the market.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[pclminion]

Wouldn't it be great if the patient had at least SOME degree of control over what is prescribed? Obviously, lay persons should not prescribe drugs for themselves, but if there are three drugs A, B, and C which are all considered roughly equivalent, appropriate treatments for some condition, the patient should be able to decide for him/herself which of the drugs to use.

If I know there is a cheap alternative, and I am willing to take responsibility for my decision, I should be able to request that the alternative be used instead of a more expensive one. Patients can already request a generic substitute, but why not take this just a small step farther and allow them to choose between a set of different, but roughly equivalent drugs.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[pclminion]

This assumes that MySQL actually caters to the same user base as more expensive DB software. In reality, the two sets of users hardly overlap at all.

MySQL does not orbit in the same plane as, for example Sybase, nor has it ever been a goal to compete with those products. MySQL is for people who want a database, with available support, who don't want to pay $10,000 for a basic license. In return, MySQL does not provide the magnitude of power as other DB software. This trade-off is perfectly fine.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[mdwstmusik]

Except for the fact that the amount of resources required to conduct research (particularly pharma research) is over the top. "ScienceDaily (Jan. 7, 2008) - A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry's claim."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

It isn't just coffee mugs and iPods.

My wife worked for years at a country club near where we use to live. It was NOTHING for pharmaceutical reps. to spend $20,000+ on dinner and drinks for a group of local doctors, just to pitch their latest drugs.

The market doesn't regulate the price of drugs in the US, the patent holder does.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[vajaradakini]

Don't pharmacists usually make such suggestions?

I know one time I had a rash and the doctor prescribed some skin cream, I took it to the pharmacy and they told me that my plan wouldn't cover this and that these products on the shelf would be just as effective. When I was on the pill, the pharmacist also referred me to the cheaper version, despite what my doctor wrote down on the form as well.
In general, pharmacists are supposed to keep an eye out for drug interactions and all this and that, so I would think that most of them are aware of different drugs which have the same effect and could probably change what drug is being used (perhaps after some consultation with the doctor as well).

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[PopeRatzo]

So it's very hard for you to make any "real" (Bill Gates type) money with GPL compared to lets say a proprietary CAD program that can charge $1000/seat/year.

The next question is whether anybody should be making "Bill Gates type" money.

There are both moral and ethical limits to desire for wealth.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[HansF]

Just ask your doctor for generic drugs. If it's a good doctor he'll prescribe it.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[ShieldW0lf]

If someone wants to deny you life saving drugs because you're broke, and you'll die if you don't get them, can any action you take to get those drugs be wrong?

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[bunratty]

If any company had the freedom to manufacture and sell any drug, that company would simply start producing any drug as soon as it went on the market. They would of course be able to sell that drug for far less than the original company, as they would have almost no R&D overhead. No one would buy the drug from the original company because if would cost far more. That would prevent the company that did the research to create the drug from recouping its expenses. Soon, all companies that make new drugs would go out of business. Then we wouldn't have any new drugs. I hope this illustrates why patents on new drugs (and patents on technology that takes a significant investment to create) are necessary. Just because some patents are bad doesn't mean they all are.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Bombula]

You can't just hire a bunch of folks who spent 10 years going to school and ask them to produce something for "free". Also, that electron microscope or that gene sequencer does not grow on a tree.

You could quite easily run an organization with well-trained researchers writing software or inventing drugs that had no mandate to earn a profit - it would simply be a nonprofit organization. The organization would still sell it products, and it would still pay its employees and its other expenses with the revenue from those sales. But without a mandate for profit there would be no fiduciary obligation to do things like charge 3000% mark-ups on AIDS drugs. There are organizations out there like this - credit unions, for example, compete with for-profit banks. They are legally limited (thanks to the American Bankers Association lobbyists) to serving only a narrow membership and not the general public, but we might have avoided the current banking/credit/loan crisis if the for-profit Wall Street banks had nonprofit competitors.

Bear in mind that the arguments for charging high prices to recover R&D don't hold up, whether for the software or the pharmaceutical industry. Pfizer's profits, for example, have increased by a factor of 9 in the last 7 years. Over the same period, R&D expenditure has risen only be a factor of 2.5.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[nljackson]

If you want to talk "protecting the interests of the shareholders"...

Why does no one ever say THIS is the reason Microsoft creates crappy software?

As a corporation, Microsoft does not make most of it's billions in the software they create, rather the services and support they sell alongside those products.

Also, as a corporation, they are required BY LAW to act in the interest of their shareholders. So, if Microsoft was to create a beautifully written, bug-free software product, they would be doing their shareholders a disservice because not many people want support for software that works.

As crazy as that sounds, if you think about it's not too far off. In my opinion, THIS is why open source software is better, because they aren't legally obligated to keep bugs in the system just so they get their support contracts renewed.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Snowmit]

He's the classic Ebenezer Scrooge. He's made so much money that he doesn't know how to spend it or really have the inclination to spend it. It's a sort of waste really. WHAT

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[npsimons]

So it's very hard for you to make any "real" (Bill Gates type) money with GPL compared to lets say a proprietary CAD program that can charge $1000/seat/year.

The next question is whether anybody should be making "Bill Gates type" money.

There are both moral and ethical limits to desire for wealth.

I think a few quotes from one of my favorite articles ever explains this quite nicely:

The lack of open source software billionaires is by design. It's part of
the intent of open source software -- to balance the scales by devaluing
the obscene profit margins that exist in the commercial software
business. Duplicating software is about as close to legally printing
money as a company can get; profit margins regularly exceed 80 percent.
        -- http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000842.html

To ask where the open source billionaires are is to demonstrate a
profound misunderstanding of how open source software works. If you
wanted to become obscenely rich by starting an open source software
company, I'm sorry, but you picked the wrong industry. You'll make a
living, perhaps even a lucrative one. But you won't become Bill Gates
rich, or Paul Allen rich, by siphoning away the exorbitant profit
margins commercial software vendors have enjoyed for so many years.
        -- http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000842.html

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[mr_mischief]

The support information usually is free both in the free speech and free beer senses. The problem is just that a mediocre man page and some sparse comments in the code is not want many people want. You're not paying technical support people and consultants to quote the manual to you. You're paying them for the fact that they actually know the information already and understand it better than you.

At least, that's the theory. Some of them are clueless, too, but hopefully those don't stick around in the business long.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[notamisfit]

Charging for free software was once RMS's primary source of income. Granted, he looks and dresses like a hobo, but notwithstanding, the FSF will still be more than happy to sell you a copy of all GNU software. As far as whether or not it could work, free software types don't care, open source types will remind you that retail commercial software is a small minority of the market, and people like me will tell you it's a moot point.

He said it

[orclevegam]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said And remember, the first one is always free.

That explains it!

[dreamchaser]

'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.

Re:That explains it!

[xtracto]

Not only that, but I also would love to have decent wireless support with wep and wpa configuration which is easy to use and *gasp* actually works.

And while we are at it, I would also love decent 3D graphics acceleration and ability to use more than one monitor (actually working, not like that stuff called something like xinareama ).

Oh, and decent audio, open source should really make up its mind and create a good/stable/usable audio stack. Between oss/alsa/pulse/artsd/esd .. you can not make one that works.

Now let me run, because being this slashdot, I see the hordes of nerds come with the torches and pitchforks =oP.

Obvious statement?

[TheRedSeven]

"Bill Gates says that all things being equal, he'd prefer to continue making money."

There's a shocker ya.

Of course Gates is going to support M$ and its business model. To do otherwise would be harmful to the company's shareholders, including himself.

Their argument...

[i kan reed]

Their argument is based off a strictly capitalist view. If you consider the notion that there is no way to claim your work as your own once it is under the GPL and generate a profit directly from it, in this world view, it's a waste. They see GPL as a trap where once entered, there is no escape.
This view is flawed because it assumes there is no such thing as altruism, and that shared benefit from availability can't outweigh the potential benefit of carefully planned and limited sharing. This kind of idea comes from Economists who take the tragedy of the commons and the failures of universal communism to ridiculous extremes, making rules out of specific observations. Society is created from compromises and sharing, and open source is about developing a healthy society amongst developers.
That said, I do personally like to be able to release closed source versions of things, and allow others to do the same. The BSD and Eclipse licenses appeal to me more than the GPL.

Re:Their argument...

[Just Some Guy]

Their argument is based off a strictly capitalist view.

I think you have that exactly backwards. Microsoft and a few other lumbering dinosaurs really, really wish these upstart punks would quit competing with them. They don't want a free market; they want someone to tell you that you have to buy their products.

Red Hat, IBM, Sun, and other new and old companies that "get it" see this as an opportunity to become more efficient capitalists by competing in real markets, not just ones that temporarily exist due to artificial scarcity.

No, I think you got the roles reversed. Microsoft thinks that you owe them because, darn it, they've tried so hard! If Gates and Ballmer would spend as much time actually writing cool stuff that customers want to buy as they do bitching that everyone else is doing exactly that, then maybe they'd have something better to show than Vista. Competition is too hard, though, so now they're begging for the cozy straitjacket of government protection. Capitalists? I don't think so.

Re:Their argument...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I've considered that perspective, but the problem with alledging that intellectual property doesn't exist because it's abstract is flawed.

Supply and demand do not apply to abstract property. The cost of duplicating IP is basically zero, hence in traditional capitalism its cost also moves to zero. Creation of IP, on the other hand fits just fine in traditional capitalism... as a service.

You have a chair. I move it to my house and start sitting in it. Only abstract rules implemented by a sensible society say that that chair is yours.

Ahh, but there are real costs to replacing a chair, in both labor and materials. What happens when someone invents a device to instantly duplicate other objects? Arbitrary societal rules may determine if a chair is mine or yours, but if we can make as many chairs just like it for free, does it matter any longer? That is where we are with IP these days.

That is not to say IP laws are not potentially useful or beneficial to society. It is just that beneficial and useful to society are not synonymous with capitalism. While IP laws may be the former, they are not the latter.

A "true free market" is an impossible ideal due to a massive number of real world flaws...

Of course it is and neither is it always desirable.

I get where your opinion comes from, but free market is a powerful simplified model, not a holy grail of human capacity.

I was responding to comments that MS's view was strictly capitalist, not speaking to what is ideal for society. In fact, MS's position is anti-capitalist. That doesn't make it inherently wrong, it just means that people need to reconsider their incomplete understanding such that they can realize not everything advocated by a big company is pro-capitalist (and often is not, in fact).

Nobody can improve the software?

[Rik Sweeney]

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.

Troll

[Tom]

Mod Gates -1: Troll.

Also note that he re-defined Free Software, confusing it wizh Freeware. He's either dumb or malicious, and considering his track record, I'm inclined to say that doesn't have to be an xor.

Great Analogy Bill!

[brunes69]

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!

Re:Great Analogy Bill!

[Goldarn]

Yeah, and if there's no profit in creating the medicines, then nobody creates them! and if a few more million people die, so what? At least we have emacs! Down with the profit motive!

Bill hates competition

[N1ck0]

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.

Oh wow, a THIRD definition of free software...

[argent]

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.

Re:Oh wow, a THIRD definition of free software...

[Kjella]

And I'm sure that RMS will disagree with his identification of the GPL with "open source". I'm sure he'll think it's not accurate enough, but GPL software is obviously OSI-compliant open source software. If you want to group them into one big bag then "open source" is entirely appropriate for all GPL/LGPL/BSD/CDDL/Apache/etc licensed code. Though it's not reversible, GNU/free software is open source, but open source is not necessarily free.

Re:Perhaps it's brought on by sleep deprivation...

[Uncle Focker]

...but I have this fuzzy notion that there are licenses outside of the GPL -- ones that even allow being both for profit and open source You mean... like the GPL?

Good Grief

[MightyMartian]

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.

WTF? Did he just say that?

[zappepcs]

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....

Weird disjoint

[Anonymous Coward]

the GP post never mentioned wanting tesco to give away food.

However, if you have a back garden, you can grow potatoes for ... 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?

Re:Weird disjoint

[cyphercell]

Tesco disagrees with home gardening, they think people should be able to charge for their vegetables.

Re:Weird disjoint

[uhlume]

Billy-boy's bizarrely-postulated objections to open source notwithstanding, when did Microsoft ever tell you that you CAN'T produce open-source software?

You fail at analogies.

Re:Weird disjoint

[tonyreadsnews]

Gardening isn't really free. It's just grown the way you want it. That's the benifit. If you equated the time it requires to garden, plus seeds/plants, fertilizer and pesticides (if you choose). You'll find that gardening does cost you, even though you don't have to pull out your wallet at harvest time.

Re:Weird disjoint

[Pogue Mahone]

To paraphrase a sig from groklaw: "It isn't the food that's free: it's you"

Re:Weird disjoint

[bcat24]

Home gardening is killing produce?

Re:Weird disjoint

[timeOday]

when did Microsoft ever tell you that you CAN'T produce open-source software?

Microsoft did pay SCO to argue against the validity of the GPL in court (Link).

Re:Weird disjoint

[just_another_sean]

However, if you have a back garden, you can grow potatoes for ... wait for it ... FREE! TANSTAAFL

My high school economics teacher told us that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

The potatoes aren't free. They seeds, soil, water, sun, labor, and opportunity cost all have value. Well Bill is confusing Free with free. You are Free to grow the potatoes if you have the time, money and resources to do it.

Just as Free software costs time, money and resources to create. And not everyone gives Free software away for free.

You people need to bone up here. These tired arguments are /. 101. Why anyone would take anything that BillG says about free, open source, anything-other-then-MS-software seriously these days is a constant wonder to me.

Wake me up when someone starts throwing chairs again.

Re:Weird disjoint

[WebCowboy]

Gardening isn't really free. It's just grown the way you want it.

Free (libre) software isn't really free (gratis). It's just developed the way you want it.

If you equated the time it requires to garden, plus seeds/plants, fertilizer and pesticides (if you choose). You'll find that gardening does cost you

If you equate the time it requires to code, plus hardware/backup media, caffeinated beverages and dependencies closed libraries/drivers/dev tools (if you choose), you'll find that Free software does cost.

I'm not sure if BillG really does misunderstand the concept of free software as much as is suggested by the content of his speech, or if he is deliberately spreading misinformation (such as that you cannot charge money for applications built using GPLed code). He also seems to mix up open source and Free software, which is a specific type of open source. GPL is open source but it is actually a particular form of Free software. conversely, Microsoft has released a lot of open source that is in fact not Free (you may see the code but you may not redistribute derivative works, etc).

The real whopper lie he tells (knowingly or not) is that open source (inferring the GPL) prevents people from improving software, which is exactly opposite. It is Microsoft who has created open source licenses that made modification illegal. GPL *protects* the right of others to modify, improve and re-distribute.

The real problem for BillG, I think, is that GPL, and other Free licenses that have similar terms of use, are a "poison pill" that severely hinders one's ability to establish a monopoly.

Re:Weird disjoint

[ehrichweiss]

Gardening might not be totally free but rather an investment because I harvest about $1,000(retail) of vegetables from my garden every year for the investment of about $50 in fertilizer/plants/seeds, an hour of tilling(once in spring and once in autumn) and less than an hour of weeding, etc. over the spring/summer. Even if I charged the $150/hr that I make normally, I still come out way ahead. Gardening has a better cost/benefits ratio since you don't have to deal with storage, distribution, profit margins and taxation.

Re:Weird disjoint

[Bobartig]

Bull shit. You must have some self-maintaining garden, or otherwise your figures are WAY off. There are a lot of private farms that handle their own distribution on a subscription model, grow small quantities so storage is not an issue, and charge a hefty premium for all-organic, locally grown produce. Their economy of scale is much better than yours, and their margins do not resemble what you are describing at all.

Re:Weird disjoint

[grahamd0]

So what you're saying, essentially, is that over the long term the grocery store actually has a lower total cost of ownership?

Re:Weird disjoint

[tonyreadsnews]

I think the issue for BillG is that he doesn't see where the competitive advantage is. His (previous) business model is completely focused on producing and maintaining a certain type of advantage over its competition.

For him, having to give any improvements back to the community negates any competitive advantage of producing that improvement so I'm guessing that's why he considers it not viable for business.

I think, however, that he does not realize that the other possible business models can be just as viable as his 'sustained competitive advantage' model.

I don't think he believes that nobody can improve the software (and the original context isn't available anywhere), just that it doesn't fit into his idea of doing business.

Re:Weird disjoint

[Bman21212]

2008 will be the "Year of the Home Garden"

Re:Weird disjoint

[Darby]

Even if it were, arguing against the validity of the license in court is several steps removed from telling you that you can't use it

No, it is no steps removed from that. That's exactly what it is.

It's also true that they have no authority to *enforce* their ridiculous demand but that's the entire point of arguing against it in court. So, if you replace what you said with something else you can move it back one single step, but not several steps.

Nice try though, although you shouldn't make yourself look silly by slagging the logical skills of others while in the middle of failing at it yourself.

Re:Weird disjoint

[mr_mischief]

Maybe 2008 will be the year of the home server garden for people who have a bunch of free time.

The year of the home desktop garden is still years away, because Aunt Gertrude still can't grow her own squash and because not everyone's willing to pull weeds and read books on how to get rid of pests for themselves.

Re:Weird disjoint

[metamatic]

Home gardening is killing produce?

Home fucking is killing prostitution.

Re:Weird disjoint

[mr_mischief]

If the license is invalid, there is no point in using it. The whole goal of arguing that it's invalid is to keep people from being able to use it. If the courts would have agreed, the license would be useless and someone would have had to rewrite the sections the court invalidated.

Re:Weird disjoint

[mr_mischief]

His problem is he doesn't understand "customization", "support", or "good documentation" as competitive advantages, but anyone who's been a long-time customer of Microsoft should be able to tell you that.

Re:Weird disjoint

[ozmanjusri]

You'll find that gardening does cost you, even though you don't have to pull out your wallet at harvest time.

True for vegetables, but open software often IS really free(gratis) for the bulk of users.

That's because once the veges are used, they no longer exist, and sharing them reduces the amount available to each consumer. The cost of software is all in producing the first copy. Subsequent copies are free.

In fact, Bill G is talking gibberish because there's no way to talk logically about the huge cost of the software industry.

Low-cost reproduction is a troubling flaw in capitalism, and has been for a long time. Britney Spears and Bill Gates do not themselves produce anything that is valuable enough to justify society's rewards to them, but while their cost to each individual in society is low, we tolerate it.

Our socio-economic system is badly skewed as a result.

The media barons of Fleet St, et al, were the first of course, and it's interesting to see that in the centuries that have followed, capitalism has still failed to evolve a solution to that flaw.

Re:Weird disjoint

[odourpreventer]

So the bottom question is, why do they go to Bill for comments? Exaggerated analogy ahead:

Reporter: Mr. Satan, what are your thoughts about heaven?
Satan: Oh it's overrated. They say it's a nice place, but once you get there, what can you do? Plus, you have to lead a good life and pass through purgatory. You have to ask yourself, is it worth the trouble? You can go to Hell however you want and reap the benefits immediately.
R: Dwelling in a pool of lava and being sodomized by your spiky manhood for eternity?
S: Please, those are falsehoods spread by a jealous competition. We take no pleasure from punishing our subjects.

Re:Weird disjoint

[mrchaotica]

5 minutes per week

Ah ha! I don't know how long your growing season is, so let's assume half a year (26 weeks). 26 weeks * 5 minutes/week / 60 minutes/hr * $150/hr = $325

Your garden looks much more profitable than it is, because your estimates were off (even if we assume your 5 min/week is correct, which I doubt, it's still more than twice as large as your previous estimate of 1 hour/season).

the limited viewpoint of a businessman

[v1]

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.

Re:the limited viewpoint of a businessman

[Enderandrew]

That's incorrect.

You can take my GPL program, improve it, fork it, and make money off it. What do you think Red Hat is doing? Do you think they wrote every line of code in the Linux distro they sell support contracts for?

You can make money off my GPL code, but you can't take my code and include it in a closed-source project.

No Improvements?

[Hellad]

Well considering that he considers Vista an improvement to XP, I am certainly happy that GPL prevents people from "improving" the software...

Drug Analogy

[Perl-Pusher]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."

Well if I invent the cure for AIDs then I can't give it away? And I can't license my drug patent so that it can't be used unless you plan on giving it away. I realize that selfless acts do seem radical to him. The tax write benefits and goodwill generated by any company agreeing to the terms would be priceless. They would go down in history as the company that saved Africa. Bill Gates is being either a short sighted idiot, or a greedy lying sob. I can't decide which.

Family Guy reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Just seeing the title reminded me of the family guy episode with the drive by arguments

*while driving*
Bill G: 'Hey Steve, that looks like that young upstart Stallman who's been touting the benefits of open source software'
Steve B: 'oh yes, lets get him!'
Bill Gates: 'Oh Richard!.... WE DISAGREE!'
*speeds off*

Re:Drug development != Software development

[Rycross]

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.

Disagreement is bad?

[redelm]

Of course Gates & MS disagree with the GPL. They have since the 1978 computer-club letter because it undermines their entire business model. MS wants to sell standard programs. They've made a large business of it.

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."

Re:Disagreement is bad?

[Alpha Whisky]

I was going to post this "Is this Bill laughing at us? Or is this Bill ignoring us? Or is this Bill fighting us? Or are we winning? My guess is that we are around the start of the fighting stage." but since you've covered that, I'll make this observation, what Micro$oft is afraid of is that their business model is based on planned obsolescence, the ability to sell you the same crap warmed over, again and again. Now that the alternative is getting more and more viable every new version of Windows and Office is an opportunity for their customers to jump ship.

don't forget marketing

[Reality Master 201]

That's one area where (commercial) software development and pharma are a bit closer. Most pharama companies spend significantly more on marketing than on R&D - Merck, for example spent $7.6 billion on marketing vs $4.9 billion on R & D, according to their 2007 10-K filing. Microsoft, similarly, spent $11.5 billion on marketing and $7.1 billion on R & D.

You can think of open source software as being mostly the other way around. There's significantly more spent on development (in terms of donated time, resources, etc) than on marketing.

Dear Slashdot Editors...

[perlith]

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.

More drug analogies

[192939495969798999]

He must know a lot about the drug business. If you get them hooked on a free sample, you can charge whatever you want, and your users end up "stealing" to get their fix in the end!

Error in summary

[CSMatt]

Proprietary software, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software, There. Fixed it for you.

I think Bill misspoke..

[pyrr]

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.

Apple successfully leverages FOSS

[AHumbleOpinion]

I agree with some of your sentiments but you seem to be using FOSS when you should be referring to GPL only.

I would never, ever, ever let my company get shackled into open source. Every company which has done so, has done it to their own detriment, because it revokes all their ability to choose. It also limits their ability to grow, but that's a side issue. ... There's a reason MS and Apple have successfully competed against "free" for as long as Teh Lunix and Teh FOSS have been around.

Apple does not compete successfully against FOSS, they have incorporated and leveraged FOSS. FreeBSD and Mach are core components of Mac OS X and Apple has made some of their code FOSS, HFS+ for example. Apple is an excellent counterexample to your claim that those companies that get involved with FOSS suffer. Use BSD-style code for the commodity parts of your project and only write code for the parts that differentiate you, in Apple's case the UI is a good example.

Multi-License Software is Possible

[CodeBuster]

The GPL does not prevent you from negotiating a separate and different agreement with the copyright holders and operating under that agreement instead of the GPL. The MySQL project (which seems to have fallen out of favor recently here on Slashdot) is an example of such a licensing scheme. Now, in practice it may be difficult to track down and negotiate with each of the individual copyright holders who have contributed to a GPL project, but it is not impossible to do so if one really does not want to release improvements under an open source license such as the GPL.

Open Source does innovate and is innovative.

[xzvf]

On the desktop FOSS does go after a mature established market. On the server and appliance side it is very innovative. Xen and KVM are innovators in virtualization. Linux and BSD are innovators in appliance and embedded space. JeOS is an innovative idea. FOSS has spawned some innovative business models that wouldn't have been considered a decade ago. Business have innovated on top of FOSS to create billions of dollars in revenue and tons of high paying jobs.

Re:Open Source does innovate and is innovative.

[tgatliff]

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?? :)

Re:Distorted?

[MightyMartian]

I think Gates was (awkwardly) trying to make a philosophical statement, akin to his infamous declarations that open source was communism. He clearly doesn't account for the fact that software does not have to be sold as a for-profit-license-lease system like Microsoft does, but rather can simply be one aspect of a service-and-support business model, rather like how printer manufacturers practically give away printers but make their money off the ink cartridges and specialty paper.

I don't think Gates is consciously lying. I think he's just a demented wealthy has-been who has long hated and feared open source, but never really bothered to understand what it is or why it's such a successful development model.

there, fixed that for ya. =P

[deander2]

"Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that anybody can improve the software,"

there, fixed that for ya. =P

Nobody innovates

[malevolentjelly]

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?

How about Open Source Drugs...?

[AnomaliesAndrew]

I've been researching them for some time now...!

Definition of "nobody"

[g2devi]

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.

Except a good bit of the base research

[stabiesoft]

is paid for by taxpayers. NIH and universities do an awful lot of the research that big pharma repackages into drugs which we pay obscene amounts for. Also unfortunately, big pharma commissions lots of study's and only publishes the ones that are favorable. How many times do I have to read about a new drug that had prior studing buried by NDA's that showed it was lethal, but the study wasn't shown to the FDA. I appreciate the drug companies do some good work. It's a pity it is clouded by all the bad things they have done. I'd also like to prescription drugs prohibited from advertising on TV/web.

Forget about what?

[symbolset]

Then forget about doing meaningful research on viruses. After all, you can't see them in enough detail without an electron microscope.

How's that working out for you? Find a cure for HIV yet? Dengue? Marburg? Ebola? BSV? Malaria even?

Dr. Salk managed to find a vaccine for Polio without these expensive toys. When asked about the patent for his vaccine, he is quoted as saying:

"There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Re:Forget about what?

[jsebrech]

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.

Re:Forget about what?

[Perf]

"There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Ah, yes. But could (the) Sun patent Open Source?

Re:Forget about what?

[RedShoeRider]

It's exactly that attitude from the general public that annoys the ever loving crap out of those of us in Pharma.

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.

Re:Forget about what?

[jsebrech]

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.

Philanthropy

[Weaselmancer]

It's strange, isn't it? That a man who spends his time currently as a philanthropist cannot understand people donating their time to free software.

Apparently it's only charity if you can spend it.

Don't feed the troll!

[Mutant321]

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...."

Re:Make something for free

[metlin]

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.

It's like that anti-drug commercial . . .

[walterbyrd]

Billy Gate:
What's this? What this? Documentury?
Man right here, this is my business, you know? Sueing, scamming, whatever . .
It's slow, you know? Business is off, sales are down.
Seems like half my customers . . they don't even need me anymore.
They;re getting software free, off the web.
How am I supposed to compete with that?
Got IT? Well next time something works, don't blame Microsoft!
We didn't do it!
I wish we did . . .

MS inadvertently promotes FOSS

[evilninjax]

I honestly believe that one of the reasons that there's so much support for FOSS is as a form of retaliation against Microsoft et al. If there wasn't such discontent against Microsoft and such general aboslute hatred of same, I think FOSS' momentum would not be quite the same. Sure, i think FOSS/Open Source would still be quite viable and alive, but this hatred motivation is quite strong and i believe it to be much stronger than the altruism factor.

Yes, and in Bill Gates' world

[Phil Urich]

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!

Re:There's free software and then there's open sou

[Anonymous Coward]

"I bet Stallman would flip out if he saw his implied improper use of the word "free software"..."

Stallman doesn't even know what free software is either. Recently, he posted on OpenBSD saying it contains "non-free" software (he was told, he says). After being shot down on that point, the argument narrowed down to OpenBSD's Ports repository "encourages" users to use "non-free" software so he still calls OpenBSD "non-free".

When it was pointed out to Stallman, who admits to doing no research of his own - only what others tell him, that GCC, EMACS and the FSF provide binary support for non-free software and, again, that is okay in his eyes because HE has a pure soul so it is justified but for others it is bad. The man is splitting hairs down to the nanometer on what is "free software" to the point to cause a no-win, perpetual argument.

Browser Wars

[AnalogDiehard]

During the browser wars of the late 90s, M$ beat out Netscape by offering Internet Explorer free of charge.

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?

Re:Make something for free

[dhavleak]

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!

Re:Stop capitalizing "free"

[just_another_sean]

In the immortal words of the Great Sgt. Hulka:

Lighten Up Francis!