Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Redefines "Open Standards"
Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft is at it again: trying to redefine what 'open' means. This time it wants open standards to be 'balanced' — for them to include patent-encumbered technologies under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Which just happens to be incompatible with free software licensed under the GNU GPL."
They'll never miss a chance to try and bend you over the dining room table.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.
Knowing Microsoft, the free blowjobs would come with a free dose of the clap.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Fun fact of the day: Open has multiple meanings. Tomorrow's fun fact: Free has multiple meanings.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."
Everlasting fame and the undying love of children everywhere?
In other words they just wanna, "stick it in, but only a little bit".
Seems "reasonable and non-discriminatory" to me.
--Lee Daniel Crocker : http://www.etceterology.com My life is in the public domain.
And, for 29.95 they'll sell you the penicillin, $100 for penicillin that works, and 200 for "Penicillin Ultimate Edition"
I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
No kidding. Letting Microsoft define "open" is like a bunch of sheep letting the wolf define "vegetarian".
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
And even if you go for the $200 "ultimate edition", there's still a 5% chance that it won't do any good and Microsoft's advice would be "shoot yourself, reincarnate and try again".
I'm sure they'd fail at that too. In fact, it might be the first time in history that they didn't suck.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
You need corporate lawyers now to evolve into birds?
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Microsoft is probably just following the example of FoxNews, which of course is "Fair and Balanced." Says so right in the credits (and on the website and every couple minutes throughout the broadcast, so you just know it has to be true).
Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term.
nonsense, Microsoft's new definition of the term open simple refers to the inclusivity of the number of people who are affected by their licences. If the definition of openness means it is available to everyone equally, then the new definition from MS makes perfect sense.
Their software is completely open: absolutely anyone can do nothing with it. :-)
At least they know how to spell it, which gives them one leg up to you.