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."
Hate to break it to you, but the GPL is not the be-all end-all of openness, and the benchmark of "open" is not necessarily "compatible with the GPL".
And being incompatible with the GPL doesn't mean something isn't open.
The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.
Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.
How is this surprising? TFA explains it best:
The idea behind truly open standards is to create a level playing field so that everyone can compete on an equal and fair basis. The benefits are obvious: it ensures a true Darwinian selection process is possible
Microsoft, just like tha *AAs, find themselves in the same position as the dinosaurs after the comet strike winter: their surroundings (markets) are changing and they are unable to adapt. So they try to adapt their environment to themselves. In the case of companies, this is done by "educating" (think "don't copy that floppy"), threatening and cajoling their customers. But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Microsoft reminds me of the RIAA here, whining about the need to prop up their business model. Their license to print money is in danger, as the online world is moving on.
Someone ask these idiots when you are willing to allow the usage without royalty why on this earth you want a patent on it ? Why cant we modify the law to ensure that any patented technology can be used without royalty when it becomes part of an open standard ? Infact the US patent law allows government to use any technology without paying patent fees to anyone, so why cant the same be applied to open standards which are going to be useful for a wider number of humans on this earth ? This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.
The GPL isn't "open" and never claimed to be.
This is the company that basically redefined an "operating system" to no longer just mean the basic power plant that manages the computer's operations...the "operating system" now takes care of antivirus/firewall, digital media, as well as internet browsing and more.
Almost like the MCP in Tron - may Ram R.I.P. (Rest in Pixels)
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.
Exactly. I love the idea of GPL and am glad it exists. I use GPL software whenever possible. This post however, is not about the merits of GPL, but to drive home this point: it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to make a living by relying on GPL software. Finding a "balance" between the GPL model and complete closure is something worth pursuing. It's not like GPL couldn't still be used by those who wanted to use it.
The GPL is simply not for every developer. It does not allow for trade sectrets, and trade secrets are legally protected for a legitimate reason: the opportunity to be rewarded for innovation. Without it, there would be *less* incentive to invent and innovate.
Clearly, some are willing to invent and develop technology without this protection, but many such as Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, the average person with a Computer Science degree, will demand some of this protection when they really want to earn a living from their software.
As someone who's worked for software companies, it's hard to imagine those companies GPLing their products, and easy to imagine the company losing half its profits or going under altogether if any company with an IT department could legally recompile the source code and use the software without payment.
After all, companies do have the right to act in their own self-interest, even if you feel they are misguided.
The Institute of Incomplete Research has determined that 9 of out 10
It's true that "GPL" is not the same as "open". But a good test for openness of a standard is "can you implement it using the GPL?". In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close. And increasingly, major market niches have an open source software implementation as the #1 or #2 implementation. A standard that locks out major implementations cannot possibly be an open standard. The whole point of a software patent is the power to exclude implementation (without paying royalties, etc.), while the whole point of a standard is to allow arbitrary use - they are fundamentally incompatible. Digistan has a more reasonable definition of open standard - and why you would want one.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Well yeah it's the same EEE philosophy they've followed over th last twenty years. Why abandon the philosophy when it works do brilliantly for them?
- EMBRACE the concept of open standards (previous phase).
- EXTEND these standards with Microsoft proprietary formats (the current ongoing phase).
- EXTINGUISH future competitors by claiming they violate these proprietary formats and may not use them, which means customers must buy Microsoft software to gain full functionality. Thus a once-open standards model becomes a closed MS-proprietary format. Again.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.
Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.
There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.
In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Open systems: systems based on unencumbered specifications for interfaces and protocols, usually with multiple interoperating implementations.
Closed systems: systems that are restricted in who can interoperate with and implement them, for example they may require commercial licensing.
Standards: Specifications for interfaces and protocols.
Open source systems: systems for which a freely redistributable implementation exists.
Not all systems fall clearly into the "open" or "closed" camp... these are really extremes along a continuum.
An open source system is usually not a closed system, but it may be if it is encumbered by patents or licensing that limits its use. An open source system may or may not be an open system... for example, a system with a single implementation where the specification for the interfaces and protocols is defined by that implementation should probably not be considered an open system, even if it's open source.
Open standards: I would assume this means standards that are unencumbered by licensing issues, anyone can implement them. Standards by definition are "open" to some degree simply by being standards, so qualifying the term with "open" means you're making a stronger statement than just "it's a standard".
"The idea behind truly open standards"
They are talking about open standards. You all are talking about open source.
Different things.
Carry on.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
On the contrary, I think their attacks are going to be self-defeating. Posts such as yours point out the schtick being advertised (the schtick having same veracity as the Marketing Dept. of the Sirius Cybernetic Corp. from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). PHBs don't read these boards, tech-savvy people do (well, more so than PHBs).
Put in a boarder context, MS would like to define a collection of lies by which it would like to be judged. The terms of that judgement, however, are collectively settled upon. MS is in effect attempting to lie to itself, and therein lies the seeds of MS's failure, Their approach cannot work and will only further antagonize and engender opposition. Who among us wants to be dictated to by semi-evolved Business School Product (will the people from the marketing dept. at MS please put your hands down, its embarrassing)?
"After RMS put the TiVo "gotcha" (its horrible! TiVo won't let me hack it so I can get free TiVo!)"
Straw man.
It was never about free TiVo as in how much you pay for it, you know. It was about DRM. TiVo can remotely delete/expire stored content, so it was actually inferior to the old VCR model in terms of letting you format/time shift.
That being said, MythTV had a provider of subscription-based TV listings but too many people just copied them around/accessed the stream without paying and now it's gone. This idea that people think they don't have to pay for software, any software, is why we can't have certain classes of nice things.
Any license that requires that you allow those to whom you distribute to code to modify and redistribute it requires that any patents that you require in order to modify and redistribute the code have the right to use them distributed with the code.
GPL2 isn't as explicit about it as the GPL3 is, but it's implicit in the license. (Caution: IANAL)
The BSD doesn't have that problem because it doesn't have that right of redistribution. And I happen to believe that the right of redistribution is important.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.