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.
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
From the gpl-isn't-really-open-either-ya-know dept.
What is up with that? The majority of people that go around saying this about the GPL complain that you can't include the GPL in proprietary software or other unfortunate obscure issues. The GPL is designed to keep software licensed under it Free (or open if you prefer). Sure sometimes that causes unfortunate problems with other Free Software licenses, but while there are those that would like to take away the freedom that users and developers get with the GPL, it's a cost I'm happy with.
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
Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.
Nope, OSI defines open source software as software that:
A. Free Redistribution
B. Includes Source
C. Allow Derived Works
And a lot of other stuff. See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php for more info.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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
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.
Does this have anything to do with losing the ability to get government contracts because of FOSS requirements? Remember the stink ?last year? when M$ got their proprietary document format declared a standard so they could bid on contracts that required open document standards? They must have another contract coming up for renewal.
Sometime back in the late '80s, Digital Review (or a similar industry newletter) ran an article in which Bill Gates was quoted as saying something to the effect that Microsoft's operating system was an "open system" because you could buy a computer from a large number of vendors that it would run on. (So long as you were talking about computers based on Intel chips, I suppose he could could sort of get away with saying that, as self-serving as it was.) Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
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'.
OSI's definition isn't necessarily the gold standard either. The GPL, BSD, and other licenses, as well as the whole concept of "open source" was around long before OSI existed.
I have always felt, and continue to do so, that "open source" merely indicates that the source code for a product is available. There are a ton of times where that's all that I wanted. I'd kill to have the source to some of my vendor purchased apps so I could fix some long standing bugs and send the patches back to them. Creating/distributing a derived work, or redistributing the code is not a priority in that case. Access to the code is.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
I thought the same thing. Only after did I realize the word shift in the summary:
Also, Matusow didn't say they want all open standards to be able to include RAND, just that he considers some RAND standards as open to him. The article writer even seems to agree with most of his points, and then turns a 360 and brings up the OOXML to bash on them a bit.
On the side of openness, I think the article writer misunderstood Matusow's main point about patents and standards, which is that if a patentable idea could be used in more then one way (his two examples were protocols and an aphrodisiac) that the owner should be able to grant use of the patent for a protocol standard, but should not be required to give up rights to license separately use as an aphrodisiac. Doing so might make the contributor less likely to contribute, which make sense because if that were required, the cost of the contribution might outweigh the benefit.
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)
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.
Fixing a bug by changing the source code and then recompiling it is creating a derivative work. When you have access to the source code, it doesn't always mean you are allowed to make a 'better' version of it. A few years ago, we had access to the Windows (NT/2000) source code but it's still not legal for me to fix their bugs and then install it on my computer.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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".
Some GPL software is patent encumbered. IBM, for example, donated some of their patents for Open Source projects.
So it's patented, but probably unencumbered, then.
Hint: "encumbered" means restricted or blocked or limited. If the patent license is consistent with the FOSS license requirements (for example the GPL requires no restrictions on right to distribute modified versions, etc.), then the fact that some part of it is patented does not mean it's encumbered from the FOSS point of view.
Proprietary software is usually copyright-encumbered - your license may not allow copying it, and may not even give access to the source code. Many FOSS licenses also make restrictions - when you modify, you may not remove the names of previous contributors, for instance. Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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."
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!
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)?
OMG, what a sad joke it was !
the DEC Alpha was the absolute epitome of 64 bits processing in its times, a fabulous cpu running loops around what intel had to offer, and head and shoulders above the competition from Sun and IBM. The Alpha was emulating a top of the line Ppro faster than the ppro could run natively. And those retards at MSFT just ported a 32 bits NT to it, and moreover were unable to provide native software for it (MS Office can't run on the Alpha).
Allegedly, the bulk of the work on the 64 bit version of NT (call it 2K_64, XP_64 or whatever, it's never been released) was conducted on Alpha hardware for the lack of competent Itanium platforms at the time.
In short, MS benefited from the Alpha while doing their very best to kill the product, by not delivering the promised goods for it. They created high public expectations and their shoddy behaviours finally put DEC in a bad light.
It makes me sick to read such statements. I still run a PWS under Linux for the good old days memories, and the only comforting thoughts I have are that AMD managed to build upon DEC expertise to create the Athlon 64 after DEC had been swallowed by Compaq and their R&D disbanded.
Thank you very much for proving my case better than I would have done it myself :
The end user becomes more free by having to pay someone to write a reimplementation of a CDDL algorithm to use with some GPL'd code?
At least, a sponsored GPL reimplementation of this code would become the common good of humanity. The mere fact that it would be needed just proves that CDDL is not concerned by the end user rights.
The user becomes more free by not being able to give their friend a copy of the binary without remembering to include a written offer for the source code, even though their friend (if they actually wanted the source) could still get it from the upstream source?
Providing a friend with a binary only module is a bad gift indeed. What if he further needs to port it ? What if he changes from processor ? Should he be deprived of your gift ? Your friend in that case is the end user, and you should treat him as well as you've been treated yourself before, because he's the one the GPL intends to protect now.
[...burps...] GPLv2 [more burps] GPLv2 [even more burps] The GPLv3 [and on and on]
I'm sure you know the difference between specifications and implementations, and pointing out defects of a specific version of a products merely show bugs that are therefore corrected upon identification. It does nothing to prove the underlying scheme right or wrong.
And, yes, IAL, and I read the GPL from top to bottom, every version of it.
I'm not sure what IAL means, I Am Legend maybe? Or did you mean to say that you are a lawyer, in which case I am not surprised by your skill at doublethink, just disappointed by it. Interesting that you don't specify which of the (mutually-incompatible) versions of the GPL you prefer.
Yes, I'm a lawyer. My personal choice is for the current version with provision you can relicense under any later revision (GPL v3+). Your sacarstic style (for a missing 'A', which is just a typo) just hints that you need to revert to ad hominem arguments when you clearly lack basis for your claim.
No bashing is occurring.
Facts are being discussed and reason is attempting to be made. In 2006/7 Microsoft explicitly claimed that they would kill open source. Later Ballmer claimed that open source was a cancer on the software industry. Recently Microsoft stated they would kill Google like they did Netscape. These aren't attempts to compete, they attempts to use their monopoly power to kill the competition. You compete based on the merits of your product.
Clearly and unequivocally this is nothing more than "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft is using their PR arm to attempt to make this out as a makeover while it is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the efforts of Open Source so that businesses look differently at it with less willingness to use it if there is an alternative.
It is no coincidence that Ballmer and Microsoft see open source as a bigger threat today in a sliding economy. They see the inroads that open source has made. It is no coincidence that this is happening at the largest slide in their revenue/profits. They see no other competition other than Linux and the Mac (and they have the Mac in hand as they develop some pretty strong software there).
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.