Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tries Hard To Play Nice With Open Source, But There's an Elephant In the Room
Esther Schindler writes: They're trying, honest they are. In 2016 alone, writes Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Microsoft announced SQL Server on Linux; integrated Eclipse and Visual Studio, launched an
open-source network stack on Debian Linux; and it's adding Ubuntu Linux to its Azure Stack hybrid-cloud offering. That's all well and good, he says, but it's not enough. There's one thing Microsoft could do to gain real open-source trust: Stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents. But, there's too much money at stake, writes sjvn, for this to ever happen. For instance, in its last quarter, volume licensing and patents, accounted for approximately 9% of Microsoft's total revenue.
But the patents aren't copyrighted code. Sure, they could create an implementation of the patented method and Freely license that code, so that anyone who licenses the patent could use that code as a reference/starting point/as-is. But freeing the patents could affect other products ...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
What do Android royalties have to do with Open Source? It's not open source coders who pay Android royalties. It's big cellphone companies. This is a very contrived opinion piece. Why not broaden the topic and talk about all the companies who milk open source for a profit and not just one. I.E. the most profitable company in IT who have the biggest margins they could narrow a bit...
Nadella would be sacked within a week if he did that. Not only that, but he would probably get sued for taking an action that traded a billion or two dollars of pure profit for "good will." From a fiduciary responsibility perspective, it would be just cut and dry.
With MS-SQL Server on Linux - just install FreeTDS and connect to your old MS-SQL server so that you can port all the data into MySQL or Postgres.
In other news, Slashdot seems to finally have enabled HTTPS for everyone. Thanks!
The childish "we won't publically declare the patents in question" is childish, especially as quite often there are prior art...
When any of you have a billion dollar company, let's see how much money you just let go. Because I'm sure MS doesn't pay their fair share for other people's patents as well.
Seriously, it's time slashdot grew up a bit and joined the big girl and boy world. Every MS post is like an angry 13 year old that has no idea how the world operates.
There's one thing Microsoft could do to gain real open-source trust: Stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents.
The geek never sounds more adolescent then when he whines about Microsoft cross-licensing patents with its major corporate partners, It happens all the time and these guys are big enough and old enough to take care of themselves.
At this point, a large part of IT simply will never appreciate Microsoft, no matter what they do.
"We'd trust them if they'd only do X!" No, you wouldn't. You'd figure out some other reason to hate them.
News flash, it's 2016, and Microsoft is no longer the most evil or dangerous bigcorp out there. Apple, Google, and Facebook, have all surpassed Microsoft. Can we get back to some actual issues?
I dont understand what the android patent(s) has anything to do with open source...
TFA has an interesting but unlikely premise: Microsoft cares about the "trust" of the open source community. Why should they? Isn't the whole idea of open source (with a suitable license) supposed to be that you don't have to trust the originator of the software? For example, open source is often cited as a solution for the problem that the originator goes belly-up. Fine, just maintain it yourself or with the help of the community.
Besides, why should Microsoft care about the "trust" of the people they're giving stuff to? First, it's unlikely they they will ever gain the trust of those who forever view them as The Evil Empire. Second, they've already got the trust (by and large) of their paying customers, much as a male black widow spider trusts the female: trust her, but don't become lunch.
For example, I have a large body of software I've developed over the past 20 years that's written for Microsoft's "MFC." (Seemed like a good idea at the time...) I trust them to keep supporting that (as they have for 20 years), and I also trust that they'll make me buy a new version of Visual Studio every few years when the old one no longer works on modern versions of Windows. (Been there, done that.) That sort of trust is called "business."
Lost trust in them long, long ago, and merely trying isn't going to earn it back.
They're like that pathetic kid in highschool, always trying too hard to be cool, never understanding why he isn't succeeding and isn't being taken seriously. They'll do anything, absolutely anything, to catch up with the cool crowd. But there's always a catch, and that is that at heart they are monopolists only in it for themselves. Or, put another way, they're all "but I can change, honest", and if you fall for it it's even more years of endless bad marriage fun. Just ditch the fuckers already.
Yes, the world would be infinitely better off without redmond. It would force us to write better software, for one. We'd finally be bereft of reasons to keep sticking to x86(_64), for another. We can put pressure on manufacturers to give us open hardware without redmond writing specifications that take control away from us. We will have room for improvement and reasons to get on with the improving already. And this is desperately needed.
The Microsoft development community and open source are doing just fine these days. Nuget and git have changed the world - especially in corporate Microsoft shops.
Microsoft Tries Hard To Play Nice With Open Source, But There's an Elephant In the Room
You mean that Steve Ballmer is back in charge at MS??
Damn Republicans...
I am reminded of what the scorpion said, "Why? Because I am a Scorpion."
MS now has most of .Net out on Github, with more going up all the time. They'll let you download the code, and they've even accepted patches from the community. What they don't do yet is give anyone the right to make and publish their own fork.
But they're making progress. The old Windows Live Writer code really is completely FOSS now. To my knowledge, that's the first MS product to ever achieve freedom zero. That *anything* made it out of Redmond like that is a huge deal.
Evidently a lot of companies able to play lots of lawyers have instead paid up in huge amounts. I don't know what the patents are but the poster didn't even give a clue about why they are bogus so for me the circumstantial evidence is on Microsoft's side for now
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Anything Microsoft does for Linux is for their own benefit and nothing else. Get a clue Steven, Linux should be thanking Microsoft for even taking the time and doing something for Linux. Which seems pretty much in the same place it was years ago on the desktop. Android has plenty to thank Microsoft for, and how can you blame Microsoft a for profit company for Android patents? They obviously are not bogus or Microsoft would not claim them. Besides, Microsoft is not to blame for them being patent's to begin with. Hey let's not forget how many open source ideals are taken from companies who make huge profits and give little back to the linux communities.
Something doesn't add up. Aside from the question of whether Microsoft's licensing of patents to Android OEMs has any impact on whatever else they may do with open source, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft is successfully extracting billions annually from "bogus" patents.
Yes, litigation is difficult, expensive and time-consuming. But if the patents really are bogus, it's well worth spending a few hundred million over a few years in order to stop paying billions annually. Samsung et al, may not wish to take on the risk directly, but surely they could find some small OEM and say "We'd like you to fight Microsoft's patents. We'll fund your legal battle and cover your losses, if any, plus pay you a premium". Or if they can't find one, establish one just for the purpose.
I think the only reasonable conclusion is that at least some of the patents look like they'll stand up in court, so the OEMs are paying rather than fighting because they think they'll lose.
Nuget is fantastic. It provides a fantastic repository of library code for community-supported functionality and back-ports to allow older releases to use more modern things. (Example: Newtonsoft's JSON library is a godsend on Windows Mobile 6.5, even if it is an older version that isn't updated anymore.)
Git, OTOH, can suck my balls. Git is made for distributed and/or non-organized (which is not the same as "disorganized") development. Corporate dev shops don't work that way, and shouldn't work that way. For an organization doing development, it's far more suitable to use SVN or TFS or Perforce or something like these. (But never VSS! For the love of god don't use VSS!)
I vastly prefer TFS simply for ease of use. It's a lot more intuitive than git (for me).
I'm particularly curious about this with respect to *current* Eclipse and Netbeans versions, not those of years long since past.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Their goal as a publicly-traded corporation is to make money. Why would they ever give up a huge stream of revenue that they "earn" simply by signing a bunch of legal paperwork every few years?
Unless there is a clear way for "real open-source trust" to turn into American dollars, it will never happen. Even good things like marketing, perception, and outreach have little value compared to cold cash; in fact, those things are pursued solely because they tend to bring in money in the future.
I agree with the open source philosophy, but American CEOs are expected to care about profits over ideas. Failure to earn dividends leads to replacement; failing to make nice with another group of people generally has no consequences at all.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Git, OTOH, can suck my balls. Git is made for distributed and/or non-organized (which is not the same as "disorganized") development. Corporate dev shops don't work that way, and shouldn't work that way. For an organization doing development, it's far more suitable to use SVN or TFS or Perforce or something like these.
That said, all of Microsoft's .NET team (C#, VB, .NET framework, .NET runtime) are doing their work in the open on GitHub. The team really appreciate the GitHub workflow, issue-tracking, openness.
The data don't show them getting billions out of patents.
TFA added together patent royalties with volume licensing. Volume licensing is the program Microsoft has for its biggest end-user customers, where they don't require companies to purchase keys before each Windows / SQL Server / Office / whatever install, just count them and self-report at the end of a quarter. It's no surprise that even at volume discount rates, the biggest customers account for a big chunk of income.
Patent royalties (in which Microsoft gets a cut of someone else's product) and volume license agreements (in which Microsoft sells their own product) are nothing alike. The upstream ZDNet article that TFA got its numbers from is idiotic for putting them together into a single line item. And then TFA gets it more wrong by omitting "Windows" from "Windows (VL) & Patent Licensing". Based on the ZDNet breakdown, that 9% figure appears to include all non-OEM sales of Windows -- volume licenses to corporate customers, shrinkwrapped sales, Anytime upgrade, etc. as well as patent royalties.
"Microsoft Tries Hard To Play Nice With Open Source..."
Bullshit. Microsoft doesn't play nice with anyone.
They buy you or they crush you, those are the only two options.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Nobody uses TFS for public facing repositories.
love is just extroverted narcissism
If Microsoft want Linux people to trust them they have a lot of ground to make up. And they claim they want this for Azure. Here are a few little things:
1/ Stop loading standards committee with your goons, then back genuine open document standards. Thereby showing you embrace openness and want your products to compete on features not just lock-in.
2/ Stop deprecating the few Linux desktop products you have or give them limited functionality (e.g. Skype) . Okay so you are interested in Linux on a server. But your desktop nastiness just makes us all think you aren't sincere on the server either. How about releasing some other Linux desktop products, if you really want to show willing.
3/ Stop being nasty to PC vendors that want to ship OS free or Linux based PC's (increasing price of Windows licenses).
4/ Stop threatening Linux/Android vendors with patents for obvious things e.g. FAT long file names., exFAT which is also pretty straight forward. And make them open standards, they are pretty obvious anyway! That just looks grasping and controlling. Lets face it MS, the only reason you have a patent of any value is you have a Desktop monopoly.
5/ Don't release new Linux products with functionality crippled compared to the Windows versions, and give some commitment to it's long term future.Not giving equivalent functionality (at the same time) makes me think you will move me over to Windows if I need a particular feature. And the lack of commitment makes us old Unix heads remember IE on Solaris and HP-UX which disappeared as soon as you destroyed Netscape in the market. Not forgiven yet for this piece of obvious nasty behaviour. Otherwise people like me who work in corporate IT will not touch Linux SQL Server with a long pole, we only use it now on Windows where we have no choice.
6/ And a little contrition wouldn't hurt, "we know we haven't been fair to this community in the past etc" style. Maybe you'll realise that the whole world will one day not be running Windows!!
Anyone who doesn't get why the above has really annoyed the Linux community, is probably the definition of a MS shill. These changes would benefit Windows users too!
Oh, dear, no. I meant for private repositories for internal projects, for which git is increasingly coming into use.
We know very little with the 9% figure. It could be 8.9% volume licensing. I am not saying that it is but we know nothing about the patent income with this.
I think it's time for them to GPLv3 windows 10. Then it will be the year of the HURD desktop, for sure.
Not really.
Git can still be used in the manner of SVN, simply designate one server a master and force everyone to sync with it (this is basically what any large project is doing, using Github or their own private server).
None of those examples has anything to do with Microsoft cooperating with open-source. These are all examples of MS trying to leverage opensource to maintain vendor lock-in, and prevent customers from full-out flight to open source alternatives.
Yes, those childish people at MS who think obvious solutions to a problem are somehow worthy of being awarded a 20 year monopoly really do need to grow up and learn that it's not that special, everybody poops.
I really don't like Nuget, as package management systems go, it's a real pain. And it's not just me saying it, this guy admits it has problems too.
(You're right though, it definitely has changed things in Microsoft shops).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
At least microsoft is putting out Open Source softwares. That's more than you can say about Apple who is all about their closed garden.
Now stop complaining, it's not like YOU'RE the one paying those royalties and the few $ it would shave off your devices cost wouldn't even be seen, manufacturers would just keep the same prices and get more profit.
Microsoft's 310 Patent Claims on Android
Text Dump of an original Chinese Government Document Freely available here:
http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pe...
Format of this list:
List Example Number Patent Number Patent Application Title
SEPs Generally Implemented by Smartphones
001 5634192 Mobile-Assisted Handoff Technique
002 5982324 Combining GPS With TOA/TD0A Of Cellular Signals To Locate Terminal
003 6058309 Network Directed System Selection for Cellular and Pcs Enhanced Roaming
004 6088578 Burst Request Method and Apparatus for Cdma High Speed Data
005 6091952 Distributed Subscriber Data Management in Wireless Networks from a Central Perspective
006 6223028 Enhanced Method And System For Programming A Mobile Telephone over the Air Within A Mobile Telephone Communication Network
007 6298461 Encoding and Decoding Methods and Apparatus
008 6324515 Method and Apparatus for Asymmetric Communication of Compressed Speech
009 6363251 Network Directed System Selection for Cellular and Pcs Enhanced Roaming
010 6411629 Data Interleaving Method
011 6430174 Communication System Supporting Simultaneous Voice and Multimedia Communications and Method of Operation Therefore
012 6438369 Network Directed System Selection for Cellular and Pcs Enhanced Roaming
013 6549771 Enhanced Method And System For Programming A Mobile Telephone over the Air Within A Mobile Telephone Communication Network
014 6628641 Header Error Detection For Wireless Data Cells
015 6738618 Method and System for Regulating Autonomous Messaging by Subscriber Units in a Wireless Communication Network
016 6880088 Secure Maintenance Messaging In a Digital Communications Network
017 6947483 Method, Apparatus, and System for Managing Data Compression in a Wireless Network
018 6947490 Cellular Radio Communications System
019 7042858 Soft Handoff for OFDM
020 7072336 Communications Using Adaptive Multi-Rate Codecs
021 7082114 System and Method for a Wireless Unit Acquiring a New Internet Protocol Address When Roaming Between Two Subnets
022 7145889 Efficient Frame Retransmission in a Wireless Communication Environment
023 7228133 Mobile IP Mobile Node Device and Access Information
024 7317680 Channel Mapping for OFDM
025 7436834 Efficient Frame Retransmission in a Wireless Communication Environment
026 7440433 Mobile IP Notification
027 7486735 Sub-Carrier Allocation For OFDM
028 7545766 Method for Mobile Node-foreign Agent Challenge Optimization
029 7646710 Mobility in a Multi-Access Communication Network
030 8046000 Providing Location-Based Information in Local Wireless Zones
031 8264996 Signalling Channel and Radio System for Power Saving in Wireless Devices
032 6298463 Parallel Concatenated Convolutional Coding
033 6782422 Systems and Methods for Resynchronization and Notification in Response to Network Media Events
034 7016705 Reducing Power Consumption in a Networked Battery-Operated Device Using Sensors
035 7089415 Authentication Methods and Systems for Accessing Networks, Authentication Methods and Systems for Accessing the Internet
036 7099689 Energy-Aware Communications for a Multi-Radio System
037 7110783 Power Efficient Channel Scheduling in a Wireles Network
038 7142855 Power Efficient Channel Scheduling in a Wireles Network
039 7187660 System and Method for Continuously Provisioning a Mobile Device
040 7203463 Power Efficient Channel Scheduling in a Wireles Network
041 7209740 Power Efficient Channel Scheduling in a Wireles Network
042 7230933 Reducing Idle Power Consumption in a Networked Battery Operated Device
043 7245936 Power Efficient Channel Scheduling in a Wireles Network
044 7284062 Increasing The Level of Automation When Provisioning A Computer System to Access A Network
045 7295522 System and Method for Continuously Provisioning a Mobile Device
046 7376122 System and Method for Link Quality Source Routing
047 7433936 C
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
OK 9% revenue may not sound like a lot by .. why give it up? Are the other companies going to give it up as well?
What we would show a change of heart in the company would be Microsoft Office. LibreOffice just doesn't cut it nowadays.
That's the income Microsoft receives from businesses who buy OS licenses in volume rather than with each individual PC they buy. It gives companies freedom when installing Windows so you don't expose your keys to users.
The day when Microsoft abolishes its accursed closed MOOXML from its office suite and sets ODF as the default is the day I will scratch my head and wonder if they are starting to change.
Until then, Satya, I, and millions like me, will continue to loathe your buggy software, no matter how many shills you pay to pretend you're wearing emperor's clothes.
Microsoft's 310 Patents were listed in a previous post (thank you Freshly Exhumed).
My understanding is patents expire after 20 years.
Hopefully, in year 2029, handset makers will tell Microsoft to f#$k off....
How about making MS pay for all the BSD that they use in their IP Stacks? Of course you can't do that but I agree MS should endear trust and stop charging for the Android over it's alleged IP. I think MS should come out with their own Linux distribution. I think MS needs to port Office to Linux and Unix and since they have written it for OSX that should be a quick win for them. Actually they could port much of their languages to Open systems. That is a scary thought because MS might become a dominant force once again. Of course we have plenty of stuff to use on open systems instead of MS products.
Paul E. Bahre