What is O'Reilly thinking? Why should people attending an Open Source conference spend time listen to Microsoft? Get Open Source developers to be educated by Microsoft, or the other way around?
Everything that needs to be said has been said. Can there be anything new from Microsoft?
O'Reilly may as well get Bill Gates in there to re-issue his Open Letter to Hobbyists, to the Open Source hobbyists.
Where did I say I measure people by their education only? I only point out about this relationship between Bill Gates and RMS. It is well know that Bill Gates dropped out because he saw a business opportunity in proprietary software.
If Bill Gates was not worth of at least something because he was a college dropout, would I have suggest a debate in the first place?
I merely pointed out that RMS and Bill Gates were in similar places at one point in their life. And their ages are about the same. But the course they chose are exactly the opposite. For all possible timelines, it may be RMS, rather than Bill Gates, who earned the most money from the PC proprietary software business boom since the late 70s to 90s. But RMS did not choose that road. He is still relatively poor today, but his contribution to the human civilization will outweight Bill Gates'.
A new product or service that disrupts an industry and
eventually wins most of the market share.
The term "disruptive technology" was coined by Clayton
M. Christensen in 1997 to describe new technical
inventions that distrupt the established industries
and economic patterns and cause existing, dominating
companies to be replaced by new players based on the
new inventions. Yet the distruptive inventions do not
have to be technical. Can the GNU GPL, a 12-year-old
software license and a hack on the copyright law, also
be called a distruptive technology? It seems so.
Microsoft is the most successful example of the
proprietary software business model and
dominates today's software market. Microsoft's
recent attack on the GPL shows the attempt of an
established player to try to suppress something new,
up and coming. Except this time, the new player does
not play by the rules. Instead, through viral-like
propagation properties, the GPL establishes a new
social model where software is passed freely
and shared. The GPL distrupts the proprietary business
model by social engineering, building a new way of
life based on freedom and cooperation. Microsoft can
assimilate anything following the proprietary business
model but will have problem dealing with the social
model of Free Software.
As the GPLed software domain further expands, the
proprietary business model is graduately pushed aside.
How will the Borg assimilate the virus inherently
incompatible with the Borg's nature? Will the virus
distrupt and ultimately destory the Borg?
We need a face-to-face debate between Bill Gates, a Harvard dropout, and Richard Stallman, a Harvard graduate, and let their views be frankly shown to the world, side-by-side. And then people will know who is right.
Microsoft, dare you send in Gates himself?
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
What's interesting about this GPL violation is that the product in question also includes illegal copies of Microsoft software (DivX, a hacked version of Microsoft MPEG4 version 3 codec DLL). Thus Microsoft can also sue this company for copyright violation.
Of course you cannot have GPLed and Microsoft's proprietary software in the same program. So this product cannot be distributed legally at all.
"Good points" in the Microsoft response
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft has some good points.
It is what makes Microsoft a formidable enemy. They are evil, but they have smart people working for the evil cause. Their double talk can pursade.
Their business model is very successful. Unfortunately they did not mention all the dead corpses in the proprietary software business left on the road by Bill Gates' world conquest. Today, as the story of Software Wars show, the only vialbe alternative to Microsoft, is Free Software/Open Source. That's why the proprietary software business model is a bad model, for everyone, except for Microsoft.
The only force that can counter Bill Gates today is the philosophy of Richard Stallman, and the GPL. It is the Free Software/Open Source social model, which is not a business model.
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
It must be a mistake on Microsoft's part (with all the other mistakes). I think it refers to GNUstep. Both GNUstep and GNOME are part of the GNU Project, of course.
For someone who was in the dark side at the very beginning, it is nice that he actually recognizes the contribution of GNU. The contrast between Bill Gates and Richard Stallman is worth noting, for this contrast is shaping what's to come in the software world.
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
For a company? I mean, if BSD makes sense for a commercial entity, why don't companies release their "core" IP under the BSD license (with some exceptions, like some companies release reference/standard implementations where the software was not meant as a money making mechanism)? I don't think anyone will complain, maybe except the company shareholders.
Come on, Caldera! You are an OS company and a Linux vendor. Your main business is software. You are the proud owner of CP/M, DR DOS, GEM, and the true (AT&T's) UNIX source code (today known as SCO Unix). Release them under the BSD license! (GEM is already released under GPL, but the other three are not released as open source yet)
That capitalism only works in the West is clearly wrong. It works in East Asia, where often democracy is lacking but capitalism succeeds. For example, Japan has been capitalistic since the last 19th century. Big business combines still control much of the power in Japan and South Korea. Taiwan, Republic of China's founding ideology is the Three People's Principle, which is very socialistic, but Taiwan was rated one of the most capitalistic region in the world. Not to mention the mainland region of China, under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, where the so-called "Socialist Market Economy" is advancing rapidly to turn Chinese mainland into one capitalistic economic powerhouse, after the "Capitalistic Roader" Deng Xio-Ping's reform. ("Capitalistic Roader" was the term used by Deng's left wing opponents during power struggle in the 1970s before Deng's victory to power)
Right, that you say RMS has not gotten anywhere. I don't think a man getting nowhere would have the richest software company in the world running scared and making attacks.
Instead, RMS is getting everywhere. Or his works and ideas impact the whole software world and beyond.
His editor is the standard editor in computer science departments all over the world.
His compiler is used from commercial OSes to embedded system development. His compiler is the standard compiler for Apple's Mac OS X. Not to mention Linux and the BSDs.
He started the movement that (with its spin-off, the Open Source movement) turns the software world around, away from Bill Gates' vision back toward the form in its earliest days (when source code is shared).
His license is used in an increasing amount of source code that begins to cover most software application areas and reduces Microsoft's businesses (in line with the original goal of replacing proprietary software with free software).
And his ideas even spread beyond software, into other forms of IP (see why Gnutella is named GNUtella, even though it is not GNU software)
And you are saying he is getting nowhere?
He does not have to enter the world of marketers and executives; his works will bring them to the world of Free Software, willingly or unwillingly. Microsoft's Allchin is an example.
more than stealing GPLed code for inclusion in Windows.
Microsoft is big enough that it can develop or reimplement almost any feature. They want to stop the GPL mostly because the increasing amount of GPLed software is liberating people from the dominance of Microsoft software. The GPL is a serious threat to Microsoft's business model.
Interesting that Microsoft talks about tax payers. They forget that they are funded by the Microsoft tax.
Bill Gates and Richard Stallman are finally coming to a face off.
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
It is worth pointing out that Mesa is distributed under a BSD-style license. (was LGPLed) But the FSF still recognizes it and award its author. It is great that despite FSF's preference for the GPL, this preference does not turn into bias in the award selection process and BSDed software authors have the same opportunity as GPLed software authors to earn the award.
Clearly what RMS said disagrees with you. And the fact NeXT gives up indicates that gcc front ends are bounded by the GPL because (for the purpose of the GPL) they are derivatives of gcc.
If you are right, NeXT would not have given in to the FSF.
The article did not mention but NeXT/Steve Jobs has the honor of being the first significant GPL violator. Jobs took gcc as the system compiler for NextStep. NeXT added Objective C support but tried to keep it proprietary. After a stand-off with the FSF/RMS NeXT donated the Objective C compiler to GNU.
Today gcc is still the system compiler of Mac OS X. Steve Jobs depends on the work of Richard Stallman for his OS.
In light of the current event, the "Software Wars" map has been updated.
Since 1998, the image of "Software Wars" has accurately describe the
situation in the world of personal computer software. A picture is
worth a thousand words, and this image serves as a powerful tool for
Linux advocacy, pictorially showing the events in the competition for
world domination between proprietary and free (open source) software.
You will be touched by it, and appreciate its humor.
The image has just been updated to reflect the latest events. It can
be
found at
Michael Tiemann was the first author of g++ (I think). He was involved in GNU and founded Cygnus. Thus he can say in his capacity as part of GNU that "we" (referring to the GNU/FSF community) started the movement. Common sense will show that he was not that off on the remark and he most probably did not refer to RedHat, the Linux distributor before buying Cygnus, as the founder of the Open Source movement. (And ESR will happily claim that title!)
Slashdot should be more responsible in its article. This kind of flame-type remarks will just play into the hands of (say) Microsoft who has an interest in dividing the Free Software/Open Source community. Slashdot really should not make a big deal out of a really non-issue.
The Salon story is a vivid description of early hackers and the counter-role of Bill Gates. The whole story, when finished, can be next to Levy's book "Hackers" as the greatest pieces on history of hackerdom.
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
w/r/t use of BSD code in GPL applications: I'm seeing more and more BSD style licenses have terms prohibiting license conversion, to prevent the FSF from creating a GPL fork which is then closed to the original developers. My projects contain this clause....
This is funny. You don't allow people putting your code under the GPL. But you allow people to make your code proprietary and close their ehhancements to you and the community? Well, any contributors who think of contributing to your software have to think twice. By using your license terms, proprietary vendors will benefit more from their work than the Open Source community.
Slashdot Mirror
What is O'Reilly thinking? Why should people attending an Open Source conference spend time listen to Microsoft? Get Open Source developers to be educated by Microsoft, or the other way around?
Everything that needs to be said has been said. Can there be anything new from Microsoft?
O'Reilly may as well get Bill Gates in there to re-issue his Open Letter to Hobbyists, to the Open Source hobbyists.
Where did I say I measure people by their education only? I only point out about this relationship between Bill Gates and RMS. It is well know that Bill Gates dropped out because he saw a business opportunity in proprietary software.
If Bill Gates was not worth of at least something because he was a college dropout, would I have suggest a debate in the first place?
I merely pointed out that RMS and Bill Gates were in similar places at one point in their life. And their ages are about the same. But the course they chose are exactly the opposite. For all possible timelines, it may be RMS, rather than Bill Gates, who earned the most money from the PC proprietary software business boom since the late 70s to 90s. But RMS did not choose that road. He is still relatively poor today, but his contribution to the human civilization will outweight Bill Gates'.
A new product or service that disrupts an industry and eventually wins most of the market share.
The term "disruptive technology" was coined by Clayton M. Christensen in 1997 to describe new technical inventions that distrupt the established industries and economic patterns and cause existing, dominating companies to be replaced by new players based on the new inventions. Yet the distruptive inventions do not have to be technical. Can the GNU GPL, a 12-year-old software license and a hack on the copyright law, also be called a distruptive technology? It seems so. Microsoft is the most successful example of the proprietary software business model and dominates today's software market. Microsoft's recent attack on the GPL shows the attempt of an established player to try to suppress something new, up and coming. Except this time, the new player does not play by the rules. Instead, through viral-like propagation properties, the GPL establishes a new social model where software is passed freely and shared. The GPL distrupts the proprietary business model by social engineering, building a new way of life based on freedom and cooperation. Microsoft can assimilate anything following the proprietary business model but will have problem dealing with the social model of Free Software.
As the GPLed software domain further expands, the proprietary business model is graduately pushed aside. How will the Borg assimilate the virus inherently incompatible with the Borg's nature? Will the virus distrupt and ultimately destory the Borg?
Microsoft, dare you send in Gates himself?
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, Today
What's interesting about this GPL violation is that the product in question also includes illegal copies of Microsoft software (DivX, a hacked version of Microsoft MPEG4 version 3 codec DLL). Thus Microsoft can also sue this company for copyright violation.
Of course you cannot have GPLed and Microsoft's proprietary software in the same program. So this product cannot be distributed legally at all.
It is what makes Microsoft a formidable enemy. They are evil, but they have smart people working for the evil cause. Their double talk can pursade.
Their business model is very successful. Unfortunately they did not mention all the dead corpses in the proprietary software business left on the road by Bill Gates' world conquest. Today, as the story of Software Wars show, the only vialbe alternative to Microsoft, is Free Software/Open Source. That's why the proprietary software business model is a bad model, for everyone, except for Microsoft.
The only force that can counter Bill Gates today is the philosophy of Richard Stallman, and the GPL. It is the Free Software/Open Source social model, which is not a business model.
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, Today
It must be a mistake on Microsoft's part (with all the other mistakes). I think it refers to GNUstep. Both GNUstep and GNOME are part of the GNU Project, of course.
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, 2000
For a company? I mean, if BSD makes sense for a commercial entity, why don't companies release their "core" IP under the BSD license (with some exceptions, like some companies release reference/standard implementations where the software was not meant as a money making mechanism)? I don't think anyone will complain, maybe except the company shareholders.
Come on, Caldera! You are an OS company and a Linux vendor. Your main business is software. You are the proud owner of CP/M, DR DOS, GEM, and the true (AT&T's) UNIX source code (today known as SCO Unix). Release them under the BSD license! (GEM is already released under GPL, but the other three are not released as open source yet)
That capitalism only works in the West is clearly wrong. It works in East Asia, where often democracy is lacking but capitalism succeeds. For example, Japan has been capitalistic since the last 19th century. Big business combines still control much of the power in Japan and South Korea. Taiwan, Republic of China's founding ideology is the Three People's Principle, which is very socialistic, but Taiwan was rated one of the most capitalistic region in the world. Not to mention the mainland region of China, under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, where the so-called "Socialist Market Economy" is advancing rapidly to turn Chinese mainland into one capitalistic economic powerhouse, after the "Capitalistic Roader" Deng Xio-Ping's reform. ("Capitalistic Roader" was the term used by Deng's left wing opponents during power struggle in the 1970s before Deng's victory to power)
Instead, RMS is getting everywhere. Or his works and ideas impact the whole software world and beyond.
His editor is the standard editor in computer science departments all over the world.
His compiler is used from commercial OSes to embedded system development. His compiler is the standard compiler for Apple's Mac OS X. Not to mention Linux and the BSDs.
He started the movement that (with its spin-off, the Open Source movement) turns the software world around, away from Bill Gates' vision back toward the form in its earliest days (when source code is shared).
His license is used in an increasing amount of source code that begins to cover most software application areas and reduces Microsoft's businesses (in line with the original goal of replacing proprietary software with free software).
And his ideas even spread beyond software, into other forms of IP (see why Gnutella is named GNUtella, even though it is not GNU software)
And you are saying he is getting nowhere?
He does not have to enter the world of marketers and executives; his works will bring them to the world of Free Software, willingly or unwillingly. Microsoft's Allchin is an example.
How can someone agreeing with you be clueless?
Probably matching fund for donation by employees. Microsoft and Intel have the program of matching employees' donations to charities.
Microsoft is big enough that it can develop or reimplement almost any feature. They want to stop the GPL mostly because the increasing amount of GPLed software is liberating people from the dominance of Microsoft software. The GPL is a serious threat to Microsoft's business model.
Bill Gates and Richard Stallman are finally coming to a face off.
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, today
It is worth pointing out that Mesa is distributed under a BSD-style license. (was LGPLed) But the FSF still recognizes it and award its author. It is great that despite FSF's preference for the GPL, this preference does not turn into bias in the award selection process and BSDed software authors have the same opportunity as GPLed software authors to earn the award.
Clearly what RMS said disagrees with you. And the fact NeXT gives up indicates that gcc front ends are bounded by the GPL because (for the purpose of the GPL) they are derivatives of gcc.
If you are right, NeXT would not have given in to the FSF.
The article did not mention but NeXT/Steve Jobs has the honor of being the first significant GPL violator. Jobs took gcc as the system compiler for NextStep. NeXT added Objective C support but tried to keep it proprietary. After a stand-off with the FSF/RMS NeXT donated the Objective C compiler to GNU.
Today gcc is still the system compiler of Mac OS X. Steve Jobs depends on the work of Richard Stallman for his OS.
Since 1998, the image of "Software Wars" has accurately describe the situation in the world of personal computer software. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this image serves as a powerful tool for Linux advocacy, pictorially showing the events in the competition for world domination between proprietary and free (open source) software. You will be touched by it, and appreciate its humor.
The image has just been updated to reflect the latest events. It can be found at
http://www.atai.org/softwarewar.gif
Old versions of the same image can be found from the top of
http://www.atai.org/
Have fun and enjoy!
Michael Tiemann was the first author of g++ (I think). He was involved in GNU and founded Cygnus. Thus he can say in his capacity as part of GNU that "we" (referring to the GNU/FSF community) started the movement. Common sense will show that he was not that off on the remark and he most probably did not refer to RedHat, the Linux distributor before buying Cygnus, as the founder of the Open Source movement. (And ESR will happily claim that title!)
Slashdot should be more responsible in its article. This kind of flame-type remarks will just play into the hands of (say) Microsoft who has an interest in dividing the Free Software/Open Source community. Slashdot really should not make a big deal out of a really non-issue.
What kind of PROPAGANDA are you spreading?
Based your PROPAGANDA on your hatred toward a company (VA) is not good.
It is not clear what exactly is the point of this article. We know GNOME will advance. We know KDE will advance. The GNOME foundation won't kill KDE.
Some magazine article predicts that KDE is dead, but the GNOME people never said that. They never say the GNOME Foundation is meant against KDE.
It is not necessary for the KDE people to respond to the GNOME announcement, which is not an attack on KDE.
Last time I heard people (in the US) saying this, I don't think they mean the USA can be bought for no cost.
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, 2000
This is funny. You don't allow people putting your code under the GPL. But you allow people to make your code proprietary and close their ehhancements to you and the community? Well, any contributors who think of contributing to your software have to think twice. By using your license terms, proprietary vendors will benefit more from their work than the Open Source community.