Actually any change like this, even in the proprietary world, is an opportunity to spread FUD. IT, and buyers in general don't like change and were we talking about a product such a change would come with a cost in customers. But, the cost for this does appear high, recall that even IBM who is arguably the largest funding source for Linux has spoken out against this version of the GPL.
The way to counter FUD is with truth, but another is to cover the problems up. And a common ploy for people in business or politics is to try to do exactly that often, in these discussions, we have both unwarranted attacks and cover-ups. For instance how often do we discuss IBM's position http://www.crn.com/software/198701024 on the GPL 3.0 draft and the special dispensation they got?
But my point is that anything that weakens OSS works to Microsoft's benefit, this discussion topic alone would seem to support the conclusion that Microsoft should like this. That's the point.
What appears strange is I don't actually recall "recommending" anything. I was only commenting on why I think Microsoft is starting to like the GPL 3.0. The fact that it fractures the base, as demonstrated by this discussion, would be reason enough. The only reason I might want to stop the thing is I'm kind of hooked on my TiVo and would rather not have it become unreliable due to a large, unplanned, code change or worse. But I honestly didn't think about that in writing my piece.
Better advice might be to actually read the thing and reach your own conclusions. Doing what someone recommends, or the opposite, blindly would be stupid in every case. No wonder you sign yourself Anonymous Coward, I wouldn't want to be held accountable for such a foolish statement either.
I wonder. For instance if a vendor who is doing what Tivo does now can no longer legally do it and that vender serves me, am I not impacted? This could include numerical control equipment (and embedded Linux in general); inventory traffic, logistic, and management systems; healthcare monitoring systems; and a wide class of devices used by employees ever day possibly even including their phones.
Also I wonder if "distribution" would also encompass companies that provided products under the GPL to contractors or outsourcers? Most large companies have contract workers, who are not under tax law considered employees, and when you outsource there is clearly an arm's length relationship with the company you outsource to.
Now you could fall back on enforcement, as I doubt this kind of a breach would be high on the list for punitive action but what if the firm was doing something else that FOSS didn't like or a competitor wanted to cripple the company, could this then become an attack vector?
Maybe you've seen this discussed but I haven't yet. Also, and this suddenly strikes me, what is the cost of the GPL 3.0 to OSS in general and if it applies to Linux, Linux in particular?
Were OSS a company the CEO, if capable (and that isn't always certain) would ask for a cost/benefit analysis. I haven't seen that either. But it would appear that the GPL 3.0 will decrease the market for covered products because it is more restrictive. TiVo alone could actually be the biggest, in terms of numbers, Linux distribution. IBM has clearly received special treatment in the GPL 3.0 language protecting them from the new provisions suggesting they, at least, may have done this.
If the GPL 3.0 reduced the potential market for covered products by 90% would it still receive this support? 10%? It's likely something in that range. Might be interesting to know what that is, but then if I'm trying to promote this there is every reason I wouldn't want anyone to know that number.
All the more reason to find out what it is... Good idea for a column, thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
The way to counter FUD is with truth, but another is to cover the problems up. And a common ploy for people in business or politics is to try to do exactly that often, in these discussions, we have both unwarranted attacks and cover-ups. For instance how often do we discuss IBM's position http://www.crn.com/software/198701024 on the GPL 3.0 draft and the special dispensation they got?
But my point is that anything that weakens OSS works to Microsoft's benefit, this discussion topic alone would seem to support the conclusion that Microsoft should like this. That's the point.
Better advice might be to actually read the thing and reach your own conclusions. Doing what someone recommends, or the opposite, blindly would be stupid in every case. No wonder you sign yourself Anonymous Coward, I wouldn't want to be held accountable for such a foolish statement either.
Also I wonder if "distribution" would also encompass companies that provided products under the GPL to contractors or outsourcers? Most large companies have contract workers, who are not under tax law considered employees, and when you outsource there is clearly an arm's length relationship with the company you outsource to.
Now you could fall back on enforcement, as I doubt this kind of a breach would be high on the list for punitive action but what if the firm was doing something else that FOSS didn't like or a competitor wanted to cripple the company, could this then become an attack vector?
Maybe you've seen this discussed but I haven't yet. Also, and this suddenly strikes me, what is the cost of the GPL 3.0 to OSS in general and if it applies to Linux, Linux in particular? Were OSS a company the CEO, if capable (and that isn't always certain) would ask for a cost/benefit analysis. I haven't seen that either. But it would appear that the GPL 3.0 will decrease the market for covered products because it is more restrictive. TiVo alone could actually be the biggest, in terms of numbers, Linux distribution. IBM has clearly received special treatment in the GPL 3.0 language protecting them from the new provisions suggesting they, at least, may have done this.
If the GPL 3.0 reduced the potential market for covered products by 90% would it still receive this support? 10%? It's likely something in that range. Might be interesting to know what that is, but then if I'm trying to promote this there is every reason I wouldn't want anyone to know that number.
All the more reason to find out what it is... Good idea for a column, thanks!
Often we accuse large vendors of losing track of their customers. MSFT has been historically blessed by competitors who, by focusing on MSFT lost track of who really pays the bills. Two earlier Slashdot posts: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/02/ 2219230 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/04/002021 3 got me thinking about just how much Microsoft will benefit from GPL 3.0 and I posted the following as a result: Why Microsoft Loves GPL 3.0 http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/rob/?p=119&pag e=2