South African Minister Locks Horns With Microsoft

naheiw writes "The South African minister of public service and administration on Monday addressed the opening of the Idlelo 3 free software conference in Dakar, Senegal, saying that software patents posed a considerable threat to the growth of the African software sector (video). Microsoft responded aggressively, saying that 'there is no such thing as free software. Nobody develops software for charity.'"

freshmeat.net? sourceforge anybody?

[by Anonymous Coward]

are they smoking micro-crack again?

Re:Technically true though

[timmarhy (659436)]

you seriously have your wires crossed thinking you can't get paid for coding without software patents. MS knows this. I don't need to patent something to make money off it, it just need to write a good product that people want, if a crappy clone comes along and tries to steal my idea... well that just encourages me to come up with new idea's and to offer a better product or service.

the 2 things MS is terrified of having to compet on.

Re:Technically true though

[rucs_hack (784150)]

Microsoft, in spite if its using the word to death, is simply too large and complex to innovate. Real innovators are far too likely to feel stifled and leave the company.

They aren't capable of admitting, or possibly even acknowledging this any more.

They came to my uni in 2002, and the main speaker, their head of whatever they call their hiring department (he did introduce himself, but I was only there for the pizza) went on what I can only describe as a polite tirade against 'hackers', meaning the proper meaning, not the criminal one. They didn't want them, they wanted people who thought like microsoft did, and were able to do things the microsoft way. A way we were assured was nothing like open source, and far superior.

Their problems quite obviously run deep, and to be frank it was obvious from that one meeting, I was not alone in coming away with that impression (note, not one person at that meeting went to work for them). They want to distance themselves from their hacker origins, but those very same people are what's driving the real innovation in the industry.

Re:Technically true though

[spun (1352)]

Microsoft, in spite if its using the word to death, is simply too large and complex to innovate.

Ah, but you see, they've developed a program to help with that.

"It looks like you are trying to innovate! Maybe I can help you
A.) Wade through mountains of bureaucratic paperwork.
B.) Convince your technically conservative superiors of the merits of your plans.
C.) Steal someone else's idea and market it better.

You've chosen to steal someone else's idea. Good choice!"

Yes folks, it's Clippy's bigger brother, Hangy the wire coat hanger. He helps you abort innovation before it causes real problems AND put the new cover on your TPS reports!

Re:Technically true though

[timmarhy (659436)]

It's a funny thing you know, i know several people who did interships at MS and they all say the same thing - everyone there is brillant, everyone is very very smart.

so how do they fail to be technological leaders ? don't get me wrong i think MS makes a lot of good products, sql server and .net are great products. And i think in many ways them being market leader has them in a damned if they do damned if they don't position - think if they REALLY altered windows vista how many compatability issues there would be?

all that aside though there needs to be a fundamental corperate culture shift at MS. they have consistantly failed to engage their customers, there is no grass roots movement on the ms platform anymore. instead of relying on people wanting to use their platform, they try to trap them into it, which hardly endears anyone to them.

Re:Technically true though

[cheater512 (783349)]

You *have* to break backwards compatibility every couple of years.
Otherwise your software becomes bogged down and very inflexible.

It occurs in open source software occasionally. Look at KDE 4.
They are taking the opportunity to break compatibility in the name of progress.
Any old dusty and hackish code can be thrown away and be replaced with shiny new code.

This is Window's primary problem. Microsoft is scared shitless at breaking compatibility.
However they will need to do so very soon to survive.
Windows Vista is already filled to the brim with hacks and really odd behaviors due to backwards compatibility.

Want to see a really good example of how it should be done? Look at Apple.
They went from PPC to x86 and it was relatively smooth.

Re:Technically true though

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

Exactly, MS stands mostly to attempt to prove that free software can't exist, while doing that they managed to run away from where all the innovation is happening, where it has been happening for the last 20 or more years: the Homebrew/Hacker/Hobbyist scene. Apple saw this, took BSD, cleaned up the kernel a bit, took some free utilities and are now selling a very successful GUI as OS X. MS has to re-invent the wheel with every OS to make it look "new" and distance itself from the free community. This leads to failures such as Vista where it takes a *5*+ year development cycle to produce an OS that is more buggy then most alpha software in the free community. Note to Bill and Steve Ballmer, you can't run a company that ignores a large part of where all real innovation takes place, its ignorent and stupid to act that way.

Re:Technically true though

[kvezach (1199717)]

Without patents, the result will be predictable: most people will keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret. The result will be that academia will suffer as algorithms go from publicly disclosed patents to trade secrets.

And then a clever hacker will reverse engineer the algorithm and leak it to the world. Short of DMCA-type problems (which is an entirely different mess), there's nothing the companies can do since there are no more software patents, and if the prevalence of cracks show anything, it's that any program can be reverse-engineered.

Re:Technically true though

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

I disagree with you about the need for patents.

Ultimately, the best idea is to eliminate software patents entirely. Our software industry grew hugely profitable without them, so there is no demonstrable need for software patents (unless, of course, you have some anticompetitive ideas in mind.) Fact is, they are not helping, and so far as the United States is concerned they're not fulfilling their Constitutional mandate (admittedly, not much of anything Congress passes lately does.) However, if you must have them, give the USPTO the funding it needs to be critical about what truly is worthy of protection (I agree with you there) and shorten the term.

Without patents, the result will be predictable: most people will keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret.

So what? If it's secret, I can't use it, and if it's patented I can't use it. If I make a derivative work based upon your disclosed, patented algorithm odds are you'll still sue me. Without software patents, companies which understand that the only real way to maintain a competitive edge is to keep investing in R&D will simply be encouraged to maintain that investment. Maybe then they'll starting hiring fewer IP lawyers and more scientists, engineers and programmers. I'd say the country would be a whole lot better off if that were to happen. Hell, if you want an argument against software patents (indeed, excessive IP law in general) just look at Asia's high-tech economies. They don't have draconian Intellectual Property laws and they're doing just fine, employing a hell of a lot of people manufacturing a lot of products.

When it comes to software, the reality is this: if there's a way of doing something, there's probably a better way and sooner or later someone will figure it out. Furthermore, if something is protected by trade secret law, it's only secret until someone figures it out. And, if they figure it out independently (or do come up with a better approach) there's no patent system getting the way of that technology being commercialized. Software patents have proven to be a millstone around the U.S. software industry's neck and the Patent Office is utterly incapable of managing them effectively. Given those facts, we're better off without them.

Re:Technically true though

[roggg (1184871)]

... if you don't allow patents, and therefore don't allow programmers to get money in exchange for coding...

Huh? I'm calling shenanigans on you. Patents are not a mechanism by which programmers get paid for coding. They are a mechanism by which legal departments of companies harass their competitors, and by which companies that produce nothing engage in extortion. Programmers get paid to build software.

Re:Technically true though

[nurb432 (527695)]

It does also sometimes serve its original intent, to protect the little guy from having his ideas stolen with zero recourse.

I agree today its not often, but id not say patents are ONLY to support the big legal departments for harassment purposes.

I agree, but...

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

It does also sometimes serve its original intent, to protect the little guy from having his ideas stolen with zero recourse.

I agree, that is the original intent of patents.

But has anyone heard of a little guy using a patent to stave off a large corporation from stealing his ideas in the last decade or so? It only works if the little guy has lawyers good enough to go to bat against the megacorporations likely to steal his patent. Which, of course, means he's not a little guy.

The patent game is a game played by companies with teams of lawyers on the payroll. IMHO, the little guy was bounced out of this arena sometime around 1950 or so. I know I haven't seen it be otherwise in my lifetime.

Re:I agree, but...

[mOdQuArK! (87332)]

No, the fundamental problem with all forms of "intellectual property" is that they attempt to perform a form of social engineering (encouraging innovation) through the violation of free market principles (using government enforcement to reduce competition in the marketplace).

Encouraging innovation by restricting the spread & use of information seems highly counterintuitive to me.

Re:I agree, but...

[mOdQuArK! (87332)]

It's not a free market if you can't negotiate the price at which you wish to sell your own creations.

If you can't sell your own creation for a particular price, then it isn't worth that amount, no matter how much you think it is. Getting special laws passed to have your own business model enforced by the government doesn't count as free market, no matter how much you pretend it does. Although you were very polite about it and your post was well-written, the contents of your response was incorrect in almost every way.

Encouraging people to innovate by making sure they retain the right to sell what they create at the price they manage to get on a market place of ideas is not social engineering.

There is no such thing as a "marketplace of ideas". This is a fantasy which can only be created by using government enforcement to create an artificial scarcity of "ideas".

I'll hazard a guess that because your choice of vocation revolves around concepts & ideas, your desire to control those concepts & ideas is distorting your viewpoint of what constitutes a free market.

I'm a programmer, so I work with concepts & ideas too, but I make the assumption that people are paying me for my service. If I want to keep getting paid, then I have to keep providing service. I don't expect to create a piece of software once, then be paid every time that software is used even when I don't do any more work. That would be greedy, but that's exactly what intellectual property proponents want to be able to force people to do.

Encouraging people to innovate by making sure they retain the right to sell what they create at the price they manage to get on a market place of ideas is not social engineering.

Setting up artificial control of the flow of ideas through government enforcement for the purpose of "encouraging" innovation IS, by definition, using government enforcement to manipulate free market dynamics for the purpose of a social goal. How can you not call that social engineering?

Monopolies are not harmful when they are guaranteed to expire.

This is also incorrect. Monopolies are not harmful only when they don't use their monopoly status to prevent competition. If the time period of their existence is short enough, then perhaps they cause very little harm - but that harm still exists.

Encouraging innovation by restricting the spread & use of information seems highly counterintuitive to me.

Patents don't do that.

That's why I added the "& use" in my statement, since patents definitely prevent you from USING ideas (at least not without paying someone something). Copyrights are definitely about restricting the spread of information.

As far as patents are concerned, if I come up with an idea independently (which happens a lot), why should I be forced to pay someone because they happened to file something similar with the Patent Office a little earlier?

As I stated at the beginning, in a free market, a product or service is only worth what people are willing to pay you for it. You don't get to decide the value of your product or service: the market does. And if you have to depend on government enforcement of a bad business model make your good or service artificially more valuable, then your business model has nothing to do with a free market.

Re:Technically true though

[Znork (31774)]

and if you don't allow patents, and therefore don't allow programmers to get money in exchange for coding

That's called a non sequitur.

Most people who receive money in exchange for their work do so without having monopoly rights. There is no evidence that monopoly rights are necessary for monetizing software development; in fact, there's a vast array of evidence suggesting it's not at all necessary.

That evidence ranges from open source companies on one end to the vast majority of programmers hired for coding specific purpose software which is never released and for which copyright or patents is irrelevant.

On the other side is, eh, Microsoft. Claiming that they need software to cost money or they have no business model.

No shit. Wonder what makes them say that then.

Re:Technically true though

[annodomini (544503)]

While you're certainly correct that most free software isn't written for charitable reasons, there certainly is plenty of free software that is. Look at the OLPC; that's not for profit, or for ego, it's a charity, unless you want to clame that every single charity out there, from ones that fight hunger to AIDS to teaching in developing nations, is just around to "have their ego stroked." Or, to give you a particularly striking example, here is an excerpt from the SQLite source code:

May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

Crazy Taco:

The thing the Africans need to realize is that most programmers prefer to get money in exchange for their coding, and if you don't allow patents, and therefore don't allow programmers to get money in exchange for coding, you have cut off about 98% of your source of new code.

That's absolutely false. 99% of programmers don't make their money from software patents; in fact, most of them would have an easier time doing their jobs and making money if software patents didn't exist. Software copyrights certainly help protect their software and allow them to make money, but the vast majority of software patents are held by patent trolls who haven't written a line of useful software in their lives, or big companies that just patent everything they think they can to use defensively against other companies in case of patent lawsuits.

The problem with software patents is that pretty much every piece of software written is a novel invention, because if it wasn't, then you should have reused code that already existed since it already does what you need. If people patented every new idea they had while coding, they'd be in an out of the patent office 10 times a day, and wouldn't be able to get their work done (credit to Phil Greenspun for that argument). The only people who get patents are, as I mentioned, greedy patent trolls who just want to make an easy buck (it's pretty damn simple to come up with a new, patented idea in code, and then just sue anyone else who happens to think of that and implement it later), and companies that usually get big patent portfolios so when other big companies try to hit them up for money, they can just do a patent cross-licensing agreement and not have to actually fight it out in court.

As a professional, paid programmer, I must say that patent issues are second only to cryptographic regulation issues in terms of laws that have interfered with me actually getting my job done.

Re:Technically true though

[dgatwood (11270)]

There's another camp---indeed, the largest camp of all---the people who code because it solves a problem they have. In the absence of it being a competitive advantage for a corporation, there's no good reason not to share that with others so that it will help solve their problems, too. Lord knows I've done that quite often. Sure, I like name recognition, but I'd still do it even if nobody ever heard of me.

Similarly, when I run into a problem that prevents me from getting stuff done, I fix it and submit patches. They don't always get accepted, but at the very least, they are out there for other people who run into the same problems to use if they need them, and they make the original developer aware that people want a particular enhancement.

That said, there's still a payback. I'm getting useful functionality out of the code---functionality that I would not get without writing it. So pedantically speaking, the Microsoft rep is technically right. That said, since I had to write it anyway, from the perspective of the system as a whole, the existence of the software as a public resource is as close to "free" as you can get; if you don't consider that "free", then there's no such thing as "free" at all, and I would argue that this is a silly way to look at the world. If something occurs for no additional cost (or negligible cost) as a result of a process that you have to do anyway, that something is, by definition, free. Now the act of giving it away isn't free, mind you; there's a possible opportunity cost because perhaps you could have sold it and made money. However, this is lost potential revenue, and the effort that you would have to spend trying to obtain that income usually won't pay for itself anyway. As such, releasing it as open source often truly is free....

Re:Technically true though

[hardburn (141468)]

Yes, there are many developers who write code for no money, but at the same time, I don't know anyone who does it entirely for selfless, charitable reasons.

Vim is explicitly produced as a way to promote a charity for Uganda.

Re:Uh...

[fyngyrz (762201)]

MS Says:

Nobody develops software for charity

Nonsense. Neither the commercial urge nor the recognition grabbing need have spread to cover 100% of those people producing software. Here [ideaspike.com] is a database system in python that I wrote for my own reasons, and give away for free. No "GPL" or other pseudo-free restrictions, just free. PD. Take it. Do anything you like with it. Or not. Don't care. Not looking for money, not looking for recognition, not looking to promote free stuff over commercial stuff or vice versa, no requirements of any kind. Repost it anywhere, take my name off it, whatever you like. It's just... free. What do I get out of it? It works for me, that's all. Doesn't hurt me or compromise me in any way to give it away, so I do.

What Microsoft - and the GPL-fans, for that matter - have oh-so-conveniently forgotten is the mechanism of PD software. Write it, share it, go on with your life. The more people do that, the more useful things will get created. Personally, I find the GPL just as corrosive as software patents, and for very similar reasons. I try to stay away from both. But that's just me.

Re:Uh...

[Sique (173459)]

I think consistent, reliable, updated software is rare. Your database you speak of sounds like a one-off thing. What if someone finds a security hole? Or wants an additional feature? You'll either ignore the request, tell them to fix it, or be annoyed but fix it yourself. For free. What if there are 100 features/bugs that need to be worked on?

What you describe is exactly not software vor charity. You want a service. It may be delivered via software, but it is not software itself.

Re:Uh...

[beav007 (746004)]

with 2.5 cows on Tucows.

2.5/2 sounds like a pretty good rating to me...

Re:Technically true though

[Weedlekin (836313)]

"98% of the source of new code does not come from software patents and I can prove it:

Mac OS X"

And MS-DOS, and Windows, and Word, and Excel, and... MS wouldn't exist in its current form if Digital Research had software patents on CP/M, or Apple had them on the original Mac and QuickTime, or Dan Bricklyn had patented the concepts in VisiCalc, or MicroPro had patented various WP concepts, or Borland had patented the IDE, or software patents had been present on any of the legion of other programs and associated software technologies that Microsoft have blatantly ripped off over the years.

To paraphrase Alastair Crowley: "Do as I say and not as I do shall be the whole of the law".

Re:Technically true though

[Directrix1 (157787)]

Additionally, programmers have copyrights, and software should not even be patentable. And if open source software devs having a ego-inflation from their work means they are not charitable, then the freaking ego-masturbation known as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should not be considered charitable also.

Where is Stallman?

[CRCulver (715279)]

The growth of Free Software in Africa could be encouraged were Stallman to visit the area. His visit to India was enormously successful. Would that we have a better and more cheaply available biography of the man and his vision (O'Reilly's Free as in Freedom [amazon.com] is good, but could be better) that could be distributed to influential figures in the African IT world.

Nobody

[Ricin (236107)]

"Nobody develops software for charity"

Hello, my name is Nobody. You know, the one that's prefect. Same dude.

Re:Nobody

[CRCulver (715279)]

My jaw dropped too to see that South African Microsoft executive claim that. I've done a few transcriptions for CastingWords of recordings of discussions among Microsoft figures, and it's amazing how out of touch they are with the Free Software world. Granted, if you are working at Microsoft you are probably ideologically against the Free Software crowd, but most geeks are curious about other software projects going on just to get fresh coding perspectives--Jobs took a lot from PARC, for example. Microsoft just exists in its own little bubble.

Re:Nobody

[Darby (84953)]

Hello, my name is Nobody. You know, the one that's prefect. Same dude.

I thought that was Ford

Re:Nobody

[Trails (629752)]

You've *kind of* touched on an important point. ;)

The Minister slammed software patents. Microsoft is slamming FOSS. While MS's slam, in and of itself, is flawed, it's also somewhat irrelevant. A piece of software that isn't patented isn't necessarily FOSS.

Consider the one-click buying patent, a favourite whipping boy(rightly so). This could be implemented with .NET, silverlight, VBScript, MSSQL, on windows server 2003, and not patented.

The MS exec is trying to make a flawed implication(that absence of software patents == FOSS), because they think it helps their argument. That it doesn't help their argument is part and parcel to MS's failure to understand the FOSS movement.

In other words, MS is doubly wrong, and Linux pwns Steve Ballmer in the ear.

Charity is an odd word

[jd (1658)]

It's usually seen as something people hand junk to, although the ideal is that it's where you hand stuff that may be useful to others. Chaitable work is not useless work, it's work that can be reused by others. Charity also has a connotation of sacrifice, that you lose something. Never quite understood that. If a charity collects books for a public library, are you then going to be denied membership? If a charity turns desolate, polluted wasteland into a park, are you going to be denied access?

The answer, to me, is that F/L/OSS is charity, a charity that produces information the same way the above charity donating to a library produces information, and is a charity that turns a bunch of metals and chemicals into a finely-honed computing tool, the same as the above charity created a park. What we do is indeed charitable, not because we deprive ourselves, but because we enrich others. The cost to ourselves is zero, because we would have scratched our itches anyway. You can't rationally add as a cost of sharing the cost of pleasing ourselves.

Charity obviously allows for return on investment, it just means that others also get a return on your investment. But it doesn't require that others give any kind of feedback at all. If you make a public park and only you visit, it's still public, it was still an act of charity, but it's an act of charity you get exclusive benefit from.

Microsoft's statement, then, is a dark one indeed. No charity, of any kind? It says that they gain no pleasure in the results of their labour, that they suffer with every release, that every enhancement and refinement is a source of pain. Quality must be endless torment (which would explain some things). It is a bleak future when everything is misery and there is an apparent determination to spread that misery.

If they wanted to spread even just contentment, through their freely-donated hot-fixes, patches and service packs, freely-donated Microsoft Research products and freely-donated e-mail service and instant messenger, they'd be guilty of charity. Since they have denounced the charitable and all their works, these things cannot be given for the use of others. But, if they are not usable, even in theory, what are they? Microsoft's comments deride and slander all who would offer service to others, so the only conclusion is that these things are intended to cause suffering and misery, which - to judge by Vista service pack 1 - is indeed what they cause.

Well, they're right, and wrong, I guess

[ashridah (72567)]

Okay, so in the strictest sense of the terms, he's probably right. Software development isn't a charity.

Free Software (GPL/LGPL) is definitely not a charity, it's a give and take trading system. You put in, and you get out, and it largely self-improves through feedback, patches, bug reports, etc.

BSD comes closer, but still required attribution in the past, and of course, the developers were (back in the day) originally producing it as part of various university projects (ie, they get status in return), and more recently, are developing it as for-profit work, but are releasing it. Again, not charity.

That said, whether the argument's been taken out of context, or is accurate in other ways is another matter.

Re:Well, they're right, and wrong, I guess

[CRCulver (715279)]

Free Software (GPL/LGPL) is definitely not a charity

By "charity", I assume that the idea is that someone writes software with the hope of social change with no guarantee he will himself financially benefit from it. Certainly that idea has been widespread in the Free Software world, from Stallman's early dreams to even (funny how this has now gone a complete 180) Miguel de Icaza's founding of GNOME to benefit children in his native Mexico.

Re:Well, they're right, and wrong, I guess

[grcumb (781340)]

By "charity", I assume that the idea is that someone writes software with the hope of social change with no guarantee he will himself financially benefit from it. Certainly that idea has been widespread in the Free Software world, from Stallman's early dreams to even (funny how this has now gone a complete 180) Miguel de Icaza's founding of GNOME to benefit children in his native Mexico.

Indeed. Just because people don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Do a quick Google for 'ICT4D' - Information and Communications Technologies for Development. You'll be surprised how much work is being done by organisations big and small, and by individuals, too.

I work almost exclusively with FOSS in Vanuatu [wikipedia.org]. Small linux servers running on ancient hardware was the only way we could conceivably have brought small organisations and NGOs online when I arrived some years ago.

The server OS we use is SME Server [smeserver.org]. I worked for the company that created this software starting back in 2000. I went to work for them specifically because of this software's suitability for use in the developing world. After I left these guys, I worked for 3 years as a volunteer using the same software (and a lot of other FOSS as well) to help people communicate electronically, often for the first time.

FOSS is critical to development work. I've written extensively about ICT and Development. This essay [imagicity.com] explains in layman's terms why FOSS is often the right tool for the job.

Just wait

[SnoopJeDi (859765)]

Just you wait, those hooligans with their "Open Source" will start jacking up the price, and you'll be sorry then, but I won't help you then!

You damned dirty liar!

[hassanchop (1261914)]

Nobody develops software for charity.

Quick, someone tell these people they don't exist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1#Software [wikipedia.org]

Disgusting

[arotenbe (1203922)]

Microsoft responded aggressively, saying that 'there is no such thing as free software. Nobody develops software for charity.'

I develop software for "charity" all the time. No one is giving me any incentive, yet I do it anyway.

He added: "For innovation to continue, there needs to be value - and even open-source applications have some form of market model, which incentivises them to continue innovating."

Excuse me while I barf.

PS: What is the chance that the person who said that at Microsoft will be looking for a job very shortly? Having your upper management assert that they are moving toward a more open model and then having some bozo say something like this must look terrible even to the Microsoft Marketing Department (tm).

Re:Disgusting

[falconwolf (725481)]

List two software innovations (i.e. something not copied) done by the linux/hobbyist community please.

List two software innovations done by Microsoft, done by not bought by Microsoft.

Falcon

"Nobody develops software for charity"

[hey! (33014)]

Umm, having developed software for charities at various points in my career, I have to say that is not the case...

Oh, wait, I am a nobody. At least so far as Microsoft is concerned. It's not that I didn't make enough money to "put food on my family", it's just that I didn't make enough to matter and I never will.

However, the feeling is mutual. If I didn't have clients who need products delivered on MS platforms, I'd happily never touch a piece of MS software again. It's not that I'm ideologically against them, but Microsoft doesn't cater to people like me; we're not a profitable market for them. In fact, we're nobody as far as they're concerned.

That's OK with me; the Gap doesn't offer a line of clothing for people like me; the local Evangelical church doesn't have special Sunday services for people like me either. I'm perfectly happy for each of these organizations to provide their services and wares for people who for whatever reason think they fulfill a need. We just move in orbits that, for the most part intersect.

I think the mutual indifference thing breaks down because Microsoft wants to be everything to everybody. They want to have the one important operating system and the one important file format "standard". Since they don't intend to cater to me, the only way for that to happen is for me to have to use products that were not designed with the things I value in mind. The file format thing is a great example. What I want out of office file formats is not at all what Microsoft is prepared to give me.

Some people just don't get it ...

[richg74 (650636)]

there is no such thing as free software

Like the people in the RIAA, Microsoft just doesn't get it. The fundamental issue is not about whether software development is a charity (although sometimes I think that is a motivation), but about Economics 101 and prices in a competitive market. If they had paid attention in class, they would remember that, in a competitive market, the equilibrium price is found where price = marginal cost. The marginal cost of an additional unit of any digital work is very close to zero. So MS, the RIAA, and many others are engaged in an attempt (futile in the long run, IMO) to construct an economic perpetual motion machine by legal schemes and other rent-seeking behavior.

Re:Some people just don't get it ...

[DigitalisAkujin (846133)]

Exactly, which is why the future of companies that make money from computers would be mostly relegated to support and installation. In other words the marginal cost of man power.

Unable to grasp the issues

[downix (84795)]

Microsoft in their arguement has managed to demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the core issue.

Software is not a charity, nobody is discussing it as such.

Software is, however, a written tool, in the end. Control of that tool is the key to empowerment. South Africa, actually all of Africa was held under oppression for many centuries by corporate interests such as microsoft, who held the keys for livelihood out of the masses hands in order to force the yoke.

Microsoft cannot understand why people with such a memory would not jump at the option of putting a new yoke on their necks, to work themselves to death in order to enrich a new foreign master.

Nobody develops software for charity

[trb (8509)]

Set aside for a moment Stallman's "socialist" arguments. Set aside "software wants to be free." Set aside your disdain of certain companies and their software.

Even since the days before Stallman, the reason people shared software (that is, they gave it away for free), is because it is practically cost-free to reproduce. A community of hackers use the same OS and tools. In my life, it's been DEC TOPS-10, then UNIX, then Linux, but no matter. We all run into the same bugs. Better for one of us to fix and share, than for each of us to find and fix the same bug. Better for each of us to write a tool and share with all, than for each of us to have to write the same tool, most of us doing it poorly. It seems so obvious.

Why did Bill Gates become fabulously wealthy? Because he produces a great product? I think not. Because he produces (and markets) an ok product that he can reproduce for pennies and sell for hundreds of dollars each. And he has managed to lock people into using his products.

The point is that economically speaking, there is a strong argument for sharing (and thereby dividing up) the cost of production of tools if you can reproduce the tools for no cost and with no restrictions. Microsoft may not like this, but a developing nation should understand the point.

Yes but...

[ElGanzoLoco (642888)]

"South African Minister Locks Horns with Microsoft

Yes but, were they long horns?

charity case

[debatem1 (1087307)]

God must love idiots, because He made so many of them...

Helping Microsoft with Analogies

[lancejjj (924211)]

there is no such thing as free software. Nobody develops software for charity.

That's like saying that software developers are simply unable to experience altruism because free software development makes them "feel good" - And "feel good" is a form of profit.

If that's Microsoft's position, than clearly this organization [gatesfoundation.org] is just another profiteer.

Microsoft Open License Charity program

[jbeaupre (752124)]

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/opencharity.mspx [microsoft.com]

Oh, the irony! Or is it hypocrisy?

FYI, copyrights and patents are corporate welfare

[argoff (142580)]

He minus well have said - we need slavery, nobody will grow cotton on the plantations for free. The point being that copyright and patent are nothing like a normal property right and are the anti-christ of freedom and free markets. Every 'value' that they have is coerced at the expense of someone else, is asserting control over things they have no right to control, is an artificial monopoly.

Developing for charity

[aneviltrend (1153431)]

Nobody develops software for charity.

Especially not Bram Moolenaar [vim.org].

Is this mostly about employment?

[Ricin (236107)]

Against my nature I RTFA, and I noticed that from MS' side what this seems to be about (if you read between the lines) is the courting of local developers. The comparison with India speaks volumes.

I'm willing to speculate that if you look at market entrance for the (lower) continent SA is likely the gateway. Is Shuttleworth a large employer there? Is it a veiled threat WRT employment possibilities?

It's a tried and tested method used by corporations to get their way, use (potential and actual) employment as bargaining chips to get the government pork.

My, how times haven't changed.

[jimicus (737525)]

"Nobody develops software for charity.'"

I hear echoes of a letter written by a certain William Gates over 30 years ago:

    http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html [blinkenlights.com]

"What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? "

Free Software

[sgt scrub (869860)]

Microsoft have used software libraries that were released by the BSD community in their products for years. They "incorporated" tools written by hobbiests into DOS, back in the day, without any note to the contributors. It only proves they move blindly towards the money, never look behind, and never clean the people they step on off the bottom of their shoes.