MS Wants To Outlaw Open Source: "Threatens" the "American Way"

EnderWiggnz was one of the people who wrote to us about some interesting quotes from Jim Allchin, main Windows guy at Microsoft. Essentially he argues that Open Source undermines intellectual property (which is true) but that it also stifles innovation and he "...can't imagine something that could be worse then this for the software business and intellectual-property business." My favorite quote:"I'm an American, I believe in the American Way,'' he said. ''I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat." Wow. I know - let's blame Canada! That seems a logical next step!

OPEN SOURCE DOES NOT UNDERMINE COPYRIGHT

..or intellectual property. Not exactly, and maybe not at all.

Understand that open source, or, to put a finer point on it, GNU and the GPL, is based on the exact principle that others' more proprietary claims are based on: that creators' can say what others may do with their intellectual inventions. Note that open source software is not released into the public domain, where anyone could do anything they want with it, including creating a new version of it and claiming that creation as their intellectual property; there are very important restrictions on the use of GPL'ed intellectual property, of which we're all aware. There is still a license in other words. If you violate that license, in theory, the custodians of the GPL'ed software could sue you in court, just as more proprietary corporations can if you break their licenses.

Of course the GPL is a million times more humanitarian than Microsoft, and their ilk. But there's a reason RMS called it Copyleft, which is that open source software is still copyrighted, but the conditions of its use and distribution are exactly opposite of those of proprietary software, where rights are not to be distributed with the program.

Whats next

Next they'll be touting that the Department of Justice threatens the "American Way" (or at least M$'s version of it.)

Re:Where in that article does it say...

You're right. The article doesn't say that Microsoft wants to outlaw open source.

It just says that Jim Allchin, the Windows operating-system chief believes that freely distributed source:

• Stifles innovation
• Destroys intellectual property rights
• Kills research and development
• Is the worst thing for the software business

...and that legislators need to understand the threat.

When I put those things together, I get the impression that Microsoft wants to outlaw Open Source. YMMV.

Re:Intellectual property

Territorial distrust is the key concept here. Microsoft does not know how to assimilate this open source territory into their own shop, because it breaks the very foundation of their ideas, beliefs and business models.

Unlike humanity, the software world is not bound to the same "physical" territories that have caused man to consume his way into every culture that has come and gone and been assimilated. We have pushed out those that came before us and rebuild when we destroy... the "territories" as they exist in the virtual realm don't obey these rules. When you take money out of the equation and seperate from the world of Microsoft vs xyz corporation, Microsoft was able to dominate by conversion or persuasion or harrasment.

The OpenSource model breaks this cycle by taking money out of the equation. In effect creating a new territory (although not that new) that has come into a maturity of its own that now provides man with an alternative. Shall he continue flying with MS into a world that will eventually crumble at its own overweight blunders, or will they give a chance to evolution? A chance to experience a new territory?

Who knows? Only if we allow MS to continue their propoganda will they scare the masses away from exploring new territories, and therein lies the danger of Microsoft.. not in stifling the competition, but in stifling the territories we are allowed to play in.

thanks for listening... people have been trying to step all in my territory today... sigh.

Re:Highest Standard of living?

What you're saying is something like:
In my city there's a guy which owns a Ferrari. Another one owns a Jaguar. Cars in my city are the best in the world.

Wrong

Just because there's a Ferrari and Jaguar in your city doesn't mean all cars are good. All the rest might be "how do they manage to still work", "rusting junk" sort of cars.

Try "average quality of universities" instead of "top 10".

Comparison

If Microsoft had invented the electronic calculator machine, intead of Texas Instruments, Microsoft would be lobying now to prevent teachers form teaching math/algebra in the basic schools:

- Teaching math/algebra harms the electronic-calculator industry and causes the loss of many jobs.
- Doing math/algebra calculations manually is a stone-age thing, because the new calculators will do it for you.
- Calculators are much more user friendly than paper and pencil.
- Calcalators and much easier to lern than math/algebra and you don't even have to learn how it works.
- Although doing calculations manualy is free, an electronica calculator provides a better TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), because you don't have to train people in lerning math/algebra.

They must read RMS

He does talk that way.

[fsf.org]
Is Microsoft The Great Satan? Apparently they're just one unusually large and nasty demon in the horde of Hell-spawned proprietary developers.

This guy is a seriously demented nutcase, as are his followers. I've been saying so for years.

There's a difference between reasonable free software supporters who see advantages in efficiency, education, and security, and Free Software fanatics who see a moral crusade against evil monsters releasing programs without giving away the source code (horrors!).

Various RMS quotes (gathered from the philosophy page at the FSF):

"GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area"
(Now where would someone see a threat to innovation in such an innocuous remark?)

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."

"it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now."

"All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development."
(and he claims not to be a communist!)

"[in some utopian future where people work 10 hours per week] There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming."
(there never was a need; any programmer could survive flipping burgers now)

"The economic argument goes like this: ``I want to get rich (usually described inaccurately as `making a living')...''"

He honestly seems to support that programmers should be materially impoverished, not enriched, by their rare and highly useful talents. They should do it "for the good of humanity". To Hell with a new computer every year, high-speed internet, and a comfortable home for your family.

There's every bit as good a reason to argue that people should let any stranger come along and take his car whenever one wants (see how much more use it gets! there's a profit for society!), or farm and give away all the food beyond what they need to survive (how evil to be willing to let it rot if nobody is willing to pay for it!).

But none of those ideas make sense. People want more money than they need to survive; generally the more the better. People can be selfless in emergencies, but on the whole, they look out for themselves first. Telling people that they shouldn't follow their own self-interest may be met with public applause but will be disregarded in action, assuming that they won't serve themselves is just plain wrong.

These economically unsound ideals are exactly why the Free Software movement is so often compared to communism: if you go by the FSF propaganda, it is based on the same wrong assumptions about human nature!

Aside from a few fanatics and students (who make lousy stuff because they're just learning how), people program for some benefit from the final result. Many free software programmers just want the software they're working on. Some want to build up their resumes, others plan to sell documentation, service, or even merchandise. Some hope for donations or sweetheart stock deals.

The reality is generally quite sensible. We're still working out how to properly reward innovation, and there's still a lot of unsound FSF rhetoric infecting most discussions, but when you look at actions rather than words, progress is occuring toward a reliable system of rewards.

While I think RMS tells himself he's being self-sacrificing and noble by not "getting rich by cheating his neighbors", I think he's got some ulterior motive. Namely, I think he wants to be a celebrity. He's a ruthless self-promoter through putting his name on everything GNU and FSF then pushing the GNU name (anyone remember LiGNUx?). Like communist revolutionaries, idealistic rhetoric masks private ambition.

RMS and the FSF are threats to any reasonable economic behavior WRT software, whether free or proprietary. We have to be ready to denounce such lunatics if we don't want to be tarred with the same brush.
---
Karma casino, place your bets!

American Way != free speech && personal freedoms?

Correct me if I am wrong, but being an relatively outsider to the States (Canada). I thought the American way is to promote freedom of expression, and freedom to do what the hell you want, as long as iot isn't breaking any laws. *shrug* guess not :P

Regardless, in a country whose First Amendment (AKA Prime Directive) is free speech, how in the sweet name of Zaphod can MS even think of making this statement... its downright insanity.

Ya know, I used to like Microsoft (in general). I think their Marketing Dept needs a common-sense enima, and most of the products problems are a result of marketroid hype, but now... screw em.


DOS is dead, and no one cares...

Time to strike back

Tip for y'all: It's time to do something!!!

1) Start giving money to the EFF, the EPIC, the FSF, et al. very fast.

2) There are people who are supposed to condemn these kind of statements - they're called Congress. They're supposed to launch investigations into this kind of shit. If nothing else, they're supposed to know that millions of people will be royally pissed off if they vote for anti-Open Source legistlation. Here are all the email addresses for the Senate Tech Committee:

John McCain [e-mail]

Ted Stevens http://www.senate.gov/~stevens/webform.htm

Conrad Burns [e-mail]

Trent Lott [e-mail]

Kay Hutchinson [e-mail]

Olympia Snowe [e-mail]

Same Brownback http://www.senate.gov/~brownback/email.html

Gordon Smith http://www.senate.gov/~gsmith/webform.htm

Peter Fitzgerald [e-mail]

Frizt Hollings http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html

Daniel Inoyue http://www.senate.gov/~inouye/abtform.html

Jay Rockefeller [e-mail]

John Kerry [e-mail]

John Breaux http://www.senate.gov/~breaux/webform.html

Bryon Dorgan http://dorgan.senate.gov/webmail.html

Ron Wyden http://www.senate.gov/~wyden/mail.htm

Max Cleland http://cleland.senate.gov/~cleland/webform.html

Barbara Boxer http://www.senate.gov/~boxer/contact/webform.html

Jean Carnhan [e-mail]

Re:Open Source stifles innovation - is this true ?

Interesting idea, but I think you could also make a strong analogy to the effect of Microsoft on software development, variety and innovation.
Lets consider the main applications; before Microsoft gave us Office there were numerous spreadsheets and word processors in widespread use out there. However, because of some Microsoft undocumented Windows functions, they've managed to take over virtually the entire software Wild West and innovation is stifled by the simple fact that MS either buys out, balks or produces a rival product to anything innovative. As examples I give you: "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run!", Doublespace, IE v Netscape, DR-DOS, and many more.

Innovation does occur in Open Source, and staking a claim as you put it is a very competitive business. Unless you produce top quality innovative code, your co-programmers will clobber your claim area with something more innovative and better.

I think conversely that there is little incentive nowadays to innovate in the MS world, since if your product is really good the 800lb gorilla is going to jump on it one way or the other....

MS: Masters of Orwellian Marketing

It's here: Doublespeak. It's finally arrived, courtesy of Redmond's marketing and advertising. MS has mastered the tactic of speaking the opposite of the truth, and using that to sell...

Just last night I saw a commercial for MS Server software, bragging about how it was so stable, no humans needed to maintain the servers. Hah! In my experience, it's the most fragile and least secure server out there.

And now this. Microsoft has redefined the word "innovation" to mean "mimicing our competition and driving them out of business" -- by "stifling competition," they mean OSS is unstoppable because it's not a business, there's no profit or shareholders to threaten, it's an ideal, a practice. A practice that they can't embrace because it's too foreign to their proprietary mindset.

What's next? Cages with rats attached to our faces?

Not the American Way, the Corporate Way

According to this article at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16933.htm l

Windows XP will itself destroy protected audio and video files that do not "authenticate" with the sound and/or video cards.

Take Allchin's statement, alter it to this:

"I'm a Corporatist, I believe in the Corporate Way,'' he said. 'I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."

Without Free and Open Source Software, there is no counter to the power of the corporations to control the computer the way they now control TV, radio (about to get even tighter in the digital age), newspapers, etc.

Microsoft's attitudes and despotism in forcing `Doze users to accept that level of unrestricted third control over their own property, will only serve to further our cause.

I never did upgrade to 2000, though I do have a dual boot Red Hat/Doze ME machine for gaming. I certainly will never allow Windows XP (XP which seems to stand for "corporate control eXPeriment") anywhere near any of my machines, especially now that I have broadband.

Re:Let's get things straight

If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.

With fewer programmers, the result will be less innovation and worse software.

Furthermore, universities, etc. won't be able to afford to run computing courses,

Hooey, all of it. If indeed you were an intelligent person perhaps you'd have a better grasp of service based economies.

This is really simplifying it, but.

There is $(x) amount in the pool, and a fixed demand. In the current system, where one purchases a software product, there is $(x-y) actually going to the programmers, where y is dictated by the amount of profit the software companies make.

Now in an open model, where the software is free and customizable but there is no support, there is still $(x) and the same number of 'sales', but that $(x) is paid directly to the programmers, support techs, etc, by way of salary. In addition, there is a higher demand for said programmers.

Freedom to Innovate*

[*] offer only applies to corporations. Individuals need not apply.

Poorly written and reported

The reporter seems to have mixed up "freely distributed" (free beer) with "open source" (source code available) with public domain ("no one owns it"). When of course Linux and most open source programs do have an owner; the owner has simply chosen to license their intellectual property in this way and be compensated for it in some way other than selling licenses to use the binary.

But it does suggest a likely way for Microsoft (and others) to attack Linux and other open source alternatives through the US legal system:

1. "free" (as in beer) distribution of IP is bad. (example: movies and music) [and please ignore the hypocrisy of M$ objecting to the free licensing of software by anyone other than M$]
2. Linux is "free" (as in open AND beer) and is developed by many of the same people doing (1). [and please ignore the further inconsistancies in our argument]
3. Therefore, Linux in particular and open source software in general aid and abet illegal activities. Government action to control this is necessary [ignore the flaws in this argument, I'm sure it can be artfully presented]

Another tack would be to sneak language into various spending bills requiring government IT departments to only acquire software that just happens to be rule out use of open source/linux/... Such regulations exist (Posix certficiation, for example), but don't always get enforced.

Although M$'s record lobbying has been poor, they do eventually get things right. And their logical allies (MPAA, RIAA, ...) **KNOW** how to lobby.

should be interesting....

Microsofts free software

I like this quote:
Microsoft distributes some of its programs without charge to customers

Yeah, and exactly WHEN did it start doing that? Did they distribute any significant software for free before Netscape?

Even the development tools where a pain in the ass to get your hands on before then, like the DDK for which you needed to be an MSDN subscriber to get it.

Breace.

Re:In some ways, it does

Amen, brother!

The idiocy of the concept of Corporation As Person needs to be exposed more to the average citizen. Few people today realize that it's the root of all our political and social problems. Rights and privileges no longer belong to the individual citizen, because these corporate "persons" have usurped the roles reserved for individual persons by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And corporations are motivated by one thing, and one thing only: Maximum Profits.

It used to be, in the 17th and 18th century, that in order to acheive corporate status, an organization had to demonstrate that it operated in the public good. And there was no rights to the corporation itself, just a limitation of liability to the officers and exectuives in exchange for their service in the public interest. But somehow this got twisted and tortured into an entity with rights and privileges surpassing that of any entity mentioned in the Consitution. It's wrong and that needs to be exposed.

It's ruining our country. It's ruining the world.

Re:Let's get things straight

Look, I know this is a troll, but it's always good to have a straw man to crush:

The ultimate goal of Open Source is free software. Now this means that you don't pay anything for it.

This is but one of the freedoms that Free Software (not Open Source) brings. However, many people in this world, myself included, are delighted to pay for software even when it's free. It's called 'morality', and if an author would like a gift in exchange for his dedication, I'm happy to offer one. The greater good in this scenario is not that the individual programmer is richer, but that the whole community is enriched by the new, free software.

If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.

That's utter tosh. Yes, I know you're a troll. However, innovative companies such as Cygnus Solutions make large profits and employ full time programmers simply to work on free software! The software is costly to initially create and maintain, but once a single copy exists, every other copy is free. Companies like Microsoft are backwards! They charge nothing to their customers for the expense of creation and maintainence, but charge full whack for the part that's completely free - making copies! Why should it cost more to have 1000 licenses of NT workstation than to have 10? It's exactly the same software on each workstation, duplicated at zero cost.

Finally, you might want to look at this essay on motivation [gnu.org]. I personally expect to get paid for working on proprietary customer solutions at work, but all the programming I do outside work is for Free, in all senses of the word. By doing that, I'm adding value to the software community. I also think it's fair, given how much I rely on other Free programs.

Furthermore, the evidence is that open source does not tend to produce new innovation. For example, desktops such as KDE are based on older products from Apple and MS. When open source is the only thing remaining, innovation will obviously be reduced.

Yes, I know this is still a troll, but currently with things like GNOME, most of the innovation is in the programming APIs and code implementations - the actual user interface is neglected, programmers are just happy to leave it looking like existing interfaces because they're not UI experts, and they at least want the user to be instantly familiar, even if they do just steal layouts (such as M$ does heavily, eg Start button vs Apple menu). Personally, if I were to come up an innovative compression method, the user would not care. All he would care is that my program had the same user interface as zip, otherwise he'd say "it compresses much better, but it's a bitch to use!"

Re:Let's get things straight

Greed is good.
Therefore Free is Bad(tm)
The freedom to share freely what I create because I want to is Bad.
The freedom to give is bad.

THEREFORE

Slavery is the goal of human happiness, especially when everyone else is the slave.

Outlaw Christmas.

[/sarcasm]

Some people just cannot see the fundamental results of the flaws in their philosophy.

Blindspots like this = justifying the crimes they have commited, that they are planning to commit, or wish they could commit.

feh

The freedom of the world is not dependant on everyone becoming a microserf. But microsoft's wealth is. they must grow, or die. And to heck with who they stomp on to get their way.

I make obscene noises in their general direction