Microsoft Clarifies Jim Allchin's Statements

twivel writes "This Yahoo article clarifies their position. It is not "open source" software that "destroys intellectual property", but in fact it's the GNU General Public License that does. I can't wait for RMS' response. " What's interesting is their retroactive clarification that it's about taxpayer-supported software - a silly assurance, IMHO. Why? Because taxpayer software should be kept open - we paid for it, we should be able to use it. Locking it up into companies is not the answer - but Microsoft at least acknowledges other potentials, like the BSD license ^[?] . Check out Dan Gillmor's take on this - well done.

Ah... so they're Pro-BSD

It makes sense that they're Pro-BSD, considering their entire TCP/IP stack is based on BSD code. Can't go trashing that, can we?

GPL is not the problem...

In a loose sense of the word, MS is right that the GPL "destroys" intellectual property. The relevant question is whether or not this is a bad thing (I'm inclined to think it is not!)

Agreed. MS is telling the truth... sort of.

MS is definately telling the truth (well, sort of).

The GPL is definately a borg-ish license (funny considering the picture of good old Bill that slashdot uses). This isn't a bad thing, but it is accurate.

The half-truth is the nonsense about it constraining "taxpayer funded software developement". Obviously he must mean the Microsoft-Tax, since otherwise I would expect that anything developed with money from the public, should be owned by the public.

There are several reasons that Microsoft could be doing this:

1) They are trying to cut down Open Source in the eyes of the uneducated (gee... there's a shocker)
2) They would prefer people use the BSD license so they can just take code and use it internally without worrying about things like having to extend their own code.
3) There is GPL code in an MS product and they are testing the waters to fight the GPL in court.

This last item is uncertain. Without a code review how can you really know when any closed source project uses open source code? Since an independent code review will never happen, this is a moot point (although I doubt even they would do this deliberately since their lawyers would eat them alive).

The amusing bit was the articles comment that Sun is embrasing the GPL. It makes sense. All Sun cares about (for the most part) is selling hardware (and more and more Java). If MS came out and supported Sparc over Intel for WindowsXP Sun would back off (maybe). Right now they are trying to hit MS where it hurts, in the Office Suite.

Keeping tax-payer sponsored software free

Perhaps there is some confusion here. If I release a software under BSDL, for example, that software will *STAY* under that license, period. I can release it under other licenses, as the copyright-owner, but that does not "remove" that source code with BSD license on it from existence.

The question is whether we derivative works of that software to be kept open, or if we want that software to be taken maximum advantage off.

Since we would all be using OSI if TCP/IP hadn't been available under the BSD license, I know to which camp I belong.

GPL stops Rape & Plunder...

of public funded software development.
they are worried if more and more of software
developed at Govt/university centres they won't be
able to help themseves to it, & make a pile of $
off it as they are accustomed to.
Oh, & they are also more than happy to take most
of the Credit.
The it industry invented the Internet.
No. The internet came out of govt funded institutions. What private industry did was to build,capitalize and some would say, exploit it.
Getting them to admit that is hard to admit.
Must be against Libertarian dogma.
Same thing with the human genome.
Turns out that the Celera relied on data from
their publicly funded rivals to finish the job.
The key thing is that the Public will get a better
return on their investment thru the GPL.
Bcs the discoveries and knowledge won't be
borged and will be free to grow in an environment
that allows growth thru both "real" competition and co-operation.
GPL doesn't destroy IP.
The community still has control over the IP.
It's just that they it used in a way that is not
exclusively about money.

Re:Actually, the GPL *benefits* Microsoft.

Apple proves my point. They're using BSD-licensed code and it's probably going to be what keeps them alive.

I doubt the validity of this statement. Fancy marketing (iMacs contain no BSD-licensed code in their cute plastic shells yet) and a hard-core true-believer fanbase who loves well integrated easy to use software is what keeps Apple alive. BSD is making it a competitor again, true, but it didn't make them a competitor when they were way ahead of MS with all proprietary stuff, and it didn't help NeXT much either.

You cannot make money writing or publishing GPLed code. That's why all of the Linux companies are, one by one, failing. This was (and is) Richard Stallman's stated intent! (Read his "GNU Manifesto" for his most strident statement of that intent.)

For every small company that can't make money writing GPL software, there are 500 that can make money by using it. It saves a lot of money at my work that I can use perl for my scripting, apache for my webserver, and php for additional web stuff. I can get these items at no cost and I don't have to worry about them ever disappearing off the face of the earth, while MS can do what they please. So tell me again how this benefits MS and how this is killing companies?

whatever other opponent arises, the two (the GPL and Microsoft) will take him on together and win

You're assuming that the GPL is a single entity. The GPL is just a license, MS is a corporation. As such, a thousand OS's can rise and compete under the GPL while MS gets to play just how MS wants. GPL allows for competition, MS does not. And I'm sure we can agree that competition allows for better software, right? So what if someone wants to found a company based on their flashy OS idea and they want to take code from the Linux kernel to do it? So they can't make money. Big deal. Found a company based on something else and use your resources better.

The purpose of the GPL, to quote from the manifesto you so obviously enjoy referring to, is:

Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air.

Would you like to tell me what is wrong with this? There is nothing that I've ever seen that guarantees anyone the right to make money off OS or webserver sales, why shouldn't this sort of thing be guaranteed to everyone rather than just those who can afford it, so long as there are those who are perfectly happy to give them away?

In the end, I don't really care whether or not some tiny company can rise up and be our savior to fight MS. It's never worked before and it'll never work now. The only way to do it is by inverting the MS model, by totally removing the majority of the value from Microsoft's products, which is what the GPL does, for the good of the individual rather than the good of the corporation. If your sympathy is with the tiny OS or database company that could, mine is with the tiny webhosting company that does. Try to think about where the money (and other benefits for that matter) could go rather than where they would normally go.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Unfortunately you agree with MS

This is going to sound like a Troll but think about it for a minute before answering. Its really not ment as one.
You said:

"Anyone who is paid by the government to produce software, should be obliged to make the software available, for free, to everyone, with no strings attached." (emphesis mine)

Okay, I will agree with this statement but add that the GPL adds a 'string'. It requires that I am not allowed to use that code in an unrestricted manner (ie. a Closed Source project). A BSD style license would allow people to use the code in Open Source projects or in Closed Source ones.

Now, I also agree that if it was produced by taxpayer dollars, then if you want to do use it for Commercial gain, tough, you should re-impliment the code yourself. On the other hand, I can see that perhaps the LGPL might be more apropriate if the work is involved in producing a standard (ie. a referance implimentation) and it can be encapsulated into a library. This would allow it to be used by both closed and open source projects, and would hasten the adoption of the standard, while requiring that any change the closed source project attempts to make to the library (embrace & extend perhaps), is propogated back out to the community (if the use of the code can be monitored in some way).

Perhaps the reference library covered under the LGPL and the actual code itself covered under the GPL, might provide the msot flexability, but maintain the ability for closed source projects to still utilize the work while not surpassing the rights of the individuals.

Just a few thouhts.

Re:You know, it's entirely possible...

...that courts will rule that GPL'd software is in the public domain,

Nonsense. If the GPL is found to have no legal grounding then the software license reverts to the standard copyright, which means NOBODY except the author can distribute the code. The author is then free to pick a license other than the GPL (presumably the GPLv3 which corrects whatever is found lacking).

For a court to rule that GPL'd code is public domain is to steal intellectual property from the author and give it to the public. No court has ever done this. It would create such a dangerous precedent that even GPL hating companies like Microsoft would oppose such a ruling. It would be the destruction of ALL intellectual property.

Microsoft takes a side in BSD vs GPL

This is little more than Microsoft taking a side in the BSD vs GPL debate, namely the BSD side. Moreover they are indicating that the government should take the BSD side too. While I personally prefer the GPL, there are very good arguments in favour of BSD, and so I don't think it is so easy to dismiss his argument.

--

Re:Ah... so they're Pro-BSD

I've seen this too many times to be silent.

There is no proof that the Microsoft Windows TCP/IP stack is based on BSD code.

There. I said it. Now I dare anyone reading this to prove me wrong. I use FreeBSD myself; I'd love to hear that the most popular operating system on the planet used code from my operating system of choice. I know, however, that no one's going to prove me wrong. I know that at least 4 people will post "Look, dork, if you do 'strings' on the windoze ftp client, it says it's bsd!!". And I'll say, "You do know that an ftp client isn't a tcp/ip stack?" I know this will happen because I've already said this, here. (link missing because slashdot's search function doesn't work well)

As much as I'd like to believe that Windows uses the BSD tcp/ip stack, there's simply not proof of it, and plenty of opposing evidence (see the various deficiencies in the implementation in Windows).

Jeremy
--

Re:Restrictions

Blech. The GPL is neither particularly restrictive nor nearly as complicated as most people seem to think. For practical purposes, the GPL means three things to most users:

1. You are perfectly free to run the software any way you damn well choose
2. If you redistribute the software you may not change the terms of the license and must let other people know their rights by including a copy of the license
3. If you redistribute the software as binaries you must make source available to everyone to whom you made the binaries available.

That neither restrictive nor difficult, particularly if you tend to distribute the software as source. The GPL just looks big and intimidating because it's written in legalese to make it harder to dodge in court.

Clever spin

A naive reader of M$'s "correction" could be fooled into a rather negative view of GPL'd software, especially if it's used by the government. They make it sound as if you are obliged to GPL any software you developed if you used any GPL'd software to develop it. Say, for example, I work for the government and used emacs to edit a C program, and gcc to compile it. A naive reader of the M$ blurb might conclude that you have to release the C program that you developed under the GPL.

This spin might succeed at getting a lot of people turned off on open source software. Why, they ask, should programmers in business or government be required to share all of their work, no matter what it is? It might be nice to do so, but shouldn't they have the choice not to?

Of course that's not what the GPL requires -- you only have to share any changes you make on the GPL'd products themselves, not on anything you create using them; and the government is unlikely to get involved in projects like emacs, gcc or the Linux kernel, so the issue probably won't come up at all.

It's a clever bit of FUD on M$'s part, because this impression will have to be answered by open source advocates with another "correction", and the distinction is complex enough that the broad public may never get it.

Stallman Would Agree...

Well, at least in regards to it being an "intellectual property" destroyer. Intellectual property, for Stallman, is the commoditizing of information, which the GPL exists to prevent. So, I don't think he'll object to the statement, what he (and I) object to, is the rather flawed conclusion that this clarification makes.

Why should our governments contribute to closed-source development? It doesn't benefit their citizens, on the other hand, Expect is great tool that came from Government open source (it's public domain, mind you)

Also, it's convenient for Microsoft to support the BSD license, as it's a frequent source of Microsoft applications. (Run 'strings' on ftp in Windows NT/2k and you'll see)

The GPL prevents this, hence, Microsoft cannot easily 'embrace and extend' GPL software.

In no way am I against the BSD license, but it does facilitate the opposite of what the GPL represents.

Why, of course!

They can steal stuff from BSD-licensed software without any problems, thus enhancing their "Intellectual Property". GPL makes them give it back, along with any enhancements, thus devaluing their "intellectual property". I believe Exchange includes BSD-licensed software -- parts of sendmail, maybe? THe copyright includes "the regents of the university of california."

I wonder if they will mount a legal challenge to the GPL now? And how will they do it? Release a closed-source version of some GPL program, perhaps, and then litigate it? They wouldn't lose much -- the 'penalty' would be for them to release the source for their modified program, which I doubt they would care about anyway. I also wonder if another company would defend the GPL -- IBM perhaps? Sun, now they they're including Gnome with Slowlaris (yeah, we'll see)?

- - - - -

innovating stemming

In other words, Microsoft representatives warned, "anyone who adds or innovates under the GPL agrees to make the resulting code, in its entirety, available for all to use ... [which] might constrain innovating stemming from taxpayer-funded software development."

"...Because if you are taxpaying, you are not deserving of the innovating stemming from your tax-paying-paid developing, which, because, uh, if everyone can be using and adding to the source coding, this innovating will be belonging to the tax-paying, and not to whomever the tax-paying are paying to be developing.
"And then maybe your base will not be belong to us," he added.

Re:Makes sense to me

If the government is going to be paying people to produce software, the software should be open for all taxpayers to use. Including closed-source software companies.

But GPLed software is available for anyone to use. Right of unrestricted use is part of the license. Closed-source software companies can even distribute GPLed software. Microsoft could release its own distribution of Linux if it particularly felt like it. They just aren't allowed to slap on a different license. In fact, IIRC, Microsoft already does distribute some Open Source software (under its original license) as parts of some of its multi-part software packages.

Actually, I agree that government originated projects shouldn't be licensed under the GPL. I think that it's probably better for them to be released under something like the BSD license or public domain that allows the broadest possible use. But that shouldn't stop the government from contributing to GPLed projects already in progress (i.e. NSA high security Linux) if doing so is a good way of achieving government aims.

Makes sense to me

If the government is going to be paying people to produce software, the software should be open for all taxpayers to use. Including closed-source software companies.

Remember how anyone who did government-funded research in the US had to put in place provisions allowing the US government to use their research for free? The same should apply, only more broadly, for government-funded software projects: Anyone who is paid by the government to produce software, should be obliged to make the software available, for free, to everyone, with no strings attached.

Oh, and WTF is a retroactive clarification? Is it supposed to be in contrast to a proactive clarification of the form "I am about to say something confusing, but what I will really mean is..."?

Re:GPL is not the problem...

It doesnt so much "destroy" it as make it very difficult for Microsoft to buy, assimilate or steal. Which makes it rather difficult for Microsoft to maintain their primary forms of "innovation".

Windows 2000...

c:\winnt\system32>strings ftp.exe

!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB
exe\ftp.dbg
!SEINEEW ERA SREENIGNE EPACSTEN
.exe

Re:Stallman Would Agree...

e:\winnt\system32>strings ftp.exe

!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
[...]
GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
exe\ftp.dbg
.exe


- - - - -

Why this is good news!

If Microsoft are getting genuinely worried about the GPL, as this article would suggest, then it would seem that it's working.
I personally cannot wait for the day when we don't need to worry about software licenses because there is no such thing as non-free software. Until that day, I believe we need to release (almost) all our code under the GPL, or we have the potential to unwittingly help those who are against freedom (witness the large chunks of BSD code within the various MS operating systems). Microsoft speaking out so strongly against the GPL proves that this is obviously the correct tactic to be taking.

--

Re:Ah... so they're Pro-BSD

If software can be morally owned (and most people think it can be),

Is this supposed to be an argument? Most people think Britney Spears is "all that".

then you have no rights to compell the author to license it the way you want. ... Before you can outlaw closed source you're going to have to eliminate free speech and free press, and get rid of the entirety of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

*backs away slowly* Okaaay...

Where exactly did this comment come from? I mean, it's true, but in the context you said it in, it makes no sense. And frankly, that worries me.

Nobody - not even RMS - is trying to compell you to use the GPL. If you ask him, he'll tell you that you should use the GPL, and he'll tell you why. But he won't try to force you.

Unless you think I'm "forcing" you to GPL your software because you want to use my GPL'd software in yours, in which case you'd be complaining that you can't do something which you couldn't do anyway if my software was closed.

Look, here's the simple deal. Free software benefits the populace more than closed software. Free software is better. No one wants to outlaw non-free software. We just want to get rid of the system in which people are rewarded for making their software non-free. Which is not the same as being rewarded for making sofware, so don't try that.

And according to my dictionary, that means it's proprietary.

So in your dictionary something is proprietary if the author wishes to keep others from taking it and making it proprietary. I guess that means that in your dictionary I think I own the air I'm breathing because I wouldn't want someone else to take it all and then sell it back to me.

are you kidding?

I worked at Microsoft on the Visual C++ team for a couple years. When Netscape finally threw in the towel and made its browser free, we were specifically instructed not to look at, touch, or go anywhere near Mozilla's code or website.

This was a fairly big deal for me and I wasn't even on the Internet Explorer team. Imagine the grilling those guys got.

Other companies may covertly use GPL'd code, but Microsoft is very, very anal about avoiding it. They understand that they are a target; they are always under the spotlight and cannot afford the PR disaster that would happen if they were caught using GPL'd code in a non-compliant fashion.

They may implement something from scratch, or find an alternative, but it certainly won't be done by the same people involved in an audit of GPL code.

Best regards,

SEAL

It will be an interesting century

A single thing is clear in the article. Microsoft is scared to death.

Finding why is quite easy. RMS wanted to kill IP, or at least to guarantee that you can use a computer without selling your soul. He deserve credit for starting the fight.

But MS didn't care about RMS.

Then linux came. A toy operating system. MS was a bit scared by linux, because it attacked its bottom line. They used FUD tactics against it, and failed miserabily, because it only gave linux more momentum. MS could have destroyed linux a few years ago (hiring key developers, releasing a MS linux, playing strong-arm with early adopters and media, dealing with EOM to close hardware, obfuscating protocols, actively detroying linux paritions at install, challenging the GPL, pushing BSD ahead), but the anti-trust trial probably prevented this to be done at full force (they did a bit of everything, but no real move). All in all they were not really scared.

Then, in a couple of years, IBM embraced linux, Sun embraced GPL, several office clones where released, desktop environments were becoming standard. This is scary.

What are the key applications of MS ?
* The OS. Free OS exists
* Internet Explorer. A key app to get people hooked to windows. Mozilla exists, and can't be destroyed.
* Office. Office clones exists.
* Backoffice. This is ta big advantage remaining. No open source product can stand against SQL Server or Analysis Services. But joe random user don't care.
* Visual Basic. Another advantage, cause it is the de-facto development standard on windows. They integrate it in every app, to make it ubiquitous.
* Third party apps. Mostly DirectX games (see around yourself people that use computers. What are the apps they use that have absolutely no free counterparts ? Recent games. Most lusers I know that run windows at home uses IE/OutlookExpress/Word and 5 or 6 games). Be sure that the x-box strategy is the to re-inforce that.

Anyway, FUD have been showed not to work.
GPL prevents embrace and extend.

Note that the sole protection (beside its huge amount of users) of 'open source' is the GPL. This is what prevent MS to "compete" (ie: getting inter-operability by using the code, modifying code, then preventing open-source to play catch-up).

Anti-trust trial is over (anyone that think that US govt will do anything is dumb beyond belief).

Microsoft is flexing its muscle and will probably try many simultaneous tactics.

Getting govt to refuse GPL would be a huge point to them. What they really want is probably to get universities to ban GPL (something like : you can't get govt fund if you produce GPLed code, or better, if you use GPLed code). It is a war for developer mindshare. It'll take years to get that. They need to pervert public perception of the GPL. They need to dramatically decrease the amount of GPL developpers.

Another attack angle that is obvious is the divide tactic. MS will play BSD against GPL. Unfortunately for them, the issues of GPL vs BSD are well known, and most intelligent people understand that both licenses have their use (and LGPL have its use too).

An interesting attack angle is the court challenge of the GPL. You can bet that millions of dollars are currently spent to find how, and to bribe key people. But will MS have the balls to challenge the GPL ? This would be a disastrous PR, in an order that have never been done before. They may loose big time.

Most promising angle of attack, is to totally change the rules of the game. Getting content protection into the hardware, promoting the use of 'trusted' system software and 'trusted' media applications, is a way to prevent *any* digital media to be delivered to open-source platform. OTOH, it is also a way to push people into a 'free' media system. After all, it is the proprietary software mess that started the free software movment. Making media distribution proprietary is perhaps the best path to a free-media system...

Anyway, the free software camp is getting stronger everyday. It will definitely be an interesting fight.

Cheers,

--fred

Re:they are giving something away...

Spot on. Moderators, up the parent of this thread!

Allchin is a thug. An intelligent thug, but a thug nonetheless. He plays the heavy in negotiations where M$ are trying to bully a smaller company into giving away their only asset for a pittance. Are there any /. readers with first hand experience with Allchin? (most people who survive a double-barreled "negotiation" with an experienced M$ hit-team tend to take the cash and move to a tropical beach or teach kindergarten and never touch a computer again).

Allchin is a top-level M$ exec, and as such he must sit in high-level strategy meetings. Certainly the topic of these meetings is how to ensure their glorious leader can sleep better at night. So when a strategy committee punted around ideas on what is causing the holy emporer to lose sleep, the GPL came out as a major cause. The solution, obviously, is to attack the GPL by changing the laws it is based upon. If Disney can change copyright laws through the Bono act, M$ can tweak laws to eliminate the viral effects of the GPL.

So there is quite clearly a cleverly hidden M$ agenda to influence lawmakers in the US, and probably in the EU as well. Allchin just shot his mouth off to make himself seem smarter to some reporter, and tipped M$'s hand. Now they are in spin control.

If M$ follows their usual course of manipulation, there is already a "Political Interest Campaign" underway in Washington DC to "educate" senators on the evils of free software to the american way of life. There is a group of M$ lawyers creating some new laws which can be given to a senator's aides, and subsequently passed off as an original work by the "All-American Hero" senator. Those laws will change copyright slightly so the GPL loses its protections, and will cause the whole body of work to become public domain, or the copyright will be handed over to a "controlling IP body" similar to the MPAA/RIAA.

Others (TheDullBlade [slashdot.org]) are touching on these ideas in various threads, but missing the point on how the courts will be given new laws in which to invalidate the GPL.

Expect this to be a long and drawn out fight. I'll be keeping an eye on DG-13 activities for signs of changes to copyright law in the EU. Whatever influence M$ attempts in the US, they also tend to attempt in the EU.

the AC

Re:GPL is not the problem...

It's not IP that the GPL destroys, but instead the ability for others use that IP to exploit customers and competitors.

In other words, it doesn't destroy Intellectual Property, but Intellectual Profiteering.

--

How Much Do You Value Microsoft's Freedoms?

This is one of those posts that will generate a lot of noise with only one signal: "Yeah, big surprise. They can and do rip off BSD so of course that kind of OSS is OK."

I think the real important thing to remember, and this may throw some logs on the GPL vs. BSD debate (although I hope we can avoid that) is that the GPL is working as intended. It's scaring the crap out of the guys who aren't willing to support the kind of freedoms that the GPL is engineered towards. Meanwhile, the BSD license falls in to an area that's total freedom in which everyone can do what they like, which is perfect for the juggernaut from Redmond.

I think at this point it should be painfully clear that the distinctions between Linux and BSD on a technical level are becoming slimmer and slimmer as they grow towards each other in terms of implementation, while the ideological gap caused by their licenses grows wider and wider.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to how much you value the freedoms of your rulers (i.e. Microsoft). Because rulers get special powers (such as the force of a monopoly) do they get to retain the same rights that you have that are in place largely to protect the little guy? Your answer to that question pretty much determines the license you should release your code under and vice versa, so choose wisely.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Why, of course!

Flamebait? There were three ideas contained in that message-

1. Microsoft likes using BSD-licensed software in their products
   
2. Microsoft may be making a prelude to a legal challenge to the GPL
   
3. If Microsoft plans to litigate the GPL, who might defend it? IBM? Redhat? Andover?
   

- - - - -

Re:Ah... so they're Pro-BSD

Proof?

The Windows For Workgroups TCP/IP help file proudly proclaimed that the stack was of BSD orgin. That stack made it into Windows 95 without much modification.

Well, you'll have to install WfW and find out.

Re:Ah... so they're Pro-BSD

Here's what you missed.

People who GPL code don't care about greedy assholes like yourself. They care about everyone else. The programmers in the next generation who need access to existing code if they're going to learn.

As for you, take the code and quit whining, or leave it, and quit whining. You can make the choice to use it or not, but accept the price.

I myself license the stuff I write (not much) under the GPL because if I've invented anything and given it away for people to use, I don't want them hiding it and declaring it their own, depriving other people of seeing how it worked. This is all choice based, nothing is forcing anyone to use it.

The great thing about copyright is that unlike patents, copyrights cover a specific implementation only instead of the fundamental ideas. If you see something I wrote, write your own. If you can't, you don't have the right to steal what I wrote.

Applied Logic

First some assumptions:

1) You have the right to expect payment for software you have written.

2) You have the right to set whatever payment you want for the software you have written- if you don't like it (or think I'm asking too much), *don't use my software*.

3) Using someone's software without paying for it is *piracy*.

So far, I don't think I've said anything so radical that Alchin would disagree with me. But here comes the twist. I define the GPL as payment in kind. The cost of using my software is that I get to use *yours*. The cost of being able to modify my code is that I get to modify yours. Quid pro quo.

If you don't like this deal, DON'T USE GPL'D CODE.

Here's the punchline. By advocating that you should be able to use GPL'd source code without paying for it in kind, that is *piracy*.

You know, it's entirely possible...

...that courts will rule that GPL'd software is in the public domain, especially GPL'd software that doesn't properly specify contact information to negociate other terms or even who actually owns the copyright.

I mean, shrink-wrap licenses are weak enough when they explicitly state who you're forming a contract with.

I think the viral licensing clause puts it on very shakey legal ground.

I also think that it could well be argued that the license is prejudicial against commercial software developers with malicious intent. The FSF propaganda supports this ("It's exhilarating standing up to an evil empire." anyone?). This might be enough to break the GPL legally.

I just don't think the GPL will stand up in court against a serious attack by a large commercial interest. It really stretches the bounds of contract law, and was, after all, designed to attack proprietary software developers.

Then there's the question of whether a lawsuit against a GPL violator could actually be awarded damages. The copyright holder is not using his copyright to secure a profit for himself, and it's damage to just such a profit that's supposed to be reimbursed in a copyright suit; you're not supposed to be awarded damages just because you don't like the way the violator makes his living. The courts might very well toss out all cases as frivolous.
---

they are giving something away...

With this statement Microsoft is trying to obfuscate alchin's comment so it doesn't sound so stupid. That's where the taxpayer-funded part came in. It's just there to confuse, since it makes no sense and they don't elaborate.

They also pointed out very clearly their next target. It's the GPL and they have it firmly in their sights. Believe me when I say that, even as we speak, there are many lawyer man-hours preparing for a full blown attack of the GPL being paid for in Redmond. They are most likely preparing to come down on the GPL with all their might as soon as their antitrust case is resolved (or settles down, depending on Bush).

I will be anxiously awaiting Microsoft's big move as it is sure to be impressive.

"just connect this to..."
BZZT.

Microsoft Misses The Point

In other words, Microsoft representatives warned, "anyone who adds or innovates under the GPL agrees to make the resulting code, in its entirety, available for all to use "

It only took them more than a decade to figure this out. What a crack legal team.

... [which] might constrain innovating stemming from taxpayer-funded software development."

This is particularly amusing. Apparently the word "innovation" now means "take existing code someone else wrote, and sell it as your own after making possibly trivial changes". The BSD comments preceding this quote seem to support that conclusion as well.

It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of open source. It's a GLOBAL effort, not an effort funded solely by the USA taxpayers. If it was possible to measure value to the Open Source community as contributed by country, I'm sure Australia and Finland would be at or very near the top.

So perhaps Australia should send a great big invoice to the USA government, demanding payment for all the code the USA has been using for free? No, because that's not the point of open source. The point of open source is to increase the value of software to SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, not to the select few individuals that happen to be in the right place at the right time when IBM decides to throw money around looking for a cheap OS for a rushed personal computer project.

Re:You know, it's entirely possible...

Unless the contract specifically states that the contract can be partially enforced, than an invalidation of the contract will invalidate the whole of the contract. In other words, if the contract (the GPL license) is unenforceable, there is no contract unless the contract is explicit about piecewise enforceability. The lack of any contract is not public domain. Rather the rights would properly revert to the copyright holder, presumably, since the license was ruled invalid. It's of course rather complicated, because what about instances of GPLed code where it had been integrated into another GPLed product? On the one hand the license was by definition irrevocable, and you can't take away the derivative work that contains, say 50% of the licensor's work. On the other hand, you can't just invalidate the clause of that stipulates the "payment" terms of the GPL, i.e. that in exchange for using the code in your own derivative work, you must distribute your derivative work under the terms of the GPL.

The body of work out there under the GPL is quite humongous and therefore I cannot believe that a court would just throw away the GPL since throwing away the GPL and ruling all GPLed code is public domain would basically say intellectual property has no meaning at all and you have no say over the use of your IP. It would pretty much by definition have to invalidate most of those shrink wrap licenses that companies live and die by since their terms are often more restrictive on what you can and cannot do with the products than the GPL terms are. Again, you use it, you should know what you're getting into. QED, fuck Microsoft and their whiny, code-stealing shit. They just want to pirate from GPLed code and disrespect the wishes of the copyright holders when they have no inherent rights to use that code anyway. They sure as fuck don't let anybody use their code. Fucking pot and the kettle.

Re:GPL is not the problem...

Read some FSF philosophy ;)

The entire point of the GPL is to make the concept of "IP" obselete. To, litterally, squash the idea from the public mind.

The GPL depends on copyright, its is, at its very heart, an attempt to hack the copyright system to serve the ends of those who wish to eliminate "IP".

Don't take my word for it! Get it right from the fsf website. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy [fsf.org]

For once, Microsoft was right. The GPL *IS* indeed designed to eliminate IP. That is its stated goal. I, for one, certainly am hopeful that it will be achieved.

-Steve

Re:Restrictions

"I am sure to use not only a BSD style license but my own language which specifies what I consider fair use."

While that does allow you to specify exactly what other people can do with your code, it has the unhealthy side-effect of confusing the community at large. I know what the GPL says, I know what the LGPL says, I know what the BSD license says. I'd rather not have to wade through others' home-brewed licenses to figure out what's going on.