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.