Microsoft Calls for Truce With GPL and Linux? 464
An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article discussing Microsoft's efforts to reach out to the open source community. The company is hoping to find a common ground with softare released under the GPL, so that OSS and Microsoft products can interoperate. From the article: "The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, 'This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that.'" A related article mentions Windows server Expert Jeremy Moskowitzs' call for a truce between the Linux and Windows communities.
Re:Media Transport Protocol (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and the fact that its a pointless re-invention of an already well-supported, trul open standard (PostScript), using an entirely unsuitable XML schema, is neither here nor there.
It's time to make a list. (Score:5, Informative)
#1. Media transport protocol - specs so it can be implemented in a GPL-friendly app.
#2. Whatever it takes to allow Linux-based workstations to authenticate via Active Directory - again, GPL-friendly.
#3. Specs so NTFS disks can be read/write under Linux (GPL-friendly).
What else? If they want to talk about "cooperation", then we should be able to give them a list of items that they can start "cooperating" on.
Re:Follow my analogy (Score:3, Informative)
Please do not compare OSS to a nude beach. It brings to mind thoughts of nude OSS programmers, and that way lies madness.
I've got bad news for you: the sorts of people who go to nude beaches look more like OSS programmers than Halle Berry.
Re:If they really want truce... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Informative)
The Rich Text Format (RTF) [wikipedia.org] is a specification that was used in Microsoft products starting in 1987. However, as far as I can tell, version 1.0 of the RTF specification was published in 1992. The assertion that RTF predates "everything else in the opensource world" is not just false, but amazingly out of touch with reality. For example, the RTF specification was published:
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Informative)
But you ignored my original point. MS has NO INTEREST in supporting ANY kind of open source effort in any way shape or form. They have proven it by their past statements and actions. They have refused to play nice in every standards organization and interoperability effort. Sender-ID is one example. Open Doc is another. Restrictive "anti-oss" licenses on documentation and code. Refusing to release basic protocol documentation in violation of agreements with the EU. I could go on and on and on. Any talk Microsoft spews is just that: talk. It's all one sided with MS. Do things our way. Bend to our will. You must change, not us. That attitude and behavior is going to get them NOWHERE with the OSS community. They KNOW this. This "new" effort is just another PR FUD scheme. The MS schills will all hail this as "an opening up", "embracing" move. Bullcookies.
Here is what MS would do if they wanted cooperation with the OSS world:
- Eliminate the license for Sender-ID and offer a non-revokable license to use any related patents
- Release full documentation for CIFS and the active-directory extensions they made to Kerberos, again with nolicense or patent restrictions
- Release full documentation to the Word / Excel / Powerpoint binary file formats, and adopt opendoc
- Fully support PNG and modern w3c web standards (css2, etc.)
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't make sense, because using the other licenses (e.g. the LGPL) is the way to interoperate with GPL systems!
Generally speaking, most GPL code is in applications. The only reason anyone would be trying to connect their proprietary code to it would be to make a proprietary version of the application, which is exactly what the GPL is intended to prevent!. There is no problem making stand-alone applications for Linux because most system libraries are LGPL (or similarly permissive), not GPL.
First of all, they usually don't have to reinvent the wheel because most libraries aren't GPL to begin with, as I just said. Second, yes, it is reasonable because the point of the GPL is to prevent people from using it without reciprocating!
Microsoft wants to force you to use its product, by "embracing, extending, and extinguishing" the competition, and it wants you to pay dearly for the "privilage" (by handing over both money and control). The GPL just wants you to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Here's the bottom line: You can't directly link proprietary code to GPL code becasue that's what was intended! However, direct linking is not required for interoperability. Therefore, Microsoft has no excuse for lack of interoperability.
Re:It's time to make a list. (Score:4, Informative)
That's a load of BS. If Microsoft cared about open formats, they'd just use the perfectly good ones we've got now, like OpenDocument, PDF, OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL, Java, Ogg, Vorbis, FLAC, Theora, HTML (as opposed to "MSHTML"), NFS (as opposed to SMB), and god knows how many others.
If Micrsoft cared about open formats, they would have stayed on the OpenDocument standards committee! But instead, they're trying to sabotage OpenDocument by claiming their format is open, when it's actually not.
Other than your unsubstantiated assertion, I have not seen any evidence that "OpenXML[sic]" is acutally unencumbered (including patents). Until then, I'm going to continue to assume that you're a shill for MS, and nothing more.
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Informative)
BULLSHIT!
C# is an ECMA standard. Parts of the .NET API are encumbered by Microsoft patents and not legally implementable by Free Software (which means Mono can never legally be fully compatible, AFAIK).
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Informative)
SFU: For talking to *nix clients using nfs, ldap and interact with AD
Hah. You've never actually used SFU, have you? NFS support doesn't work unless you authenticate against AD- that means making your AD server your NIS server. SFU's "porting kit", btw, consists of (get this) GCC, CYGWIN, and a number of other free softwares.
RTF Format: As an open spec that predates everything else in the opensource world
Ah, no. TeX predates RTF by about 10 years.
Check again. The ECMA submitted runtime lacks the entire WinForms interface. That is, if all you want to do is make text-based hello world programs, that's fine, but it's a far cry from usefulness.
Open XML as EMCA standard
It's ECMA. Again, OpenXML is worthless. It's got almost zero marketshare. I wouldn't want to pick up that tar baby either.
Wix install set: For open software to create installers for windows
But only ON windows. It relies on API that aren't public to do so. This negates cross-compilers, and makes farm-work difficult.
IBuySpy Portal(Dotnetnuke is based on)
Again, zero marketshare.
It is easy to blame when you look at only one point of view
I agree.
Sure MS should be releasing docs for smb, cifs, AD, rdp(dont know if they actually control it) etc.
They indeed should be! See below:
should they for free (open) that is debatable....
No it's not. They were so ordered by a US Federal Court. They are convicted criminals, so it's not debatable at all. They continue to break the law, and they continue to hurt Americans and the world at large by continuing to have turd-covered shills pretend that Microsoft is some kind of company. It's not. It's an illegal monopoly. Move on.