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.
More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Insightful)
Look for proprietary Microsoft "extensions" in the near future. All for the sake of "user friendly" and "customer needs".
Let me be the first to say it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This strategy would suck the economic oxygen out of OSS.
So what's stopping them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows Networking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what do you call WINE, Samba, Cygwin? (Tons more, but I don't deal with Windows often enough to have more names...)
-:sigma.SB
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source Software developers have been working very hard for years to create interoperatibility for working within MS Networks. Just look at OpenLDAP, Samba and a number of other systems that have been written to bring *nix and MS products into a state of being capable of communicating with one another.
Microsoft has had a history of moving the goal posts, for no apparent reason other then to undermine the efforts of the OSS teams working on things like Samba, OpenLDAP and many others.
They want the river to flow in one way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I missing something?
Since when has Linux not tried to interoperate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Misleading propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is correct in that "Open source is a way of building software", but the GPL is primarily concerned with Freedom, not the practicalities of building software. You'll notice Microsoft never refers to Free Software, only Open Source. Open Source *is* primarily concerned with the development methodology, and by concentrating only on this issue Microsoft implies that Freedom is unimportant. There's a great danger of thinking only of Open Source, and then ending up in a situation not much better than if you had used proprietary software. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean Free.
open the window (Score:4, Insightful)
Article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gates talks of peace? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Windows Networking (Score:5, Insightful)
Fat chance, or no chance? Take your pick. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see. On one side, we have Microsoft, singular colossus of the industry, abuser of monopoly power, left with naught but a nano-scale layer of public trust. On the other side, we have a great mass of Open Source/Free Software advocates, where the moderate voices are undermined by those whose rational distrust of Microsoft has turned to irrational paranoia and hatred.
I hope there's a Plan B, because this whole "Us vs. Them" thing isn't leading anybody anywhere.
The ball is in Microsoft's court (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS products are by definition "open", meaning that it is up to MS to make the next move by publishing its API's, stop changing API's, stop doing crappy things to the OSS community, and to change it's licensing to allow FOSS programmers to use suposedly "open" MS products.
Hitler and Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, is the time for the FOSS world to be more like the UK and America of old, rather than to roll over.
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where exactly is OSS not being inter-operable?
Re:So what's stopping them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember this: Microsoft's goal is to win. For Microsoft to win, everyone else has to lose. You need to learn Microsoft lingo: 'Interoperability' for Microsoft means 'embrace and extend'. 'Truce' means no more Samba, no more OpenLDAP, no more WINE, no more Exchange connectors, no more Linux, etc. See 'everybody wins'! ('Everybody' meaning 'everybody with stock options at Microsoft').
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Office, Cygwin,etc. -- Make Linux software work on Windows.
Samba -- Make Windows servers work with Linux clients
Samba -- Make Linux servers work with Windows clients
VNC,X -- Make Windows terminals work with Linux servers
VNC, Remote Desktop client -- Make Linux terminals work with Windows servers.
All of these are done by open-source developers. So, tell me, what more would you like open-source people to do? And do you see ANYTHING that Microsoft has done?
It is easy to throw blame around if you ignore the facts.
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:0, Insightful)
Look for proprietary Microsoft "extensions" in the near future. All for the sake of "user friendly" and "customer needs"."
I don't know why this gets modded "troll." Its a simple fact that if things happened consistently in the past, its safe to say that unless something changes to affect results, they'll probably happen again in the future. Given Microsoft's history of decisions (and just about any other megacorporation in power), its safe to say they will try to protect their market share by...you guessed it...any means possible. This isn't "troll", this is most likely the simple truth.
I call Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see your point. Seems like only one side is using closed standards, proprietary code and closed APIs. I don't see how open source is to blame in this matter at all.
Not "Good News" - PR stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not good news. This is a PR stunt and only a PR stunt. This allows Microsoft to say "See...we tried to play nice but they wouldn't play with us. It's their fault not ours; we wanted interoperability but they wouldn't have it." Bullshit. It is almost certain that the type of "interoperability" they desire will only come in terms of closed-source, for-profit products and encumbered IP. I have no problem with this, mind you, but do not delude yourself about this truce: anything they offer that is truly open will likely be end-of-life and irrelevant shortly thereafter.
What does a "truce" with Microsoft look like exactly? Do you think MS is going to open up their proprietary protocols and data formats to the OSS community? How would that work, exactly? What exactly does OSS gain from a truce with Microsoft given that we can assume that they will not be any more likely to open their formats and tools than they are now?
Don't get me wrong: it is perfectly within Microsoft's rights to keep their IP closed and to charge access for it but do not deceive yourself about them wanting to suddenly play nice. What happens if/when some of that proprietary stuff leaks into OSS? Could that be what they are hoping for? Hoping OSS developers, lured under the guise of a truce, think they have rights to use information that they do not - poisoning the well, perhaps?
What about evangelism? Under this supposed truce, are we supposed to stop pointing out the weaknesses in Microsoft's products and methodologies in return for the same? Why would we do that? Who wins in that situation? Certainly not OSS which relies heavily upon word-of-mouth and grass roots efforts to spread; Microsoft wins because potentially fewer people are made aware of other choices that may exist both for operating systems and tools.
I realize this could be taken as an anti-Microsoft rant but what it really is is a "Don't trust Microsoft" rant. These guys are convicted monopolists who have a reputation for stabbing their partners in the back and putting them out of business. Why would/should we trust them when they say they want to make nice?
If they really want truce... (Score:5, Insightful)
the "community" (Score:5, Insightful)
> It's time for the Windows and Linux communities to drop the religious war and [snip]
There _is_ no "Windows community". It's just a giant company and a lot of customers.
> [snip] until the two communities put aside the whole "religion" issue, said Jeremy
> Moskowitz, a consultant and authority on Windows 2000/2003 Server, Active Directory
> and SMS [snip]
{sigh} There's no "religion issue". There's free software users who write a lot of
code that they want to remain free. It's their work -- and they want it to stay free.
If you don't like the terms, don't use the software. That's it. There's no religion
there. Now, maybe the Microsoft corporation has a "religious issue" -- like, maybe
it's their religion to dominate the software industry and they don't like there
being anyone else supplying software to the world...
Anyhow, this article seems to be mostly shilling for MS. The author tries to trick
the reader into believing the author's presuppositions and also relies pretty heavily
on quotes from this Moskowitz "authority".
> "At the end of the day, both Windows and Linux bring things that are good, and we
> can all get along and we should look at how we can leverage the strength of each
> to the benefit of the other," he said.
Bleh. What garbage. The free software community wants to get along just fine --
they're _giving_ away their work for goodness' sake.
Unconditional surrender! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just what is it they want to stop?
And why should we accept anything less than unconditional surrender?
Interoperate? We just want freedom of choice (Score:5, Insightful)
All microsoft need to do, is implement and support the same open standards. This "war" they talk about having a truce in, is because their products are using proprietary formats and/or protocols, which force people to use their products.
People like choice, whereas microsoft try to take away your freedom of choice because that's easier for them than offering a better choice in a free market.
If they would make sure all their products complied with published standards (or help create such standards, where non already exist, and in an open way involving any interested parties), then opensource would have less of a need to compete and fight against them.
All i want, and i`m sure many people agree, is freedom to choose. I absoloutely despise the idea of being forced to use any particular product, i want to be able to choose whatever suits my individual needs best.
Currently i won't use microsoft products, because they seek to remove my freedom of choice... If they implement open standards and provide me this freedom i would consider using them based on the merits of each individual product.
Lacking in sincerity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Insightful)
The onus is on Microsoft's side to change - not on the GPL's side. Talk is not change.
Why did I bring up Sender-ID? Because it's a prime example of how non-GPL and GPL applications interact, without even getting into compiling and linking issues.
Re:remember folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly (Score:5, Insightful)
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:2, Insightful)
If they want interoperability then ........ (Score:5, Insightful)
- Where did they go once ODF was being finalized ??
- Why don't they let the Mono guys present at Windows Conferences ??
If Microsoft wants interoperability they must realize that interoperability does not mean everyone else bending over backwards for them. It means working with other Companies/Individuals to ensure that EVERYONE benefits from it, not just Microsoft.
Great/NTFS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what's stopping them? (Score:3, Insightful)
If there has been a war, it is Microsoft's war (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing the GPL does is that it requires you publicly redistribute, on the same terms as the stuff you got, any changes that you make. It does not stop you or in any way prevent you from independently developing the same software. Nor does it attempt to prohibit you from running other software which use other licenses or operate on other systems. Microsoft has routinely used its EULAs to do exactly that. This is Microsoft's war, not Linux's, and Microsoft is the only one that can end this war, when it chooses to stop fighting. But to do that would require Microsoft to change the way it has been doing business.
Microsoft has become rich as a result of proprietary software and vendor lock-in, and for it to change its way of operating to no longer do this would require a complete change of outlook. (Pun unintentional)
Paul Robinson
Why doesn't the author get the facts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, Microsoft is calling a truce... I soooo fucking believe that.
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't say that it's totally on MS to change. The GPL makes it very scary / tricky / hard for a business which is based on proprietary software to work with anything that has the 'taint' of the GPL on it. The GPL license could certainly be more big business friendly, without giving up it's...uhm... FOSSicity
The problem is basically a case of 'minority rule'. A minority of code, if it is GPL, forces the entirety to be GPL. To compare to current events in the real world, imagine if allowing illegal Mexican immigrants citezenship meant that everybody in America became hispanic, or that allowing gay marriage would cause all Americans to instantly become gay. Now I'm not against gay marriage, but I'm straight and I'm happy to be that way. I think this is what MS is dealing with: trying to find a middle ground where GPL software can be GPL and proprietary can stay proprietary and still both be able to play nice together.
The GPL does not do a very good job of respecting the wishes of the writers of non-GPL code who want to work with GPL code, and especially if you're in the shoes of such as MS, it can easily appear to have been written that way specifically out of spite towards big business. I think what MS is hoping for here is that folks who want to work with big business will begin to release under less severe licenses, or that a GPL will be written with more allowances than what currently exists.
Re:It's time to make a list. (Score:2, Insightful)
behead everyone in senior management and put their heads on sharpened sticks lining the drive to the microsoft campus in redmond, to serve as reminder to future generations of ms managers.
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:5, Insightful)
If I release code under the GPL and you want to use it in a closed-source project, come to me and see if you can get access to it under an alternate license. Just be aware that if you intend to make money off using my code, there's a good chance that your alternative licensing will include sending some of your profits in my direction.
What kind of truce is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this a truce? How is this even slightly different from the FUD Microsoft regularly churns out? Is this the new strategy - to portray themselves as reasonable people being unfairly targeted by the open-source community?
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the (abbreviated) history of OS/2, with the resulting Microsoft product being Windows NT. While the open source community can gain a huge measure of legitimacy with the general public through this proposed truce, I would encourage open source developers of any major project to embrace the publicity but keep a close eye out on their "partner".
I just hope that the open source folks who are moderate enough to accept a truce with Microsoft are also wary enough to avoid being shanked in the back.
DirectX (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More like "embrace, extend, extinguish". (Score:3, Insightful)
What you seem to not realize, though, is that that is exactly what people who decide to license their software with the GPL intend.
A trick and some FUD (where's the truce?) (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a load of crap, unless Microsoft is the one not letting GPL programmers also work on commercial software. Has Microsoft ever heard of Red Hat, or are they really that out of touch with what is going on in their industry?
Ahh, and then the trick: "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said. Licenses like the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and commercial software, on the other hand, are quite compatible with one another, he observed."
What's the main difference between the BSD license and the GPL? If Microsoft were to use the GPL in a piece of their software, they would have to give us the code for that piece of software, and with BSD they would be able to just take the code, use it, and never have any further obligations.
In other words, this call for a "truce" just translates to "stop using a license that would make us share our code with you if we use some of your code!"
He doesn't understand what the Free Software movement is: The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said
The goal on the GPL side is to provide everyone with Free (as in 'freedom') Software that they can use and contribute to. The goal on Microsoft's side is to make as much money as possible, however they can.
MS stabs in you back then ask for peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like somebody saying "hey, let's stop fighting" while they're stopping on your face.
Don't like the GPL? Ignore it, like the GPL says! (Score:3, Insightful)
So you think that the GPL is unfair and unreasonable. So ignore it! That's right, just pretend that the GPL isn't even there! It even says right in the GPL itself that you can do this. (Paragraph 5: "You are not required to accept this license.")
There's your answer. Act as if the GPL doesn't exist, and do whatever you want with the software (as long as it's legal, of course)! Comb through the source code. Check out how it works. Make a bazillion copies. Change it around, and make your own version of the program. Better yet, combine it with another brilliant program of yours to make a super-program. Sell it and make a million--
Oh, wait. That's against the law --you'd be breaking copyright. You wouldn't want to do something illegal, would you?
Fine, just bundle it for free when you sell your--
Oh, darn. That's not legal either.
Umm, be a nice guy in general and post it on the web for people to download? Donate the program to a charitable organization?
Nope, that's against the law, too. Damn.
Hmm, what to do? Well, maybe you can ask the original programmer to sell you the rights to the program, so you can use it. Or perhaps you could give royalties. With enough financial incentive, maybe the programmer would be willing to transfer the rights to you.
But sometimes software is created by more than one person, and you'd have to negotiate with each of the authors to get the rights to the complete program. Sometimes even contacting one of the original authors can be a big hassle.
If only there were some way for the authors to state ahead of time, under what sort of conditions they would be willing to give you the rights to their program. This way, if you didn't want to negotiate, you'd still have the option of just fulfilling their conditions, and they've already agreed ahead of time that you get their permission --without your even needing to contact them! You know, some sort of text that they could include with their program (or put up on their web site) that explains all this clearly. They could call it a "document of giving permission". Hey, come to think of it, someone should come up with a word in the English language that means a "document of giving permission".
I'll let you take it from there. Let us know if you come up with any great ideas.