“Microsoft’s connection to the anti-Linux campaign being waged by the SCO Group is becoming clear“, Bruce Perens writes in his editorial at C|Net.
The Fear War Against Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Well Bruce, that is just business as usual… I mean, Linux zealots have opened a war against Microsoft for years now. Now, MS is trying to compensate in the market and they do whatever they can to keep their business and shareholders happy. Now, why this is a “shameless” war, while the brain-dead and largely unfair comments we read most of the time from the Linux followers all over the net don’t get a C|Net editorial to show the “unfairness”?
>Microsoft’s connection to the anti-Linux campaign being waged by the SCO Group is becoming clear
This is FUD all by itself, all from you Bruce. You offer no concrete proof and you just use circumstance evidence for something as NORMAL as licensing technologies (in this case, MS licensing Unix IP) which is something _extremely_ normal in the software business.
I’m glad that at least a few people in the Linux community see the war that Microsoft is waging against them. If Microsoft wins, free software will be abolished. The stakes are high.
Maybe because it’s on the Internet equivalent of TV, more Linux people will learn that Microsoft wants to kill their platform and will do anything, ethical or not, to do so.
wow! very well said. I wish i had more to add, but i think you sum it up quite well.
Be careful about those round shiny things on the ground in front of you.
Microsoft is an old ally of SCO. Microsoft often fights by proxy so they don’t dirty their own name. And it is all too timely for Microsoft to license some unknown technology from SCO just when SCO is threatening all the Linux companies.
As you well know, Microsoft is doing everything it can to kill Linux, including back room deals with the USGOVT and other big players. Microsoft has a history of completely immoral and unethical business practices. The various Linux companies do not. So it is fully rational to suspect Microsoft of foul play.
I say, IBM should just buy up SCO…then turn around and fire every single one of them. Then, they should revoke Microsoft’s “license” and force them to remove all the code that they needed to license it for in the first place.
… unless MS ownz SCO already…
You seem to neglect a simple fact: Microsoft has been tried and convicted of using illegal business practices to protect their monopoly. That fact is not in question. You would be stupid to trust a convicted felon to guard your jewlery, and you are stupid if you don’t look at Microsoft’s actions with at least a bit of skepticism.
Microsoft has a history of brandishing IP as a club to further entrench its monopoly. Many of Microsoft’s “embrace and extend” manuevers started with the purchase of IP. Even now, many people are worried that Microsoft has resigned from the OpenGL ARB without relinquishing some key patents.
Microsoft has a history of trying to scare vendors away from Linux. For example, they were responsible for a lot of FUD about the GPL. In some of their EULAs, they made statements implying that using GPL’ed tools would cause your code to automatically be GPL’ed.
Given Microsoft’s previous business practices, one would be a fool to give them the benifet of the doubt in any action that looked the least bit suspicious. This particular action, purchasing IP from SCO, doesn’t only look suspicious, it falls in line very well with their scare tactics. They can use their purchase of this IP to try to legitimize SCO’s claims, and then use SCO as an example to scare companies away from dealing in Open Source.
The simple truth is that OSS software interoperates just fine with business. Sun, SGI, IBM, HP, Intel, and many other companies have released lots of open source code while still protecting other IP assets. The GPL is not some virus that seeks out and destroys proprietory code. The only way to get bitten by the GPL is if you try to steal GPL code without paying the price the authors of that code have set. Even if something happens accidentally, the FSF is willing to work with companies to resolve violations in an expedient and private manner. The GPL is perfectly safe to use, and Linux is perfectly safe to deploy. But this is not what Microsoft would have you believe.
Microsoft does *not* have the right to do everything in their power to please their shareholders. That is not how our justice system works. They only have the right to compete using practices that fall under certain guidelines — guidelines that are particularly restricted by their status as a convicted monopoly. At the end of the day, a campaign of slander, misinformation, and IP strong-arming simply does not fall under those guidelines.
I am getting a little tried of everyone slinging mud… CAnt wait for it to go to court, only then will everything be clear, the allegations and the GPL strengths.
“Well Bruce, that is just business as usual… I mean, Linux zealots have opened a war against Microsoft for years now. Now, MS is trying to compensate in the market and they do whatever they can to keep their business and shareholders happy. Now, why this is a “shameless” war, while the brain-dead and largely unfair comments we read most of the time from the Linux followers all over the net don’t get a C|Net editorial to show the “unfairness”?”
What type of war are you refering to? All the “linux zealots” are asking is for Microsoft to legitimize their monopoly. This is something they cannot do. Hey, the markets are fair game, right? Microsoft has no right to be jealous because the gnu/linux developers have created something better than what they have to offer. We never stole anything from anyone. Both the GNU system and linux kernel were build from scratch, admitably copying the UNIX system, but only because it was (and still is) the most portable system to date. The Free Software Movement has never directly threatened anyone. They used their frustration constructively and created their own free os, with the legal framework which allows it to remain free forever. This is uncomprehensible to illegitimate social institutions such as Microsoft, and takes hold of the true hacker spirit.
SCO got it’s start in Unix by licensing Xenix from Microsoft.
Seems funny MS getting a license for the technology they licensed to SCO.
If I were Microsoft, and I saw that ‘poor’ SCO was just about to get buried by my biggest rival, I would do all in my power to transfer some funds to them, maybe license some IP which I have no real intention of using. MS has about 40 billion in cash, maybe not anymore with the dividend, but a couple of millions is not going to hurt, especially if it gets Linux regarded with some skepticism.
I owuld have done the same, so I do not expect MS to do different.
When are they going to court? When is it gonna start?
there is a portuguese saying wich i find appropriate:
“Quem não deve não teme” (who doesn’t owe doesn’t fear)
So if linux doesn’t owe anything why fear something? or is this not the case? i am certainly starting to have my doubts after seeing gnu zealots like perens freak out.
Excellent article by Bruce Perens.
It is very weird as he noted that Boies and MS former
enemies are ecept for one degree of seperation
on the same side.
It’s all about the PR… All this mudslinging, even if all SCO’s claims are false, will scare away potential customers…
That’s what they fear…
Rayiner, don’t you think that the linux crowd has cried wolf a bit to often?
-Mandrake looks like its going to go belly up – everyone blames MS.
-Microsoft starts including DRM, everyone says MS is trying to kill linux.
-Microsoft decides to work on winFS for longhorn – everyone says MS is trying to lockout linux.
-Microsoft releases 2003 NET server which is faster in some cases than linux – everyone says MS is trying to kill linux again.
-Microsoft badmouths the GPL, Bruce Perens and every other linux guru acts like Bill slapped their mom.
-Microsoft licenses Unix code – everyone says they are trying to kill linux.
-MS announces Office will use XML (and it does follow the standard), everyone says MS is trying to kill OO.o
Don’t you think this gets a bit old? No one said apple was trying to kill linux when it instituted DRM. You don’t see SUN people spamming every board there is that HP is trying to kill them everytime HP makes a slight at them. I don’t see BeOS people getting in a tiff because linux is just now getting good threading. Amiga people aren’t whining that linux is trying to kill them just because linux is going to be getting Reiser4. So whats wrong with the linux crowd? Do they people have a persecution complex? Are they just that self-absorbed that everything has to do with them? I’d really like to know because everytime MS does _something_ its either “trying to kill linux,” or “trying to lockout linux,” never “maybe they are trying to make a better product,” or “maybe its normal for them to fix and include more things in their products over time.”
Unfortunately, in this world, people who are innocent still have much to fear from those with power. It’s a sad fact of life that people will believe whatever those with power say, and that expensive lawyers quite often serve as a substitute for actual justice. The reason Perens is getting so worked up is to rally support. If Microsoft really is on the offensive, commercial OSS companies have the option of fighting it, or rolling over and dying. If people like Perens can drum up enough support, there is a good chance that OSS companies can pose a strong legal resistance. If there is no unified resistence, it would be very easy for MS to just drown comparatively small companies like RedHat with lawyers, no matter what the final verdict in the case may be.
Well said. I have nothing to add or remove from your comments.
microsoft makes the shitties os out there, and each version just gets more stupid than the last. and all their other software sucks too. plus they’re too stupid to write their own components half the time: tcp/ip stack from bsd, their browser started as mosaic, etc, etc. plus they’re the only company that uses another company’s software over their own. that’s admitting, “our software sucks so bad we had to use someone elses”
Companies don’t want lock-in. As soon as the standard business software is available on Linux and the new XML file formats in Office 2003 take off, so that other software can read and write the files without glitches, MS’s monopoly is toast.
If you own MS stock, sell it . Everything is going to go to pieces for them within the next five years.
Rayiner, don’t you think that the linux crowd has cried wolf a bit to often?
>>>>>>>
Who exactly is the Linux crowd? There is an inherent discrepency here. Microsoft has one voice. The Linux crowd has many. Different people in the Linux crowd have different priorities, and are concerned about different things. It’s natural that there would be a less focused set of issues from the Linux camp.
Except the Mandrake one, all of the statements you made are about issues that have yet to pan out, or were proven in Linux’s favor. In fact, the GPL stuff was proven to be true (Microsoft blatently lied about the GPL, with the only possible purpose of scaring people away from it) so if anything, the Linux community’s record is positive in this regard.
“Crying wolf” implies that the Linux camp is complaining about stuff that actually isn’t harming them. If the actual harm has yet to be determined, it is premature to say that they’re crying wolf. For example, Microsoft has yet to take extensive steps to integrate DRM into Windows. Their DRM plans are more long term. We shall see whether the community’s fears about MS DRM actually pan out.
Also remember that the actual process of crying out against Microsoft’s practices might cause them to change their behavior. With reference to the DRM example, it might very well be that the public outcry generated by DRM prevents Microsoft from carrying out their plans (like what recently happened with Intuit). Even in that case, the process of speaking out was absolutely critical to getting the desired result.
I’d really like to know because everytime MS does _something_ its either “trying to kill linux,” or “trying to lockout linux,” never “maybe they are trying to make a better product,” or “maybe its normal for them to fix and include more things in their products over time.”
>>>>>>>>>
All of these fears come down to potential damages. Apple or Hans Reiser have a very limited potential to cause damage. Microsoft has a very great potential to cause damage. In general, it’s always a good idea to be skeptical of those you can cause you great harm, this goes for Microsoft, the government, your boss, anybody. It’s just the unfortunate way of the world.
Trust also plays a factor. People trust that Apple is just using DRM to protect MP3s distributed on applemusic.com, because Apple has never given them any reason not to. In contrast, Microsoft has a long history of using exactly these tactics to prepetuate its illegal monopoly. The Linux community simply doesn’t (and simply cannot) trust Microsoft. They very well may be trying to improve their products. However, if you give them the benifet of the doubt, you might just find yourself out of business.
Before you rush to “poor Microsoft’s” defense, consider that they dug this hole for themselves. There are many large companies that generally hold the trust of the Linux community. They do this by making positive gestures to the community, and staying away from blatently unethical business practices. If Microsoft hadn’t behaved so badly in the past, there would be little reason for people to distrust them as much as they do.
Gee, it must be hard being Microsoft. Trying to keep thier legitimate head above water. I just wish I could get CubaseSX or Nuendo on Linux or BeOS/Zeta then I would have anything to do with them on my home system. Microsoft will try anything to force the market into their pocket. It is the nature of the beast. Personally I want choice, I want my music to come in on an open format not some MP3 with DRM (I will never subscribe to that) my documents to be in a format that can be utilised by anyone on any platform and my entertainment software to be usable on a platform of my choice not theirs.
The next 5 years will be very interesting for we might be seeing the demise of the Beast and the rise of open and interoperable computing standards that enable consumer choice.
Now if only I could use my audio tools on another platform other than MS Windows or Apple cause both of these options are bloody pathetic. My semi pro audio hardware on Linux runs more stable than on both Windows XP/2000 and OS-X and I’m using generic drivers from either ALSA or OSS. Only that my investment in audio software doesn’t support Linux and I’m still waiting for the real gem to support my hardware, that being BeOS/Zeta. God, being a musician interested in computing sucks, all the good tools are written for dud OS’s.
I partially agree with vincent, but even if microsoft is going on the offensive on linux, people like perens should remain calm and objective, behaving like al-sahaf will only help give credibility to the other side.
> -Mandrake looks like its going to go belly up –
> everyone blames MS.
This is silly. No one over about 12 would say something this childish. Someone about 12 years old like did say something like this.
> -Microsoft starts including DRM, everyone says MS is
> trying to kill linux.
. . . and kill off AOL, Apple, BSD and Sony PlayStation platform. “Resistance is futile! Prepair for Assimulation!”
> -Microsoft decides to work on winFS for longhorn –
> everyone says MS is trying to lockout linux.
Yes a few prople wined about being inconvienced when it comes to dual booting.
> -Microsoft releases 2003 NET server which is faster in
> some cases than linux – everyone says MS is trying to
> kill linux again.
Its VERY likely that the tests where rigged. This ‘advantage’ was peak throughput not _sustained_ throughput under heavy load.
> -Microsoft badmouths the GPL, Bruce Perens and every
> other linux guru acts like Bill slapped their mom.
And some people get all emotinal and jump up and down screeming: “DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!”
> -Microsoft licenses Unix code – everyone says they are
> trying to kill linux.
Maybe not. But it fits in awfully nicely with their anti-GPL FUD.
> -MS announces Office will use XML (and it does follow
> the standard), everyone says MS is trying to kill OO.o
I would completely disagree on this. The real concern is MS encription [DRM] applied to all documents that come from Office 11+ along with a twisted interpertation of the DMCA. Some people did speculate that MS would somehow currupt XML and make it unuseable for interoperability.
“their [Microsoft] browser started as mosaic”
“plus they’re [Microsoft] the only company that uses another company’s software over their own.”
When I read these statements the first thing I thought of was Apple and their use of the KHTML renderer from the KDE team in their Safari web browser. Okay okay, maybe KDE isn’t technically a “company” but I don’t think that’s what you meant. Apple is perfectly capable of writing a web browser from scratch, and if they had I’m certain it would have been excellent. But, they saw the wisdom in starting with the well-written KHTML core instead. And it was the base of a very nice browser. It’s normal for companies to buy or (in the case of free software) adopt software and improve it or change it to suit thier own goals. In fact this is perfectly in line with the spirit of free software itself, which is liscensed in such a way to encourage this very thing. And, as a bonus, doing so adds a defense against companies who attack free software, while still using it. It’s always possible, as a counter-FUD measure, to show that companies which choose to attack free software today adopted it eagerly yesterday. That ought to put a pause in anyone’s attack.
Furthermore, let’s imagine the worst-case scenario — that SCO is totally right, and Linux infringes. Is this the end of free software? No. Free software depends on the integrity of the principles of copyright for its freedom, it can hardly flout them while at the same time needing them for its existance. If Linux is contaminated with copyrighted IP, let this be found out, let Linux be decontaminated, let the chips fall where they may legally. Free software existed before Linux, it will exist after Linux is nothing more than a historical annotation. If Microsoft is deliberately doing this as a leverage against Linux, which remains to be seen (but I consider likely), then at best, they are wasting their time and money. Linux is not Microsoft’s true competition, Microsoft’s true competition is the very fundamental idea of free software itself. And although a successful FUD campaign might slow free software’s adoptation, it will hardly halt it, it certainly won’t reverse it.
So relax. In my mind the worst thing that could possibly happen is that Linux is contaminated with proprietary IP AND it gets away with it. The next best thing to happen is that Linux is not contaminated with proprietary IP, but the BEST thing that could possibly happen is that Linux IS contaminated with proprietary IP, and it is found out fully, and Linux, the companies that are supporting it, and it’s users fully pay the price.
Because by going through this process, free software developers will adopt more stringent policies in avoiding IP, and have clearer methodologies for tracing their projects pedigree. Remember, free software depends for its existance on the power of copyright and the social contract of honoring others copyrights. SCO could also sue a company developing proprietary software. Everyone creating any kind of copyrighted material is in danger of this at all times. But free software has a distinct advantage in these disputes — it’s transparent. Think of how much more destructive this could potentially be for a proprietary company than for a free one. SCO could set a precident, but a precident which is in its nature far more damaging to closed software than open.
Erik
{ Well Bruce, that is just business as usual… I mean, Linux zealots have opened a war against Microsoft for years now. Now, MS is trying to compensate in the market and they do whatever they can to keep their business and shareholders happy. Now, why this is a “shameless” war, while the brain-dead and largely unfair comments we read most of the time from the Linux followers all over the net don’t get a C|Net editorial to show the “unfairness”?
}
There is no war against Microsoft, never has been, never will be. Microsoft is a non-issue. But if you must bring it up, MS started the flame-festing about Linux along time ago, you yourself must like being locked into one company, us Linux users do not. MS, has been paying licensing fees for years because of SFU and Interix, Services for UNIX, yes thats a little inside info for you. SFU is more or less a cut down version of Xenix to enable legacy UNIX apps to run on a Windows machine. I have used it, its a very good product. Why did Microsoft go public with this Licensing fee payment? You have to ask yourself that question, Why now publicize licensing fees you have been paying for years. I had lunch with some of our reps today and while the MS rep couldnt exactly give me an answer he thought it was amusing MS publicized this. But to give MS some benefit of the doubt,they could have done to reassure their SFU customers but that I seriously doubt. I have to go along with Bruce on this.
{ This is FUD all by itself, all from you Bruce. You offer no concrete proof and you just use circumstance evidence for something as NORMAL as licensing technologies (in this case, MS licensing Unix IP) which is something _extremely_ normal in the software business. }
See my first point. I dont consider Bruces statements as FUD. Microsoft will do anything and everything to get their products onto everything, thats their nature and its been their business practice for years. If MS can throw a little into the flamefesting they will do so, just to make a profit. I consider MS’s press release evidence enough to show that they dont exactly have benevolent intentions at heart. Its flaming, its feeding FUD. SCO and MS have a common enemy right now and they will try to kill it. If you think MS didnt do this as a little punch into the mix, that is your belief and your choice. But if you believe that, Im sure that you are willing to believe Saddam Husseing is a boyscout.
Microsoft haa a two fold purpose for this recent action, the licensing of the Unix code SCO has,
1. FUD- as Bruce explained yet another speedbump in the road, to try to derail the enterprise from continuing to adopt Linux, and yes maybe the thought has crossed Bill Gates mind to out and out buy SCO, but its a dying cause, why throw money at it ?? IBM sure isn’t
2. I just received my June 2003 issue of Linux Magazine( yes yes i know i’m a bad person cause they take Microsoft money for ads, but i offset it with a sub. to Linux Journal and a few other Linux magazines for UK) and low and behold, an ad caught my eye WINDOWS SERVICES FOR UNIX 3.0,
Could THIS be the real reason that Microsoft is getting the license?? probably, while SCO can still sell it cause face it, this trial will probably get UGLY, there are implications of lawsuits back and forth all over concerning IP rights and GPL code,And the courts code put an injunction to get things locked up temporarily until a final verdict is reached. And what if SCO loses and goes bankrupt, once SCO is gone, who will take its place?? I’d like to see one of the Linux companies take it, post trial, CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP, just to watch Microsoft cringe a little. How likely is ANY of this, probably not very, then again, SCO said in March that they had no intentions of suing ANY of the Linux companies and already they’ve drawn a bead on RedHat and SuSE.
With friends like that in the Open Source Community, we don’t need any enemies like Microsoft, we’ve got a judas of our own, from within our own, SCO/Caldera.
one could say this is dissimilar. Asymetrical warfare is one thing when talking the difference between molochs vaporizing whole OS’s and their commumnities, it’s different when talking the acts of terrorists.
The logic is also dissimilar. MSFT is like a spoiled rotten brat. Always used to getting what it wants, and what it wants isn’t good for anyone but it. It doesn’t compete. And yes, it does wage war by proxy.
And if you are a friend of msft, you will always end up screwed over in the end… Ask IBM. Not that IBM suffered any monitary damage, but they suffered the acts of a incompetent business man, and his inept programmers.
Why lie about it? Just the plain truth.
Isn’t C|net owned by MSFT? If it is, that news report is admission of guilt and they dont’ even realize it.
Sick em, tracker… W00F
Asking IBM is like asking Darth Vader, sure he might be willing to kill the Emperor now but you didn’t feel that way about him when he killed Obi Wan Kenobi.
If only Microsoft would turn away from the dark side.
I think Mr. Perens’ headline is a bit overstated; Microsoft isn’t “tied” to SCO in any particular fashion, they’re just taking advantage of the anti-Linux noise that SCO is generating. One can argue this is ungracious, but one can’t argue this is illegal.
In point of fact, submarine lawsuits–or lawsuits in general–have not been part of Microsoft’s typical methods. People keep repeating “they’ve already been held liable for antitrust” as if proof of an illegal activity served as definitive proof of a legal but sleazy one, but this is something akin to accusing the Mafia of filing frivolous lawsuits. It’s not that the Mafia are a bunch of nice guys, it’s just not what the Mafia does.
To clear up a couple misconceptions I saw in comments: basically, Microsoft’s licensing Unix is a preemptive way to make sure that if SCO somehow manages to prevail, Microsoft’s butt is already covered. The only nefarious aspect of this is that it lends a veneer of credibility to SCO’s claims.
Microsoft Xenix was indeed licensed to SCO, but Unix is not Xenix, and what Microsoft is licensing has absolutely nothing to do with Xenix. SCO owns the actual canonical Unix they bought from Novell, after Novell bought Unix System Labs.
Internet Explorer started not as Mosaic, per se, but as Spyglass Mosaic, an early commercial implementation. It’s not a good example to use as anything positive about Microsoft, though, since they licensed it from Spyglass for a percentage of Microsoft’s profit on IE sales–without telling Spyglass their intention was to release it for free. Spyglass got royally (and, for better or worse, legally) screwed.
I’m glad that at least a few people in the Linux community see the war that Microsoft is waging against them. If Microsoft wins, free software will be abolished.
Wrong! The Linux community does not equal the free software community. Stop being so close minded.
Rayiner, R.J.
Is MS allowed to use “Open Source” code for their products?
For argument sakes, what if MS downloads “Free BSD” or “Gentoo Linux” and use it for their Xp or Longhorn?
Whatever, I’m sure the Linux crowd would really like to blame MS for this. The truth is, it’s all SCO’s doing. Perhaps MS is simply licensing SCO IP for use with Microsoft’s Unix Services for Windows? Mircosoft has long licensed Unix code for this purpose.
Lay blame where it’s due. SCO and IBM. IBM supposedly violated SCO’s license. The Linux suite will likely get settled pretty quickly. It’s hardly the Linux distributors fault that they have SCO code in the kernel since they could not have it was SCO’s code IBM gave them. Very likely the offending code will have to be removed and that will be the end of the story. I wish people wouldn’t get so worked up over this stuff.
Mythought: Microsoft already uses open source code. Their unix services includes gcc in fact. And they used the BSD tcp/ip stack in Windows as well. Note that they did not *steal* the stack. It was given away for free, and they did put the BSD copyright where appropriate as well.
Thanks.
“Note that they did not *steal* the stack. It was given away for free, and they did put the BSD copyright where appropriate as well.”
I wasn’t claiming that MS “stole” anything.
BTW, it looks as if they (MS) is using their enemies code to improve their product. (legally though).
But what have they given back? Have they contributed with some code as well? Funny, a multi billion bucks company needs code from some starving students to compete against them…… Where is MS’s R&D?
you pay for your linux? do you pay for every copy of linux you run? how about every person that uses linux on your computer? do you give code back? If you didn’t answer yes to atleast one of these, how are you different than MS?
Little tip… BSD is not like Linux or the GPL… its not based on the whole, if I give you something you have to give me something back idea. Its based on the I made something I want people to have it out of good will. Not because I expect something in return.
What about, giving support to other users, beta testing, moral support, wearing a silly penguin t-shirt, just using the product.
Payback isn’t always financial in the Linux world mainly it is about being part of a community. Nor is it about being reciprocal. Do you think Linus cares about the thousands that use Linux and don’t give back? I think you will find he does. Satisfaction of a job well done is just as important to a GPL coder as it is a BSD coder.
“BSD is not like Linux or the GPL… its not based on the whole, if I give you something you have to give me something back idea.”
Actually, you don’t have to give anything back in return if you use GPL’d software – only if you plan to redistribute software that contains GPL’d software must you then provide the source code, as well as the same rights that you enjoyed when you received the original software. The GPL empowers users, not software companies. It has MS running scared, for their whole business model is based on extorting money from user through abusive EULAs, forced upgrades and file type lock-in.
So, yeah, the GPL is bad for MS, which is why they go to such shady lengths to discredit a fine license and the OS that it gave birth to. For the rest of us, the GPL is a godsend. And, yes, I’ve bought two copies of Linux in addition to contributing financially to at least four software based on open-source efforts. So it has nothing to do with being cheap, but with having control over the software instead of providing a steady stream of revenue towards Redmond (which you personally seem to have no trouble with – perhaps you’re one of the numerous MS employees paid to roam discussion sites and spread more FUD?)
Sorry, didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. It’s a bad habit. I’m just very tired of everyone bad mouthing MS for using the BSD stack. It’s a perfectly fine thing to do and is why the stack was realeased BSD in the first place.
I’ll be more carefull in the future though.
perhaps you’re one of the numerous MS employees paid to roam discussion sites and spread more FUD?)
I was reading what you had to say with interest until this part. Someone doesn’t like the GPL, join the club. It doesn’t mean they are a Microsoft employee. I don’t like the GPL either. Forced licensing (upon redistribution of course) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Just like the Microsoft EULA, the GPL is restrictive in many (albeit different) ways. You can play with words all you want (free as in ankle tracking device?), but it is still restricting the freedom of the sourcecode.
Vincent:
Yes i paid for every Linux CD (except those which came w/- a magazin).
No I am not re-selling it as part of an OS or App. as MS is doing . read archie steels’s comment on this regard.
A.K.H.,
Don’t worry – I didn’t feel you put words in my mouth
.
I just thought that MS has to give back something since they use “free code” to make money.
“I just thought that MS has to give back something since they use “free code” to make money. ”
That’s the reasoning I don’t understabnd, why should they give something in return, in exchange of something *FREE*. It’s sitting there. Open to the public. To anyone. By the author’s very own wish. Why suddenly someone, for some X reason, should have to pay for it ?
Here stand the big difference between GPL that is Free* and BSD that is Free.
(*) String attached.
I understood open source S/W and free S/W to be open to the public to use it or to ditribute it, provided that any distribution is also free.
Also, what i would like to add is, that it is appalling to see MS w/- all its billions of bucks, thousands of programers, and an enormous marketing machine relying on some code written by a handfull of teenagers in their leisure time to improve their product. And on top of it, they are reluctant to give something back to them ….. give me a break.
BTW, MS hasn’t developed anything uasable until Linux heated up their bums. WIN98 was crap, W2K was unausable for the desktop, Me was just a joke (expensive though). Xp is good and “stable”; but how much “Free BSD” or Linux have they (MS) used?
At least Apple has the decency to give back to the various BSD and KDE developers … or am i wrong?
” I was reading what you had to say with interest until this part. Someone doesn’t like the GPL, join the club. It doesn’t mean they are a Microsoft employee. I don’t like the GPL either. Forced licensing (upon redistribution of course) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Just like the Microsoft EULA, the GPL is restrictive in many (albeit different) ways. You can play with words all you want (free as in ankle tracking device?), but it is still restricting the freedom of the sourcecode.”
Nobody is forcing you to use the GPL. If you choose to use GPLed software you have to abide by the GPL. Without the GPL you have no rights. The GPL is the only document that gives you the right to use and distribute the software, on the condition that you distribute all your modifications. If you don’t want that, don’t use GPLed software.
Please, please, try to read the GPL before claiming that it is forced on anyone.
Why do people always make a big fuss whenever MS does something that is good for its business/bad for its competitors and then cheer whenever Linux does the same things?
You don’t have to like MS, but at least respect them for taking every opportunity to secure their future and destablise their competition’s!
Isn’t SCO on the list to be sued by Microsoft? If so that would make it totally undesireable to buy for anyone except Microsoft. There would be no advantage for MS to buy SCO as long as they can use it as an attack dog against *ALL* F/OSS which is often refered to collectively as ‘Linux’
“Linux does the same things”
The way of competition in Linux is *completely* different from M$ way. There is a competition of better software (GNU and BSD way) and there is “spreading flames and FUD” (M$ way). In a first way customers (YOU) win, in second customers lose but company gets few billions $ more.
I think for alot of the industry players it was ok when linux was just a geeks palyground, it was ok when i was hard to install, it was ok for it to be cheep and free as long as
it dident chanlenge their markets. Its now for everyone, not just the geeks, its easir to install, and STILL FREE. Their fear stemed from their own greeds and lack of forsite.
anyone who has used linux would have seen it had a chance. Off the OS’s out there it has grown the quickest and expanded into more areas than any other. i dont here anyone asking for embede SCO not to mention MICROCRAP.
Microsoft has a history of completely immoral and unethical business practices.
Welcome to the wonderful world of business. Enjoy your stay. There’s no way out, BTW.
RE: Here’s an idea…
Anonymous: I say, IBM should just buy up SCO…then turn around and fire every single one of them. Then, they should revoke Microsoft’s “license” and force them to remove all the code that they needed to license it for in the first place.
If SEC approves of the sale in the first place, which is unlikely, and if their shareholders approve of the sale – another unlikely, it would be extremely hard to revoke (or change) Microsoft license without some kind of a huge money loosing time wasting lawsuit which removes the entire point of buying SCO in the first place.
And oh, what’s the big gigantic deal with Microsoft *licensing* UNIX IP to make their products better? It seems when people bitch about Microsoft is it always on how “shitty” their products are, but when they try to make it better, they bash them cause why? America isn’t the great satan, Microsoft is.
Funny how you guys are so hypcritic.
RE: Re: JonP
Rayiner, the law Microsoft broke is the same law every company around the size of Microsoft broke during at least one point in their business history, or is going to break in the future. Are you saying that nobody can trust any big company ever? Oh golly. And what jewelry is Microsoft supposedly supposed to guard? (I’m not even going into the follies of antitrust laws in general).
Sure, you can be skeptical if you like.
Re: *yawn*
Anonymous: I am getting a little tried of everyone slinging mud… CAnt wait for it to go to court, only then will everything be clear, the allegations and the GPL strengths.
GPL may have stregth in the copyright violation department, but no clause in the GPL dodges patent responsibility, and even if there are, in America and most countries it would be proven null and void. As well for copyright, only the copyright on the original author is respected, and what SCO is allegating is that they are the original copyright owner.
Re: RE: JonP
The All Mighty Whopper: The Free Software Movement has never directly threatened anyone
Maybe because it can’t? But it wants to directly threaten anybody who doesn’t agree with their Free Software philosophy.
Microsoft has no right to be jealous because the gnu/linux developers have created something better than what they have to offer
Actually, everyone has a right to be jealous. Just say I was drawing something, and my brother was drawing something else. My brother’s drawing was better – I can’t be jealous? And with that sheer jealousy, I can try to make myself better? It is not like I’m tearing up my brother’s picture (besides the point that whether Linux is better than Windows is entirely arguable).
Re: Circles within circles
The world is full of ironies, aint it?
Re: Re: Sagres
BP: It’s all about the PR…
Welcome to the dirty world of business, marketing and advertising.
Re: Re: Re: JonP
vincent: -Microsoft badmouths the GPL, Bruce Perens and every other linux guru acts like Bill slapped their mom.
They “mom”?!?! You meant God? 😀
Re: MICROSOFT SOFTWARE SUCKS sucks sucks
Then don’t use it. And leave the rest of us the right to make our own judgement, okay?
Re: MS will fail to stop Linux
appleforever: If you own MS stock, sell it .
Heh, many did, many times, and they all feel like kicking themselves in the butt a few months later. MS stock isn’t likely to fall anytime soon dramatically, as long Microsoft keeps churning a profit and the relatively little news from the antitrust scene.
And in comparison with any other threats Microsoft had during its history, OpenOffice.org isn’t even close to the biggest (and that’s not because it sucks on the technical scale).
Re: @vincent
Rayiner: We shall see whether the community’s fears about MS DRM actually pan out.
I remember so vividly the fears the Linux “community” had over Windows XP and DRM. And most, if not all, of those fears didn’t pan out. Bummer.
Rayiner: In contrast, Microsoft has a long history of using exactly these tactics to prepetuate its illegal monopoly.
How exactly had Microsoft used DRM to “prepetuate” its “illegal” monopoly? Examples? Proven ones in the courts, I mean.
I think that pretty much covers is.
Rayiner: They do this by making positive gestures to the community, and staying away from blatently unethical business practices
Many times during IBM’s history had they been far more unethical than Microsoft ever been (for example, way back then they sold mainframes to the Third Reich for their Aryan purity programs). Yet, it is more highly regarded by the “community” than Microsoft is. So all it takes is to invest a lot of money into Linux, release some not-so-important software to the open source community and suddenly they become “ethical”?
Whoa.
Re: Poor Microsoft
Piers: The next 5 years will be very interesting for we might be seeing the demise of the Beast and the rise of open and interoperable computing standards that enable consumer choice.
Like that’s happening anytime soon. First let’s look at the slow pace of Linux getting market share. Okay, it is fast pace, but certainly for fast enough to dethrone the “beast” in 5 years.
Re: TO vincent
Omer Hickman: . . . and kill off AOL
If there is anything that would kill off AOL, it would be that merger with Time Warner, poor management, bad PR, terrible financial problems, etc. Not Microsoft. Don’t give Microsoft too much credit.
Omer Hickman: The real concern is MS encription [DRM] applied to all documents that come from Office 11+ along with a twisted interpertation of the DMCA.
If Microsoft puts encyprtion by default, it would be an awfully hard feat to carry through. However, even as optional, I do envision a lot of companies using it for sensitive documents. Besides, DMCA applies only to the copyright owner. Microsoft can only protect Office, not the documents made by it. To do that, they have to add in a clause in the EULA putting all copyrights on the document in Microsoft hand and would cause a big backlash.
Microsofts actions againts Linux are just usual american business tactics:
When you see that a rival has a better product, what do you do?
1) Make your own product better than your rivals
2) Do everything you can to make your rivals product look bad
Clearly, option 1 would benefit everybody. Unfortunetly, M$ chooses to play with different tactics (option 2). Why? It’s cheaper and they know, that in the long run they will loose in a fair fight.
I understood open source S/W and free S/W to be open to the public to use it or to ditribute it, provided that any distribution is also free.
You understood incorrectly, although a part (a very large part with the recent surge of popularity in Linux, GNU tools, and the GPL) of OSS/FS would fit that definition. BSD-licensed code has very minimal requirements for use, allowing closed-source use, as it’s taking the definition of freedom a little more close to the core.
Also, what i would like to add is, that it is appalling to see MS w/- all its billions of bucks, thousands of programers, and an enormous marketing machine relying on some code written by a handfull of teenagers in their leisure time to improve their product. And on top of it, they are reluctant to give something back to them ….. give me a break.
I guess that depends on what code you’re talking about. The code that’s covered by any license from SCO was written by paid engineers (whether it’s System V code or just the code that was originally written for what became Interix). If it’s the BSD code in their TCP stack, you’re talking about code that evolved over many years with work originally funded by DARPA, much of which was undertaken by some of the best minds in computer science, rather than ‘a handfull [sic] of teenagers in their leisure time’. It’s the code used for the core of almost every widely available TCP-stack today, including Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.
BTW, MS hasn’t developed anything uasable until Linux heated up their bums. WIN98 was crap, W2K was unausable for the desktop, Me was just a joke (expensive though). Xp is good and “stable”; but how much “Free BSD” or Linux have they (MS) used?
I’d wager they would much rather use FreeBSD code than Linux code, especially since they can legally do so. Win2k has been perfectly usable for my desktop since it came out, ymmv. Of course, it’s doubtful that much more than a very small percentage of Win2k or XP’s code comes from BSD. Things like Kerberos and TCP have obvious reasons for coming from BSD, but much of 2k and XP’s improvement over their base (NT) was in the form of compatibility with 9x (something they couldn’t gain from BSD or Linux) and improved hardware support. Just improving those two areas (hardware and 9x compatibility) could have been enough to improve the stability of NT (not saying that 9x was stable, simply that NT stability was affected at times by poor 9x compatibility when 9x applications were run).
At least Apple has the decency to give back to the various BSD and KDE developers … or am i wrong?
I would say you were wrong, but I may be behind on Apple’s contributions. Last I checked they were still licensing their open source efforts under their own license, which certainly wouldn’t allow redistribution of Apple code under the BSD or GPL licenses.
1) Make your own product better than your rivals
2) Do everything you can to make your rivals product look bad
Clearly, option 1 would benefit everybody. Unfortunetly, M$ chooses to play with different tactics (option 2). Why? It’s cheaper and they know, that in the long run they will loose[sic] in a fair fight.
Alternatively, Option 2 buys time for Option 1. Since the start of the anti-GPL campaign at MS (which has had a pretty major slowdown), they’ve also introduced a number of attempts to change internal policy in the way they produce new revisions to products. Whether those policies were designed as more smoke and mirrors for option 2 remains to be seen (mainly as Win2k3 has more time for testing it’s security and has more applications available that may undermine that security, as well as the introduction of further products, possibly as far away as Longhorn and later).
MS knows they can’t benefit from the ‘release early, release often’ mantra that is fundamental to most open source products (especially early in their lifetimes), because people will stop paying for releases (whether they deem the releases too often (I just bought WinMe, why should I buy XP?) or too early (Win95 is just now stable on my computer, why should I buy Win98 when it just came out?)). Until Microsoft can find some other (workable) business model, they still have to charge people for software to continue making money.
If I give something away for totally free, no strings attach – I’m being real nice. I’m not forced to, but nice. And I would be entirely insincere if I was expecting something back too. If FreeBSD really want their code to stay with them – why the heck did they choose that license? Because they either couldn’t care less or they want to give it away for free. And now, if someone else expects that person to give something back to me for what I gave me, I personally would view him as a … oh wait, I can’t use profanity, can’t I?
This pretty much settles it. FreeBSD and other BSD and related projects license their software under a license with little restrictions. If they weren’t expecting someone like Microsoft would come and use their code, which they did expect, than they were plain stupid and naive.
“You don’t have to like MS, but at least respect them for taking every opportunity to secure their future and destablise their competition’s!”
I don’t have to respect them for unethical behavior. OTOH, I have every right to boycott them and encourage others to do the same for said unethical behavior. Which is what I’m doing.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
But this S/W licensing business seems to be a big mess ….
I do not know much about it, but the more i look into it the messier it looks. Everybody undestands it differently, depending on which side of the fence they are. But anyway, thanks for taking some time to explain.
But this S/W licensing business seems to be a big mess ….
I do not know much about it, but the more i look into it the messier it looks. Everybody undestands it differently, depending on which side of the fence they are. But anyway, thanks for taking some time to explain.
Now there’s something I think a lot of us can agree upon. Regardless of what license software is licensed under, the terms and conditions of redistributing or modifying the software always take some time (and sometimes a bit of help and research) to understand. When it comes down to it, closed-source licenses (or even licenses to the source code of non-open-source products) tend to be even harder to understand, and many open source licenses can be taken down to a quick-and-easy set of terms. The more recent BSD licenses (at least the most commonly-used ones) simply require retainment of the copyright notice on the code, but don’t require release of the code. The GPL’s basic term is that modifications of the code must make their source available under the GPL.
The real complications of both licenses don’t really come into play most of the time for most people. People familiar with GPL’d code as ‘free software’ may not understand how people can get away with releasing closed-source software that utilizes BSD-licensed code, just as people that come from a more BSD-oriented background may have problems with people saying the GPL is a free software license when GPL’d code can’t be placed under any other license. To further complicate matters, many people that sell GPL’d software only give the source to people that pay for their software, and people familiar with all of the freely downloadable GPL software sometimes don’t understand that this is perfectly valid under the GPL, since the only people you’re required to make the code available to are those that use the software (though there’s nothing preventing your customers from releasing your software for free if it’s under the GPL). Still, as I said before, licenses for the source of most ‘closed-source’ software are even more complex. I’m glad I don’t have to read the licenses that must be attached to the code I write at work (released binary-only, to be run only on the machine that it was originally installed on, the customer never even sees the install process unless they happen to be in the building when the software is being installed on their system).
Proponents of Linux tend to take a “revolutionary” stance, seeing their work as a war to compete with, and destroy, Microsoft and other commercial software vendors. But the BSDs are content to coexist with commercial software, and in fact are happy to allow commercial software to use what they create.
Welcome to the wonderful world of business. Enjoy your stay. There’s no way out, BTW.
>>>
It’s not as bad as all that. There are a great many companies who are on top simply because they release good products at good prices. Take NVIDIA, for example. They are in heated competition with ATI, and don’t engage in illegal business practices to stiffle competition. When they’re products are the best, they make more profit, when ATI overtakes them for a time, they make less. This is how capitalism is supposed to work.
GPL may have stregth in the copyright violation department, but no clause in the GPL dodges patent responsibility, and even if there are, in America and most countries it would be proven null and void. A
>>>>>
Actually, the GPL *does* dodge patent responsibility. If you distribute GPL’ed code, you must make the agreement to grant free royalty to any patented techniques contained therein. The only case in which this does not work is if you do not own the patent in question, in which case the work cannot be distributed under the GPL. Since SCO distributed its GPL’ed code for many years, they implcitly gave permission to use their patents.
Maybe because it can’t? But it wants to directly threaten anybody who doesn’t agree with their Free Software philosophy.
>>>>>>
That’s a load of bullshit. GPL developers, by and large, are in it for the code. They don’t wake up every morning cursing companies that make proprietory software. Hell, many of them work for such companies.
I remember so vividly the fears the Linux “community” had over Windows XP and DRM. And most, if not all, of those fears didn’t pan out. Bummer.
>>>>>>>>>
The fears were over Palladium and TCPA, not DRM in XP. The only DRM in XP is at the media player level, and it has already made life more of a hassle for those who don’t use Windows. For example, Windows Media DRM means that Linux users are locked out of online music services like PressPlay or Rhapsody.
How exactly had Microsoft used DRM to “prepetuate” its “illegal” monopoly? Examples? Proven ones in the courts, I mean.
>>>>>>.
The point was in reference not to DRM specifically, but to the more generalized technique. Microsoft can use its monopoly of Windows to integrate DRM into Windows Media Player. These DRM restrictions can then be used to tie a large body of media into WMP. Voila, Microsoft leverages its illegal monopoly to push its way into an unrelated market.
Many times during IBM’s history had they been far more unethical than Microsoft ever been (for example, way back then they sold mainframes to the Third Reich for their Aryan purity programs).
>>>>>>>
That was a very long time ago. That is not relevant here. The same people aren’t even running the company anymore. In contrast, the stuff Microsoft is doing happened just this year, and is still happening.
Yet, it is more highly regarded by the “community” than Microsoft is. So all it takes is to invest a lot of money into Linux, release some not-so-important software to the open source community
>>>>>>>>
IBM and SGI have released some very important software to the OSS community.
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/ – IBM Project Page
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ – SGI Project Page
http://www.intel.com/software/products/opensource/ – Intel Projects
Also, IBM, HP and SGI (don’t know about Intel) have contributed developers to the kernel itself.
and suddenly they become “ethical”?
>>>>>>>>
No, they become ethical (relatively) by staying away from business pratices that cause them to get convicted by the DOJ. Hell, if Microsoft just stopped lying about the GPL, that would raise their stature in a lot of minds.
If Microsoft puts encyprtion by default, it would be an awfully hard feat to carry through. However, even as optional, I do envision a lot of companies using it for sensitive documents.
>>>>>>>>>
You’re not thinking subtly enough. Consider what happens if Microsoft puts in a “trivial” encryption. The documents are DRM encrypted, but the default access is “completely open.” For example, grandma sends her Word document to junior. Junior’s copy of MS Word recognizes that the access policy is open, decrypts the document, and displays it to the user. Now, if Junior were running Open Office, the software would be able to recognize that the access policy is open (Junior, in theory, has every right to open that document) but would have to break the encryption to do so. That process is made illegal by the DMCA. Linux users are worried about a huge collection of documents suddenly becoming inaccessible. They can reverse-engineer file formats all day (which is legally protected) but with DRM, Microsoft can take open formats and turn them into legally protected closed ones. Very few people need access controls on their documents. For those people that do, standard, cross platform, encryption mechanisms are good enough. Why introduce such an invasive (to the OS and hardware) DRM mechanism if you don’t have ulterior motives?
Many people here seem to have a very simplistic, almost mathematical definition of freedom. Freedom in the face of restrictions is not necessarily less free than freedom with no restrictions, if the purpose of those restrictions is to prepetuate freedom itself. The Constitution, for example, has tons of restrictions. These restrictions are in place in order to ensure that people not only start out free, but stay free. For example, the 13th amendment bans slavery. It restricts my freedom to go out and force someone into my servitude. But it protects freedom overall, because it restricts my freedom to take away the freedom of others.
There are two ways to look at it. If you consider only individual cases, then yes, the BSD license is more free. If you consider all the cases overall, then I’d have to say that the GPL is more free.
Of course, people are free to chose whatever license they want for their software. But just saying that the BSD license is “more free” is greatly oversimplyfing the situation.
SCO’s lawsuit has more consequences than only damaging IBM and the open source community and I cant believe they were not smart enough to foresee them, so they have to be in complicity with those consequences. The following points have a sequence:
1.- Open software help to spread standards and encourage people to adapt their systems to these.
2.- If all IT platforms in the world become proprietary, interoperability will be a matter of modular licensing, as if “you pay me for a compatiblity license module, you will be able to get your SCO Unix boxes talking to your M$ or Apple boxes” and viceversa.
3.- Internet will not be free. If all IT platforms are proprietary, there will be no restriction for Mr. G (a famous business man in the sw. industry) to charge everybody for the use of Internet. The web is the only “standard” used succesfuly to pass information between different platforms with no license restriction, we can use any platform to see documents generated in a second platform and hosted by a third platform (http, ftp, etc), this way we can choose the best platform for generating html code, the best platform for web-surfing, and the best server platform to host the html document, we can encrypt and protect information (https, ssl, java) we can use open standards as H.323 to have a videoconference, etc. etc. etc.
Remember M$ cannot buy “Linux distributions” because of the restrictions of the GPL, so they will look for third-party companies to destroy the Linux kernel, there’s no guarantee that M$ and SCO will not look after the BSD license (or any other open source/use-it-for-free license type), after the most succesful GPL’d software has been anihilated.
Please dont let them win, dont let them get into our private information in our computers, dont let them own the ball and rule the game, because they will not allow anybody with better or “different” ideas to play, dont let them own the cake becasue they will not share it.
Nobody is forcing you to use the GPL.
And that means I can’t express my displeasure for it without being called a Microsoft employee?
If you choose to use GPLed software you have to abide by the GPL.
Wow thanks for clearing that up.
Without the GPL you have no rights.
First off, GPL applies to software, not my personal rights. I still have the right to assemble peacefully with or without the GPL, so you can can that rhetoric.
The GPL is the only document that gives you the right to use and distribute the software, on the condition that you distribute all your modifications.
Wrong! You only have to distribute the source if you redistribute the application, and only to the users.
If you don’t want that, don’t use GPLed software.
Thanks for your concern, I don’t.
Please, please, try to read the GPL before claiming that it is forced on anyone.
Please, please read the GPL before spread incorrect information about it.
“Proponents of Linux tend to take a “revolutionary” stance, seeing their work as a war to compete with, and destroy, Microsoft and other commercial software vendors. But the BSDs are content to coexist with commercial software, and in fact are happy to allow commercial software to use what they create.”
Not true. Lots of OSS and Linux advocates have no problem with free software coexisting with commercial software. Bruce Perens is one of them. Note that commercial software CAN use GPL’d software – it’s just that it must be redistributed as GPL’d software afterwards. Now, if you want to publish non-GPL software for Linux, you’re welcome to do it. Just don’t base it on GPL, that’s all. This has nothing to do with co-existence. On my own Linux system I have several commercial packages which I bought – I see no problem with this. I do see a problem with proprietary OSes, though, as they tend to give an unfair advantage to the software vendor that owns it.
…I never stated that vincent WAS a MS employee. I merely hypothesized that he might be one. To think that there are no MS-paid shills filling the Internet boards with anti-Linux FUD is, in my opinion, to be incredibly naive. After all, they’ve done much worse over the years, they understand the power of word-of-mouth in the new information age, and they have more than enough financial resources to pay dozens of such falsely independent advocates. I know that if I worked at MS (and had an atrophied sense of ethics) I would do it in the blink of an eye. Now, before you start your flamethrowers, I’m not saying that ALL MS advocates are paid by the company…just that it’s naive to think that there are none such paid shills on this board.
Now, before you start your flamethrowers, I’m not saying that ALL MS advocates are paid by the company…just that it’s naive to think that there are none such paid shills on this board.
If I were the person at MS paying people to post on this board, I think I’d start asking for my money back. Not to say that people advocating MS on this board (though I don’t think there are many people actually doing that) aren’t doing a reasonable job, just that they aren’t doing anything I’d be willing to pay for if it were my product they were supposed to be helping (then again, the software I write has no advertising and only 1 customer, so I don’t have to worry about all of that advertising crap anyway, just whether or not my company can continue to hold and/or gain new contracts).
Those of you that have are saying to yourself “Gee… maybe there is some SCO’s code in Linux..”, you should read this page. http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html It clearly outlines why SCO doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If you are not interested in the facts, you are nothing more than an ignorant troll.
Its so simple, here:
BSD vs. GPL
Enslaving someone might be freedom to the slave owner but it is not freedom for any self respecting human being and certainly not for the slave.
Proprietizing open source software might be freedom to the BSD crowd but it is not freedom for the source code or anyone who understands the GPL.
The GPL forces upon us all a set of rules to ensure that the source code remains free.
Any of you got a problem with that?!?
Now that you understand, some of us simply find it ironic that Microsoft, the largest software company in the world, has to take source code from BSD in order to compete with *nix, etc. In other words we are basicly daring Microsoft to write their own code and see if they have half the R&D department they profess consistently on MSNBC. I don’t think they do. I don’t think Microsoft’s developers know anything about designing an OS. And it shows, every time I use their products. Can you imagine how bad windows would be if Microsoft wrote every line of code? You saw what they did to Mosaic.
I haven’t seen one original thought on this board. It doesn’t seem that anyone here is making any points but re-iterating points about the GPL, Microsoft, BSD, etc. that have been made on Usenet since 1995.
Who *IS* posting to this board ? Is there ANY place on the internet that intelligent people can discuss news pieces without resorting to parroting the oh-so-predictable opinions like here ?
Doesn’t anyone here feel annoyed that the term ‘zealot’, ‘FUD’, and ‘troll’ gets thrown around as if they were the most popular words in English ?
Honestly, there’s nothing worse than watching people argue semantics and philosophy without having anything of substance to say.
jeez.
post any news story here, and someone will try their best to boil it down to some dumb analogy like “BSD vs. GPL”, and say “look, it’s *SO* simple”
thanks for the opinion, “hmmm.” boy you sure did clear everything up for me. it really was simple, thanks for enlightening us.
I feel like I shouldn’t be replying, but I’ll try anyway
Enslaving someone might be freedom to the slave owner but it is not freedom for any self respecting human being and certainly not for the slave.
Gee, thanks, because we all know that civil rights and open-vs-closed source have so much in common.
Proprietizing open source software might be freedom to the BSD crowd but it is not freedom for the source code or anyone who understands the GPL.
To one side it’s ‘you can have this’ vs. ‘you can have this if…’. To the other side it’s ‘We want to make sure our code remains open’ vs ‘Someone could steal the source’. To others, it’s just 2 more licenses with a set of terms for each.
The GPL forces upon us all a set of rules to ensure that the source code remains free.
Any of you got a problem with that?!?
Just the wording, but that’ll always continue. The way I see it is that the GPL enforces the wishes of the person that originally put the code under the GPL, while the BSD license allows for the wishes of the person using the code today.
Now that you understand, some of us simply find it ironic that Microsoft, the largest software company in the world, has to take source code from BSD in order to compete with *nix, etc.
Was it taken in order to compete with *nix, or in order to give their users a better product? As for MS’ standing in the software industry, I don’t know how many programmers it would take (and how long it would take) to design a better TCP stack than one designed by students, professors, and professionals, some of whom were under government funding, over many years (decades iirc), but I’m sure if they had really not wanted MS (and just about everyone else) to use it, they would’ve chosen another license.
In other words we are basicly daring Microsoft to write their own code and see if they have half the R&D department they profess consistently on MSNBC. I don’t think they do. I don’t think Microsoft’s developers know anything about designing an OS. And it shows, every time I use their products. Can you imagine how bad windows would be if Microsoft wrote every line of code? You saw what they did to Mosaic.
I guess I missed what they did to Mosaic, since I didn’t use IE until 5. Or are you implying that IE5 and 6 were horrid mutations of Mosaic as well? I saw what Netscape did to Mosaic, and the only thing that saved that bastard child was an open-source rewrite. At least the MS TCP stack was doing it’s job for home users before they scrapped it for the BSD-implementation.
> Who *IS* posting to this board ? Is there ANY place on the internet that intelligent people can discuss news pieces without resorting to parroting the oh-so-predictable opinions like here ?
The “problem” here is that people respond to previous comments, rather than to the article itself (like I’m currently doing
, and this tends to lead things farther and farther from the original topic. And the board is open to everyone, not just “intelligent” people.
What you’re looking for is a strongly moderated forum, where all of the “parroted opinions” are filtered out beforehand. In theory, this wouldn’t be hard to do. There are plenty of news sites, which suggests the initial setup isn’t hard, and plenty of forum code exists for having administratively moderated posts. In reality, everyone is biased, and that bias would probably show up in the way posts are moderated, destroying some of the credibility of the site. I’m sure you can find people willing to try it though.
—
Back on the license issue of “how free is free”: the type of people that choose the BSD license sound to me like the type of people that would re-sell free promotional materials….
[change spam@ to pj@ for email]
I guess my frustration was that almost every discussion here does seem to ‘boil down’ to the “something vs. something” arguments.
basically, my frustration here is that this is what seems to happen with pretty much every discussion:
1 – story gets posted about anything, whether it’s controversial or not
2 – most (not all) people here, not willing to learn something new, or admit that they don’t know want to hear themselves talk and ‘educate’ everyone with their ‘enlightened’ opinion steer the discussion to something they know, then….
3 – post the very predictable post, which invariably contain the phrases or opinions:
–M$ sucks, Linux is great
–BSD vs GPL
–everything is so simple, people just need to listen to me
–all Linux people are zealots
–all M$ people are dumb gui point-and-clickers
that about covers it.
doesn’t anyone else think this is tiring ?
One objection to point 1): It’s not every article (look at “Linux Clustering with MOSIX” for example), generally it’s only the ones related to any of the said topics in point 3). And by the time you finish actually reading the article, you can probably figure out whether the comments will just be a flamewar just by the amount already posted.
And to add to 3), I think you can include the phrases/opinions leading up to the “this forum should be more (or less!) heavily moderated” argument just as well. This isn’t the first time that has been brought up.
If it’s tiring, you don’t have to read the comments. There are other places/ways to discuss current news. Personally though, I think the open method gives you a much better picture of what things people actually care about, and serves as a better reminder that there are always going to be people who disagree with you.
> And they used the BSD tcp/ip stack in Windows as well. Note that they did not *steal* the stack. It was given away for free, and they did put the BSD copyright where appropriate as well.
If memory serves, Microsoft did in fact misappropriate the BSD stack because they did not include the attributions required by the license. The only reason Microsoft’s use of the code came to light was because someone noticed a string known to be part of the code in one of Microsoft’s object binaries.
“On behalf of the community that wrote most of today’s Unix code, and whose claims to have done so were tacitly recognized by the impairment of AT&T’s rights under the 1993 settlement, we protest that to allow this outcome would be a very grave injustice. We wrote our Unix and Linux code as a gift and an expression of art, to be enjoyed by our peers and used by others for all licit purposes both non-profit and for-profit. We did not write it to have it appropriated by men so dishonorable that after making profit from our gift for eight years they could turn around and insult our competence.”
Bruce Perens
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
I liked this:
“Microsoft has proven throughout it’s history, that technical superiority cannot beat the marketing might combined with a product that is just good enough.”
I think that linux is becoming just good enough to desktop use. I think that linux only needs more marketing to surpass Windows and MacOS X…
Ops
Lindows would be more suitable than Linux for the home user if it comes with a solid media player and DVD and MP3 capability as well as a few more games. A user who becomes accustomed to Lindows would be able to make a transition to Linux if they wanted to go use server technology, otherwise stay with Lindows.
monopoly doesnt last long. So do Microsoft
Now, before you start your flamethrowers, I’m not saying that ALL MS advocates are paid by the company…just that it’s naive to think that there are none such paid shills on this board.
Oh really? That’s sooooo unfair. I have been defending Microsoft for how many years? And not a single cent. And now, I really need that money for a new handphone. Bah, that evil Microsoft. You know, I just can’t believe it! I was so naive!
/sacarsm
Enslaving people may be beneficial to the slave owner, but completely not beneficial to most, if not all, slaves. They are forced to work outside their will, they get no real financial comphesation and they certainly do not choose to be this way.
By comparison, BSD license isn’t permiting the code to be used outside the author’s will – if he didn’t want it to be used by certain projects, he wouldn’t be using the freaking license. The author also voluntarily doesn’t want financial comphesation – if he did, he would have gone to Redmond offering the code for some money. And the biggest difference is that BSD license is a choice. The author (as well as anyone willing to fork it) can change the license anytime they like. Sure, a old version would always be under the license – this is exactly what Wine did. They changed for MIT to LGPL (presumably from the way CodeWeavers conducted themselves, it was from the threat of WineX).
So your anti-non-copyleft-licenses post really doesn’t convince me that GPL = more freedom than BSD license.
Besides, what’s the point of writing something from scrratch when there is something completely free on the market written originally by DARPA, perfected by thousands of developers, etc. – just to prove to people who wouldn’t buy their products in the first place that they have a good R&D department?
Hey, if you’re defending MS’s unfair business practices and general lockdown on the industry through their OS and file type monopoly on your own spare time, that’s your own problem. Just because you are not paid to do it doesn’t mean that others aren’t!
John P, apparently is has escaped you that Microsoft doing this now is a tottaly transparent effort on their part to damage Linux. You thinks it’s just an amazing coincedence they decide to do this now? Please.
It’s really not that hard to figure out. Microsoft has been convicted in federal court of unethical business practices and is widely known to follow illegal and unethical business practices. So its perfectly obvious why they are viewed with suspicion.
Office XML is NOT going to be an open standard. This has already been stated by beta testers. Microsft is using proprietary tags to prevent open file acces to Office.
Erik:
Because by going through this process, free software developers will adopt more stringent policies in avoiding IP, and have clearer methodologies for tracing their projects pedigree.
I think you’re looking for the highly, HIGHLY HIGHLY hypothetical (but quite interesting) “What if SCO is right?” article.
WattsM
In point of fact, submarine lawsuits–or lawsuits in general–have not been part of Microsoft’s typical methods.
Perhaps not — but eliminating opposition by any means necessary verily IS a part of Microsoft’s methods. Nix that; it’s Microsoft’s only method. What they are doing by licensing SCO technologies may not be illegal (for a change), but it -is- inteded to harm Linux. The good news is that it’s not working very well. The bad news is that it’s working at all.
Archiesteel:
To think that there are no MS-paid shills filling the Internet boards with anti-Linux FUD is, in my opinion, to be incredibly naive.
It’s more than incredibly naive — it’s total ignorace of the facts.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~eballen1/msft.shilling.html
smitty45:
I haven’t seen one original thought on this board. It doesn’t seem that anyone here is making any points but re-iterating points about the GPL, Microsoft, BSD, etc. that have been made on Usenet since 1995.
Fortunately, you came along with your enlightening, intelligent and totally never-said-before posting! I can’t believe how you like SO TOTALLY contributed to making the thread better!
PainKilleR:
Enslaving someone might be freedom to the slave owner but it is not freedom for any self respecting human being and certainly not for the slave.
Gee, thanks, because we all know that civil rights and open-vs-closed source have so much in common.
Yeah, because we know that RIGHTS and RIGHTS are totally different from eachother. Oh, btw, ALL similes are false. You’re welcome.
———————————–
Okay, listen up, BSD idiots: the BSD licence gives the discrete users more freedom. The GPL licence gives the code itself and the user-base at large more freedom. The author’s freedom in each case is the same (ie. absolute, because he picks the freakin thing). Neither one makes you a better person, neither one solves cold fusion, neither one will unflush your engagement ring from the toilet. Get over it. You’re starting to sound like typical Linux zealots, except you make less sense, you’re arguing about something more abstract, and you’re fighting fellow OSS advocates in the process.
rajan r:
Oh really? That’s sooooo unfair. I have been defending Microsoft for how many years? And not a single cent.
If you want MS $$$, just release a press statement that you’re planning to migrate to Linux
——————————–
PS. Before flaming me, keep in mind that I’m both a BSD -and- Linux enthusiast. Nya.
“Okay, listen up, BSD idiots:”
so who’s implying he has a more enlightened opinion now ?
I’m just trying, like you, to keep the discussion focused.