| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft memo: Linux fight backfiring | |
|
||
| Time: 01:49 EST/06:49 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Some of Microsoft's efforts to disparage open-source software such as Linux have backfired, according to a recent memo by the software maker. Top Microsoft executives, including co-founder Bill Gates and Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, have long derided open-source software as being everything from a "cancer" to "Pac-Man-like." But those messages have failed to diminish the popularity of open-source programs such as Linux among developers and customers, according to a Microsoft memo distributed at a strategy meeting in Berlin in September. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:38:13 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/7/2002 8:14:08 AM |
| soap, nom is an apple troll. he appears a few time per thread to say something stupid about os x. |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/7/2002 9:29:45 AM |
|
"well you truely have to wonder just how "superior" OS X is. "
Tee hee. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/7/2002 10:27:37 AM |
|
"Messages that criticize OSS, Linux and the GPL are NOT effective."
Actually they are very effective. Go over to /. sometime when the topic of all government sponsored software being licensed under the GPL and you'll find mostly disagreement on the issue. Eric Raymond isn't the most credible source for information. In his discussion he confuses end-users with developers, which is a notable weakness of OSS that can be attacked. That is, it is end-users who ultimately drive the direction of computing... not developers. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 12:53:56 PM |
|
Jeff, can you straighten out this circular argument for me: "If GPL gains critical mass and overtakes commercial software, only those people and companies willing to write code for free will be writing code."
No one will write GPL code because when it gets to the point when a lot of people are creating GPL'ed code no one will want to write GPL'ed code... huh? If GPL gets to the point where there is no other room for any other code, it's because people wanted to create GPL code in the first place. There is nothing to prevent anyone, EVER, from writing for-profit code... even under the circumstance that GPL code is 50+% of all code. If there is such a MASS of GPL code that no other code can exist--how is that a dead software industry? That sounds like an awful lot of code considering I can compile a for-profit program with gcc NOW without violating the license... The only way for no other code to exist is if all existing code would have had to been redeveloped, including all legacy historical code as well, to prevent any other form of development... in which case, if every piece of code ever created is redeveloped as GPL code, that sounds like a HELL OF A software industry if it could accomplish such a feat. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 14:14. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 2:57:29 PM |
|
Jeff, I cannot understand any of your points at all.... You are FUDing to the point of idiocy. According to your views, GPL cannot hit critical mass so there is no reason to fear it.
Where is the lack of a market if there is still plenty of code? The market isn't built solely on development. There are whole segments of the industry that have nothing to do with this--including ones you mention--testing, documentation, and maintenance... Do you think that if you hire someone to document your systems, that if it's GPL code, you can't pay them to produce dicumentation? Weird. This also ignores internal development. If it's not distributed, it doesn't need to be distributed for free--so can you explain why it would be a bad idea for a company that has tons of internal code and development not to use GPL tools? So now the GPL is dissuading people to code as a profession? Why the hell doesn't the GPL motivate them to be better developers that can produce successful commercial products--apparently you've completely given up and think that non-GPL code can't compete with GPL code. The worth created from code is rarely realized by selling code--most of the value of the tech industry goes to creating efficiencies and cost savings. Yes, MS makes Office to sell it. Companies buy it to do useful work in a more efficient, more productive way than using typewriters or pencils. If you think technology has zero worth unless it is sold--you are one sorry mofo. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 16:12. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 4:58:26 PM |
|
zook, again, silly. "Built into their arguments is the assumption that you are not leveraging other GPL code" No, not at all. If you are selling services for a GPL product--why can't you distribute other's code also GPLed, provide source, and sell your services as if you did all the work. This is in fact the assumption and key value of being able to reuse other's code.
"Wishing it doesn't make it true. The licensing scheme does nothing to modify the skills and talents of a developer." You are saying that skills don't matter though--you're saying that despite your skills, you are demotivated by a philosophy. Very weak-kneed and uncapitalist and un-Pro-MS-philosophy. "Not exactly. What I am saying is that the philosophy that drives GPL development verse the philosophy that drives commercial software development are incompatible." No, you are going further--you are saying they can't coexist. Your fear is based on the idea that someday everything will be 100% GPL or it has to be killed. IN fact, you could easily have: 20 GPL code, 30% other OS code, 50% proprietary code--that's an ecosystem... The only portion that can only live on its on is GPL, but they are aware and conscious of that. Why isn't that tolerable? Why can't you promote GPL, but say that it only has its place? Instead, you say stuff like its a virus (suggesting that it eats other code licenses that weren't intended by the developers originally) and that it threatens all proprietary code's existence!! Ridiculous. "It means you can charge, but the first person you sell too is free to take your source code, modify or derive from it, and then give the whole package away." No sh!t! What does that have to do with your ability to sell it? Nothing. "I am completly opposed to giving away intellectual property under the terms proposed in GPL." Fine, that's a personal opinion, but you are trying to state that it is a threat to all proprietary software as an objective fact, which is complete baloney. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/7/2002 5:44:13 PM |
|
Our company does B2B... We're developing software with sort of an ASP model. That is, we provide it to the customer to use, we'll even customize it so it looks like it came from their own company. In return we receive the business volume they generate. (we do mortgages)
Regardless, if we were to utilize GPL'ed software in our solution... our software would now be under the GPL. I find it comforting to know that we can maintain our intellectual property as long as we don't distribute it. But now we're doing B2B and working with customers and in effect distributing our software. So you're saying we would now need to also provide them the source. Which is curious, since our solution is a combination of automated evaluation rules which are proprietary and give us the edge in the industry. I guess I remain unsold on the idea of GPLing all code. The only thing I can possibly think you might want to do that to is throw away crap you don't care about. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 6:25:44 PM |
|
gg, isn't it funny how the people who complain about the zealotry of Stallman and FSF are the only other group who argues that all software must be GPL'ed? It's ridiculous. They know their arguments are baseless, unless they propose a world where GPL has eliminated all other code in the world. Something that they claim they can never happen, but which their fears are entirely based on. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 18:26. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/7/2002 6:26:00 PM |
|
"You certainly do not want to give that away and so it does not belong in GPLed code."
Then that means we can't use any GPLed code because of the viral nature of the license. "Standards, for one :) The code for those should be GPLed (a lot of standards implementaion is code after all, right?)" No, standards should be released with the BSD license. Otherwise you run into a situation where everybody ends up writing their own implementations anyway, so you haven't gained much. You'll note the gzip library for HTML 1.1 compression is not under the GPL. Anyway, I'm sorry. I still don't see any purpose for the GPL. Every potential benefit can be equally derived from a BSD style license, which offers choice without the force of coercion. My main point was, someone said you could use the GPL for internal stuff, and I just wanted to point out how dangerous that potentially was. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 6:28:17 PM |
| soda, how are you addressing the internal code issue when you are admitting that you are distributing it? This doesn't mean you cannot use GPL code internally. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 6:28:24 PM |
|
double post This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 18:28. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/7/2002 6:30:31 PM |
|
sodajerk - Ok, so I think we can come to a compromise here.
You can release all of your code under the GPL, if you want. But nothing generated by public tax dollars should be released in that manner, and I(nor any other developer) should not be lobbied to release my code in that manner. I call my position Software-Choice. If everybody agrees with this, we can move on from this discussion. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/7/2002 6:33:23 PM |
|
sodajerk - "how are you addressing the internal code issue when you are admitting that you are distributing it? This doesn't mean you cannot use GPL code internally. "
The software we wrote was not originally intended for distribution. This new model started years afterwards when we realized that we could gain new customers by giving them access to our internal evaluation services. This isn't all that uncommon. It should also be noted that Bruce Perens and others have threatened to change the GPL license in this next version to prevent the loopholes for ASPs. That is, you provide a client interface over a web browser, you still have to release the source to your server. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 7:13:41 PM |
|
no, I entirely disagree with that political stance... I think government coding is very frequently the perfect case where GPL is appropriate. This doesn't mean you would be forcing proprietary code out of gov't--it just means that the proprietary code wouldn't receive the beenfits of the GPL code.
Get's what--a sh!tload of gov't work is already using GPL code and tools! How can your position be called Software Choice if I can't choose whatever I want. That's Software Choice As Long As It's Not Something I'm Afraid Of. As for your scenario, I understand that's what you meant, but the issues are entirely different. If you had used pre-existing GPL code, maybe the development would have preceded twice as fast, and once you arrived at the decision, then you could go and rewrite the portions that you couldn't use. But more obviously, if you use GPL code in the first place, you are making an initial decision--this code stays inside or we release it freely and will have to find a differentiator to single our proprietary version out form the open version. If you are evaluating these choices, then you aren't really raisign a nightmare scenario where you thought you had proprietary code and now it's not. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 8:08:02 PM |
|
Gilligan, how many times do we have to go through this--it can't be viral if you are chosing to use it. A conscious decision to use something isn't an infection, it's a decision that was optional.
As for reusing code that's GPL'ed, what kind of baloney is this. What code do I get to reuse and disregard the license for it? Do I get to reuse portions of MS code? No. The only reason you can possibly re-use GPL code was because it was GPL'ed in the first place. Using pathetic SciFi references or Communist slurs doesn't make a point if there is no logic to back it up. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 8:11:48 PM |
|
To further use your example, Gilligan, if I use BSD'ed code in y code and decide to redistribute it, I can't... I have to go to Berkeley and arrange my own licensing agreement and then I can. I don't have the freedom to say: I now have my own license which incorporates BSD code without negotiating license terms with BSD.
"(And all publically funded work, including code, should remain in the public domain.) " What does this mean? Very little publicly funded work is available to the public. Do you have a pile of B-1 bomber specs and blueprints at home that I don't know about? This is completely irrelevant and wrong. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/7/2002 8:20:04 PM |
|
I can't resist taking this:
"(And all publically funded work, including code, should remain in the public domain.)"... further. So MS code and any proprietary code should be banned from publicly funded projects? And why should GPL code be banned? It has many characteristics of PD, but there is no way to wall off sections to become clsoed and proprietary. So, if all publicly funded work should be open to the public, shouldn't derived works also be available? How can you say that GPL disqualifies itself from public use because you can't make it closed and proprietary? That makes no sense. Anyway, I already said it was an irrelevant and wrong comment in the first place. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/7/2002 9:18:28 PM |
|
ArkiMage - I think that you should certainly have the option to release code that you write under any license you wish.
gg - Ahh, well how about this. The Bayh-Dole technology transfer act of 1980 grants government operated research institutions the right to sell licenses for technology created through research. So dual license anything created. Throw it out to the non-commercial domain under something like the GPL, and then also license it with a non-transferrable non-exclusive license for some sum to businesses. This is what we did with the soils data I helped create at the University. It was free for research at the U, but $500 a county for business use.(with bulk discounts, etc.) Thus if a research institution does create something very innovative, they can bring in additional funding through sales to the private sector, thus offsetting the expenditure of tax dollars. This is certainly preferable to your contention that private companies simply spend money to re-implement it. That's wasteful and inefficient, and doesn't offset research costs. I think we're onto something here. sodajerk - BTW the Bayh-Dole act of 1980 was actually designed to prevent all publicly funded work from going into the public domain. One other provision of it is that research does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act. So research into say the Atomic Bomb can not be obtained by writing the Library of Congress a letter requesting it. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 21:20. |
| #19 By 3339 (64.175.42.148) at 11/7/2002 9:26:44 PM |
|
Yes, soda, I know... that's why I said it's an irrelevant and wrong to Gilligan. His equating PD with non-copyright is silly.
As far as I can tell "we" aren't onto something. GG, ArkiMage, adn I have always known these possibilities and accepted them. There are tons of options. Good to see you coming around though. Oh, and Gilligan, I'm not a dumbass. Although I didn't know the 3rd clause had been rescinded, it has basically been the case that if you wanted to say, "at its core is BSD Unix" or anything similar, you needed to work out terms. This is true of WindRiver, FreeBSD, Apple, and others. I appreciate the info though. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 21:31. |
| #20 By 3339 (64.175.42.148) at 11/7/2002 9:56:20 PM |
|
Gilligan, great definition, but that's not what you said. You said only copyright, when 90% of what we're concerned about would be patented. And you also said if its publicly-funded, it should be PD--but somehow PD doesn't relate to anything military or secret or etc... Well, that's not PD is it--I don't see anything in the def of PD that says includign those things not free to be used but or top-secret gov't affairs, do you? You said if it was publicly, funded it should be PD--that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. That's more open than anything Stallman can come up with and is entirely antithetical to your own argument. That was my point. Don't know why you think something's lost on me... It seems to be you that doesn't understand. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 22:02. |
| #21 By 3339 (64.175.42.148) at 11/7/2002 10:04:48 PM |
| A rare day in AW history where two people, opposed to the idea, can learn and accept that the rhetoric is bullshit and that you can speak truthfully about the GPL without being a communist, zealot, nation-profit-destroyer, or fanatic. Here, Here! |
| #22 By 3339 (64.175.42.148) at 11/7/2002 10:10:13 PM |
|
Uh, Gilligan, we just finally made a point and now you want to quibble about why I am opposed to the idea that no copyright is a definition of public domain? When you admit that you can seal and bar from public use anything whether or not it has a copyright? I don't need to point out what you're missing, but I will if you explain how expressing a philosophy of openness and public use in gov't/public-funded projects supports an anti-open source, proprietary stance and opposition to open source. (?) I'm curious where that was going.
[I'd concede the percentage was stupid when we're talking code, and although code will be patented to, it's almost always copyrighted... Silly me... I was talking broadly though, at the time, about the entirety of things which are publicly-funded... again, in this case, it's still off because the gov't generates a bunch of copyrighted crap.... Everyone does.] This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 22:14. |
| #23 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/7/2002 11:21:41 PM |
|
The thing is, I'm still opposed to the GPL-only approach. But I don't mind if we can still allow progress by licensing technologies to commercial endeavors.
What I don't like is the discussion framed such that there is a suggestion/assumption that research paid for by tax dollars should never be commercialized. It's unrealistic and ultimately harms society. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/8/2002 12:59:59 PM |
|
soda, I wasn't suggesting that research never be commercialized either -- I just felt it was important to argue the point because Gilligan was making it, and the point is antithetical to the proprietary code-only in gov't/public-funded projects. I couldn't reconcile the two so I was wondering what the hell he was thinking.
So as far as I can tell no one was suggesting that... I think what we've been arguing is that proprietary and OS code (including GPL) can coexist. But you are suggesting that the GPL be banned even though you've agreed that this doesn't prevent commercialization or mulit-licensing or whatever... How do you rationalize that? This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, November 08, 2002 at 17:10. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:38:13 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
