The Open Source community already donates a ton of time and effort to software that it often gives away for free. They code to open standards where available/possible. I don't see what else OSS needs to do. MS, on the other hand, has a lot to do beside just talking. If MS wants to genuinely interoperate better, then it should publish its APIs, not change them around randomly, start using standards instead of making its own version and then trying to force everyone else to use it, stop FUDding Open Source.
"But the GPL has an inherent incompatibility that is, to my knowledge, impossible to overcome," (says) Bob Muglia... A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said.
MS also needs to stop this kind of ass-hattery. I didn't realize that software was IP only when MS invents it. Muglia seems to like the BSD-style license. If I remember correctly, that's the kind of license where MS can take all it wants and never has to give anything back. It's not surprising then that this is the type of license they prefer.
In the end, I find it hilarious that they have this Muglia clown talking a great game about MS interoperability and what needs to be done, yet in Europe MS is being dragged, kicking and screaming, by the EU courts because MS refuses to provide API doc to allow better interoperability. Call me a cynic, but when MS talks about olive branches and cooperation etc, I think about all the other MS "partners" like Spyglass, STAC, IBM, Sendo, Burst, etc etc etc etc that turned around to find a grinning Bill G and a long knife in their backs.
|