Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek)
eWeek
reports
on a possible position shift from Microsoft,
concerning open-source software.
"At a recent conference in Cambridge, Md., sponsored by the Association for Competitive Technology, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, called for cooperation among Microsoft, its competitors and the open-source community.
"I think that in the world of software development today, there is a broad panoply of software development models," Smith said. "I think we're going to have to figure out how to build some bridges between the various parts of our industry.""
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft [speaks words about] Relaxing Open Stance Posted May 5, 2005 16:27 UTC (Thu) by havoc (guest, #2261) [Link] This oughtta be interesting. My mind is playing the scene from /Braveheart/ where the bodies of the Scottish Lords are swinging in the barn...
...but I tend to be over-paranoid, and over dramatic. I'm /sure/ this heralds a new day!
(past performance is not a guarantee of future results.)
MS ecosystem getting more open every day Posted May 5, 2005 16:29 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] MS has to be looking around at a lot of the new code people are doing on the Windows platform and seeing that it is being managed using open principles. These people too, in their own way, are making the entire ecosystem more vibrant, particularly with few new players trying to make it in the closed source application world.
Thanks to the folks who make sure their open source builds on Windows, this is vitally important to the long term goals of free software (even if in the short term it supports a closed OS).
MS ecosystem getting more open every day Posted May 6, 2005 17:03 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Thanks to the folks who make sure their open source builds on Windows, this is vitally important to the long term goals of free software... "
More! It has been absolutly vital to keep FOSS in the radar of millions of common end users.
Taking in consideration the past record of Microsoft, and taking in consideration the closed circle mentality of major 'usefull for the masses' FOSS projects, Mr Brad Smith announcement, must have something hiding in their sleeves.
Because has an example of closed mentality, ala old Unix, with total disregard for end users, as can be seen here; http://lwn.net/Articles/115591/ ; how is Microsoft thinking of cooperating, when their major market and we can say concern, is of almost no interest for a fundamental project as the most used FOSS kernel ?
Is of the most evidence to me, that if Linux kernel project could had stricked some technical compromise, without risking their philosophy based on GPL, with the major and most popular among end users Hardware Manufactors, Microsoft will be singing *TOTAL WAR* on every front and without quarters.
I belive Microsoft will do exactly that, *TOTAL WAR* on every front and without quarters, they are just waving a white flag to keep the best FOSS developers on top importance projects, Linux kernel included of course, feel relieved and entretained coding mostly for their most appealing techical features, that is for the merit amoung themselfs, disregarding compromises and specilay the technicaly dumb end user masses.
Let the flames come, can call me conspiracy theorist, but many mounths ago i was able to post my opinion, that without a Hardware Platform defined, centered mostly on Desktop, it was not only SUN that was in trouble, but that also others like HP and IBM ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4515101.stm ), will feel the heat, because x86_64 will open a door to a dominium traditionaly belonged only to the big Unix vendors, and Sparc and perhaps Power also, are in danger of extinction.
When Lonhorn assault will come, with the current state of affairs as usual, the heat can be much more intense, because Desktop/Clients can render Servers useless if incompatible, and if the matters trend to the worst, belive me that is with no joy that i can say: i told so!(hope i'm wrong).
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 5, 2005 17:10 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Why worry about the competition when you can make their customers pay anyway? "Cost of goods sold" is so 19th-century. "Research and Development" is so 20th-century. The 21st belongs to Legal and Sales.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 17:30 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] From your link;
" There will probably not be much in the way of patent infringement suits against individual developers; those developers simply do not have the deep pockets which might attract such a suit. Instead, the attacks will come in the form of threats to users. "
Meaning if entreprises could use only FOSS( programs and protocols) they could be much more guaranteed than if they hire a army of lawyers. The shakedown possibilitys would be reduce drastricly.
So why isn't the Desktop solid standars based on open platforms, at the top of the topest urgencies.??
Yes patents are a mine field, but like mines in the ground they dont cover every square inch. Routes can be descovered, patents invalidated, new things invented.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 5, 2005 17:14 UTC (Thu) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] A "general counsel" doesn't just come out with stuff like this off the top of his head: this isn't Gates or Ballmer speaking. And since it's a lawyer talking, we can assume the writing between the lines is legal -- Microsoft's desire to "build a bridge" between their licenses and the licenses used by open source coders. So the words are just a more subtle expression of Microsoft's anti-GPL stance. When Raymond calls their bluff, asking for file formats, royalty-free patent use, and responsible behaviour in standards bodies, Microsoft backed right off. Thus making it plain that it's a one-way bridge they want :-) What I don't understand is why. It's not like Microsoft need GPLed code, they're big enough to implement a work-alike of anything interesting. I suppose time-to-market could be an issue, as it was with their web browser. My current pet theory (doubtless about to be shot down in flames by LWN readers) is that Microsoft are worried about people running GPLed applications on Windows. There's a lesson from Solaris. Sun jacked up the price of the C compiler and tools, so everyone ran the GNU toolset on Solaris. Years later moving from real-world Solaris to Linux wasn't a bit deal as the user visible environment didn't change. I wonder if Microsoft are worried about the same thing happening with applications. Especially since their new licensing scheme and stronger anti-piracy programs are increasing the actual cost of Microsoft's software.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 5, 2005 18:12 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] To clarify, sun removed the free (though lame) C compiler when they made the transition from SunOS to Solaris. The GNU compiler had long produced better code but for at least some portion of the population the standard compiler was good enough.
The other operating factor was that Sun had decided to seperate out the various bits of the company and do accounting on each with the expectation that every part should be profitable, including "sunsoft". Prior to this the sales types had often thrown in a "free" copy of Suns non free compiler to sweeten deals or make up for missed commitments. Thus the software had been used to entice people to buy sun hardware and was not in and of itself profitable. Seperating things out meant that this could no longer be done and lots of people in sunsoft were now being preasured big time to make that part of the company profitable.
At the same time sun was constantly moving large %'s of its workforce as they retired old buildings and bought new buildings in part due to growth but also to "save money". They literally had full time contractors working for years on "move teams" to help manage this. I still have trouble understanding where the benifit was in this stratagy.
Personally I look on that time as the begining of the end for Sun. They lost a lot of ground in the early 90's and though things improved later they were in a much worse position then they might have been if not for a number of very poor decisions.
I worked as a contractor in various parts of sun at that time and was a big time fan and user of their systems at the time so I got to see all of this first hand.
You didn't quite get the Solaris/GCC history right Posted May 5, 2005 19:20 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Actually, at the time Sun unbundled their free C compiler from Solaris, GCC had not yet been ported to Solaris (Solaris was brand new then). Sun apparently hoped to force developers to pay extra; they did not expect users to use GCC instead, as this wasn't an option.Cygnus Support ran a fundraising campaign to pay for a developer to port GCC to Solaris. Contributors got early access and a support contract. It worked out well, and Cygnus made a tidy profit.
You didn't quite get the Solaris/GCC history right Posted May 5, 2005 19:48 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Thanks for the clarification. Now that you mention it I do recall that. Memory is a funny and sometimes frustrating thing.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 5, 2005 19:11 UTC (Thu) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] So the words are just a more subtle expression of Microsoft's anti-GPL stance.Agreed What I don't understand is why. It's not like Microsoft need GPLed code,Let me connect the dots for you. Usally when a corporate blahblah producing collection of cells from Redmond opens his corporate mouth in public, the word that come out of said orifice have an actual meaning that is opposite of what they first appear to mean. Let's have a lookat Brad's Smith's statements in another e-week article on the topic: And that will mean we will need some new rotations, I think, in how we work together, in how we license, in how we share technology or intellectual property rights with each other. Microsoft wants to change the way "we" license, share technology or intellectual property rights. Right. Let us see. Who is sharing technology or IP rights? Microsoft? Nope. OSS developers? Yep. So the "we" actually means "you". Microsoft wants OSS developers to change the way they license their stuff. What OSS product poses the biggest competitive threat to Microsoft? Right, Linux. What license is Linux distributed under? Right, the GPL. Now we are getting somewhere.. What intterest would Microsoft have in the Linux developers ditching the GPL in favour of some other license? Maybe because such a change would put Microsoft in a position to be able to play its Embrace, Extend and Extinguish card? The card they played in killing client side Java? This is nothing other than another Microsft pushing its " Linux should be covered by a BSD like license" agenda. This time under the disguise of "we are friendly, cooparative, people, we want to reach out to you.". Boy do I despise these corporate slimeballs from Redmond. Every time such a lower life form opens his mouth, the lies and spin that come out of it causes me nausia.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 13:57 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] I think you're reaching here. M$ isn't so stupid as to believe that the Linux kernel developers are going to change their license so that M$ could embrace and extend. Even if Linus and all his top people WANTED to change the license, they literally could not - every person who has contributed to the kernel, assuming they could all be found, would have to consent to the license change - that just isn't going to happen. There was a discussion on just this type of thing a few months back when some known wing-nut popped his head up offering $50k for a BSD licensed Linux. Heh - maybe this guy was a trojan for M$ trying to get a BSD Linux, who knows. But it's still a non-starter and any lawyer with a clue could have told M$ this.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 18:34 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] The all program no! It's clearly impossible to achieve a concensus to highjack a hole GPLed program, and with no competitivity goal other than to bring confusion because of the imediate fork response. But small parts, algoritms, mechanism, copyrighted and probabily patented by one or two entitys, is possible.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 18:22 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " This is nothing other than another Microsft pushing its " Linux should be covered by a BSD like license" agenda. This time under the disguise of "we are friendly, cooparative, people, we want to reach out to you. "
Belive the call here "You" must be clarified. It's not directed at the usual indepedent developer contributant, but mostly at the corporative interests inside FOSS.
*It's a warning and an invitation to make money*.
Microsoft is in position to take FOSS to the next major slowdown even on servers, with their next DRM/Longhorn "Certification Program" iniciative, desktop/client centered as usual. And because those corporative interests inside FOSS have been unable to cooperate truly with each other, driving an all distributed and fragmented nature of FOSS to adopt strong open standars, for open platforms from hardware(not GPLed!) to OSes to protocols to file formats...
So why not step back and sell to Microsoft under a new licence, their next iteractions of the best code of wich they own patents and copyrights and are now under the GPL or similar?.
It's *Microsoft Innovating as Usual* and could very well happen yet!.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 9, 2005 2:26 UTC (Mon) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] Microsoft loves open source, just not the GPL. Their network stack camefrom BSD way back, and they would like to encourage more people to write code under a BSD-style license, because it's simply not a threat to them. It's not open source ballmer was calling a "cancer", it was the GPL. BSD has been around for a quarter centry and remains a niche because every time it gets any sort of momentum its developers are hired away. Notice: it's not other people grabbing the code and making a proprietary fork that's the real problem. It's other people throwing $100k/year at your lead developers to come work on that closed source fork. Even when this doesn't directly stop them from continuing to work on the open version, working them 80 hour weeks so they come home exhausted makes strategic sense for the company that hired them. That just doesn't work with a GPL project: you'd have to start over from scratch to do a proprietary version. Need a few high profile examples? BSD had Bill Joy hired away from Berkeley when Sun was founded, to fork BSD into SunOS. BSDi hired the next generation of developers a few years later and did their proprietary BSD. The most recent proprietary BSD fork is MacOS X. (Which is more open than most, but was still a punch in the gut for FreeBSD. NetBSD similarly stalled at about the same time.) I didn't follow how Dragonfly forked off, but I wouldn't be suprised if FreeBSD was seen has having lost momentum... Microsoft LOVES the BSD developers. Anybody stupid enough to write code that can just be appropriated like that is free R&D for the monopoly. Microsoft is free to fork their codebase with "must have" proprietary extensions (like proprietary audio and video streaming formats in a web browser). Then they continue to suck in any improvements the open version makes so they can never get ahead, while at the same time doing their "embrace extend and extinguish" stuff ranging from palladium to their funky proprietary xml schema. Companies were successfully doing this long before public key encryption or software patents were an option, now it's _much_ easier... It's the GPL Microsoft is trying to fight off. They haven't changed direction there. They gave tens of millions to SCO to FUD it, which didn't work. They gave $2 billion to Sun to try to come up with an alternative "CDDL" license that allows Microsoft to license proprietary versions of the code from Sun, and that didn't suck developers away from Linux and the GPL either. So now I'd expect MS to launch a "Use the BSD license, it's more free" campaign. That's the next logical step...
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 2:19 UTC (Fri) by salvarsan (subscriber, #18257) [Link] Why would Microsoft try to make nice with open source?
It may be an interoperability issue.
In addition to China's largest banks, we've seen local guys (Autozone), large multinationals (IBM, Unilever, Chrysler), financial institutions (Morgan Stanley, NYSE), cities (Munich), and countries (Brazil) move to Linux instead of Microsoft for reasons of cost, security, configurability and support in no particular order.
If you follow the big money, the big money is not following Microsoft.
Their vestigial sense of community may have prevailed and made them realize that it is foolhardy to anger large financial institutions with such things as deliberately incompatible protocols encumbered by spurious patents.
-salvarsan
open standards Posted May 6, 2005 6:11 UTC (Fri) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] " Why would Microsoft try to make nice with open source?
It may be an interoperability issue."
This doesn't make any sense.
From the tone of Smith's words (we ar nice guys, let's cooperate) it is apparent that Microsoft wants something from the OSS community. In order to be interoperable with OSS software they don't need anything from the OSS community: all protocols and file formats are in the open. It would be easy for them to implement those protocols and file formats, particularly for a company with 50 billion dollars in cache in the bank. They don't have to wait until they have persuaded OSS developers to change the way they license their software so they can copy OSS code into their products to achieve OSS interoperability. Doesn't make business sense: the waiting would costs money.. it is cheaper to do the implementing yourself: it avoids the waiting. In addition, backporting OSS code into Microsoft source code would be a daunting task. Do it yourself is way cheaper.
No, this is Microsoft saying "Get rid of this commie, anti-American, terrorist, cancerous GPL in favour of the BSD license so that way can Embrace, Extend and Extinguish your fine little products. Then, Order will be restored. No competative threat for Microsoft as the gods intended things to be"
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 7:52 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] >It's not like Microsoft need GPLed code,<
I think maybe there is somewhat of a typo in the above line think it should read It' not like Microsoft does NOT need GPLed code ncus they are deperate for it to get them out the CRAP.
they just dont want to admit as much cus they they would have no choice but talk to us..
The only relaxing they are doing is relaxing the way in which they steal code thinking they can pull the wool over peoples eyes by appearing to be getting a little more friendly, But realy all they are doing is rounding up Open Siurce code in readyness for patneting as there own .
dont say you were not warned.
Pete .
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 5, 2005 19:05 UTC (Thu) by sjj (guest, #2020) [Link] I would not trust Mr. Smith to park my car.
Hint to deciphering Microsoft-speak: when a Microsoftie speaks about "the good for the industry/business/world", substitute "good for MSFT profits". Works every time (and remember to count your fingers). "Building brides" means "you build the bridge, and we'll set up the toll booth (and forget about discounts)".
HTH.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 5, 2005 19:54 UTC (Thu) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] By the way, one of the substitutions that worksnowadays, are "innovation" -> "patents" "innovative" -> "litigatious"
At least it works on any corporate texts and
If one is more pragmatic, then one can make
So, on the whole, one can make a substitution:
The sad part is, it the predescribed
a patent *is* a monopoly. Posted May 12, 2005 6:07 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > If one is more pragmatic, then one can make an additional substitution:> > "patents" -> "monopoly" That's not just being 'pragmatic', it's the *definition* of a patent.
"Let's cooperate" said the scorpion to the frog... Posted May 6, 2005 3:27 UTC (Fri) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] ...and we'll both find it easier to get across this river.Hint: we're the frog. What do we get out of the deal?
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 15:02 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] I very much doubt that 'relax' is the operative word.This is SCO all over again. How can MS get some money from Linux users. The free software community could cooperate by helping them do it. I can't wait to see the reactions when the Linux desktop starts encroaching into their marketshare. Derek
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 19:24 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] What does a cat do if a mouse is struggling too hard to get free?
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 6, 2005 19:56 UTC (Fri) by euvitudo (guest, #98) [Link] I've been mulling over this for a few now. There is an article on the Fortune site (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,1050065,00.html) that caused me to think why Microsoft feels that they need to "build bridges between [themselves and the FOSS community]". Right now they are fighting google hard. I am inclined to predict that the will ultimately not win this fight, and will end up trying to "build bridges" between themselves and Google.Allowing these bridges to be built is a grave mistake for those companies with whom Microsoft wishes to collaborate, as the company ends up either getting bought (which isn't always bad for the company) or they are ultimately discarded for naught, after which Microsoft comes out with their own implementation of what that company builds. Just as Microsoft sees Google as one of its biggest threats, Linux is as much so. My reasoning is as follows: The world is embracing google because of the great ideas they have, the tools they offer (as a software company), and certainly their corporate mindset (the last is really my own opinion). Google is also using Linux. Now, Linux is also making in-roads into big industry, and will eventually (my opinion) make its way into SMBs much more than it has (blah blah, we already know this). Now, Google and Linux are Microsoft's biggest competitors right for the time being, and if they don't build bridges to either and/or both, they will be left scraping the dregs at the bottom of the barrel after G & L are done with the good stuff. Now, after having said that, I think that neither Google nor the people using/developing Linux (ok, I should have said FOSS throughout, but "Linux" is the obvious example) should not even entertain Microsoft's involvement. We don't need them, nor want them, period. If we entertain their involvement, we are only setting ourselves up for ultimate destruction. My opinion. Enjoy.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 7, 2005 22:58 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Now, Google and Linux are Microsoft's biggest competitors right for the time being, and if they don't build bridges to either and/or both, they will be left scraping the dregs at the bottom of the barrel after G & L are done with the good stuff. "
hmmm,... belive the idea involves all fronts! That is, Microsoft is really watching inside, trying to know everything, like a wolf studying its prey before a decisive attack, to the point their Linux Lab is probabily bigger than OSDL's!!... ( hundreds of servers(and Desktop?)... running up to 40 different distros... )
" We don't need them, nor want them, period. If we entertain their involvement, we are only setting ourselves up for ultimate destruction. My opinion. "
Apoiado!
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 8, 2005 19:08 UTC (Sun) by khess (guest, #21687) [Link] Godfather Gates: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer."
Don't let your guard down folks. M$ is up to something.
Microsoft Relaxes Open Stance (eWeek) Posted May 9, 2005 6:09 UTC (Mon) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] Agreement with several points here. Microsoft can (and must) demonstrate its willingness to play fair by contributing. Free Software is a meritocracy, and those who can and do gain respect. In Microsoft's case, this will also require bog-standard licensing: GPL, LGPL, or BSD. I don't think that a mixed-mode license such as MozPL will be considered attractive. And an absolutely iron-clad patent grant will be required. Anything less will be considered too great a list to touch. Beyond that, as to strategy, I suspect the issue may well be to attempt slowing uptake of Linux as Longhorn continues to be both delayed and cut back. Troubles brewing in Redmond? As for what MSFT can do to help Linux? Continued bogus statements, blatant FUD, funding bogus lawsuits (Wang v. Netscape, SCO v. IBM), fighting with regulators (US DoJ, EU), combatting their own customers with licensing programs, imposing digital restrictions management on users, and providing the most popular software development platform in the world -- for virus, malware, and spyware authors -- will do us a world of good. --
|
|
||||||||||||