| |||||||||||
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld)Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld)Posted Jul 14, 2007 6:30 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643)In reply to: Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) by coriordan Parent article: Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld)
> You know you've done well when MS can't even find a sockpuppet which will spread it's FUD.
They say they are not a party to the license and that the license does not apply to them. Sounds reasonable to me. The only one spreading FUD is the FSF claiming that Microsoft will be bound to GPLv3.
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 9:24 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] So FSF is spreading FUD because it sounds reasonable to you?
And since when do FUD have anything to do with _not_ making users uncomfortable?
Or do you expect Windows users to go "MS will loose it's patent rights to Linux, we are DOOMED!"?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:06 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643) [Link] When Microsoft says, without proof, that Linux violates hundreds of Microsoft patents then Microsoft is spreading FUD.
When the FSF says, without proof, that Microsoft will be bound to the GPLv3 because of their deal with Novell then the FSF is spreading FUD.
Clear now?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:09 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product."- Wikipedia
Clear now?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:23 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643) [Link] Can you spell out the point you are trying to make? Are you saying that the FSF is not spreading FUD because of a definition of the term FUD you found on Wikipedia?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:31 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] You mean the quite common definition, that FUD is about trying to scare users away from competitors products? Yes.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:56 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643) [Link] OK, thanks for the correction. The FSF is not spreading FUD, just BS (IMO of course).
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 19:07 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] Now that is something a little more reasonable...
Not that I agree, but at least it's not 100% out of the question.
Apparently it's not completely BS, since it made MS limit the vouchers.
(That line of thought could of course be extended to take it that Novell and the boys somehow agrees with MS' FUD).
I think we'll find out who's in the right in some time. I'm no lawyer, so I'll not completely dismiss that it's BS, but we'll see.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 16, 2007 17:12 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] You've got to be kidding. The FSF spends a lot of time and effort on exactly the kind of disparagement of Microsoft that they call FUD when Microsoft does it to them. The whole "The Novell deal is aimed at killing Linux" line is FUD - unprovable claims of motive for others' activities. FUD is, of course, a time-honored competitive tactic in every field of human endeavor.
My personal belief (IANAL] is that there is a higher probability that Linux infringes some unknown number of Microsoft patents than that Microsoft will decide to sue someone for infringement of one of its patents by GPLv3-licensed software.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 17, 2007 11:19 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] I have no idea where these new definitions of FUD comes from.
FUD is ONLY about scaring a competitor's potential customers away from him.
It was coined from that, and it has been maintained like that. I this really turning into the new "hacker"?
You can call FSF's BadVista campaign for FUD if you like.
Again, I don't really judge if it's BS or not, I'm no lawyer, but it is not FUD.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 17, 2007 14:47 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Perhaps you're only reading the lede of the Wikipedia article. Quoting from further on, "the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon". Also note the last section of the article, about non-computer uses.
Ideas compete as well as products.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 17, 2007 15:27 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] The first is taken out of context, the whole section talks about using disinformation to _scare_ people away from a product. (And, although I have no reason to believe this is one of the articles he destroyed from the original, it still is attributed to ESR's twisted version of the jargon file)
The second also talks about utilizing fear, to drive people away from competitors (Just for the "throne").
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 15, 2007 3:42 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" They say they are not a party to the license and that the license does not apply to them. Sounds reasonable to me. ""
As long as they are a part in distributing and conveying, even if its by proxy, by means of vouchers, they are indeed bound, and its not reasonable to assume otherwise at all.
Of course GPLv3 doesn't apply to their code, but they signed a patent deal with Novell, Xandros, Linspire,... and GPLv3 says that patents must be equal non-fee to everybody... or to nobody.
3 things can happen:
1.- Novell, Xandros, Linspire... distributes on behalf of Microsoft, to voucher holders, GPLv3 code like Samba 4...
a) With knowledge from Microsoft, they are propagating all MS covered patents in that code as non-fee... Then MS can do nothing... (which hardly will ever happen).
b) Without knowledge from Microsoft, they are by distributing, propagating all MS covered patents in that GPLv3 code as non-fee. That most certainly will trigger a law suit against them, by Microsoft, as breach of contract, misrepresentation, undue appropriation of IP, other?... (and the FUD that that will generate! )
2.- Novell, Xandros, Linspire... abstains from distributing to voucher holders any GPLv3 code. Then they must pledge and certify that that will never happen.
a) They will loose a lot of money, because they have to maintain old source trees of GPLv2, by undefined amount of time, correcting, bug-hunting and applying tons of patching to many different voucher holders implementations... and hopping that Windows Automatic Update don't trigger a spree of phone calls from voucher clients, reporting troubles and make Novell, Xandros, Linspire... programmers run wild for very little modifications required. In short, they will be doing Microsoft support IT integration for very cheap in a crazy way... and that for an undefined amount of time.
b) They will drop any kind of serious support for voucher holders... like in a zeal strike. Then Novell, Xandros, Linspire... are in risk of losing clients, being prosecuted in court of law for not delivering, being horribly slammed in the press by influence of MS FUD machine.
I really don't like to slam any of them specially Novell, because i really like them... but is hardly to expect that Microsoft interoperability will ever came cheap... to others.
3.- Novell, Xandros, Linspire... will never engage in GPLv3 code developing and distribution at all... ever...
Then for various reasons including obsolescence and a large world somehow hostile, they will be signing their own sure certificates of dead in a medium to long term. period.
"" The only one spreading FUD is the FSF claiming that Microsoft will be bound to GPLv3. ""
Not at all. One of FSF jobs is to see to it, that GPL is not violated.
I know it may sound rude and unfair and apologize to many good people with responsibilities in various organizations. And insult me anyone with better arguments. But i believe that M$ was not naive in their intentions. The 250(?)... patents slander was only a temporally distraction and a form of coercive drafting. What M$ wanted was a direct attack upon the GPLv3, by divide and conquer among OSS community operators, and in a way that their new 'innocent contracted soldiers' will not get unharmed from the clash, *die* if possible or kill as many of others in the process.
Luckily they didn't mange to do much damage
... for making shorter... sorry for linking to myself in another article(though i like to believe i'm much less clumsy and emotional than it might look) http://lwn.net/Articles/240822/
One last remark about how virtual machines can work with M$ in a legal point of view without much annoyances http://lifehacker.com/software/how-to/turn-a-windows-part...
And finally a point about Vista, that has not seen much success in the enterprise, but the usual way for world domination has been * arranged * a long time ago,... as usual... http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35679
|
|||||||||||