MS Open-Source Move Is Straight from Playbook (eWeek) [LWN.net]

Microsoft is using it's time-proven embrace and extend strategy on open-source licenses, according to this article on eWeek. "So, what's going on here? Is Microsoft converting to the open-source religion? Hardly. I think they're continuing to implement plans for battling open source that Microsoft staffers first outlined back in 1998's Halloween memo. In that strategy memo, Microsoft staffers suggested that by embracing and extending open protocols, Microsoft could freeze open source out of the marketplace." Thanks to Jay R. Ashworth.

(Log in to post comments)

MS Open-Source Move Is Straight from Playbook (eWeek)

Posted Apr 10, 2004 13:28 UTC (Sat) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]

Ok, so he thinks MS is going to use software patents to hit back on users who might want to do something with WiX. But if I read the IBM CPL correctly, with it they are giving permission to use patented technology. The author doesn't seem to have read the license at all? Not that I trust MS anymore than he does, but let's base our rants on facts shall we.

MS Open-Source Move Is Straight from Playbook (eWeek)

Posted Apr 10, 2004 17:07 UTC (Sat) by kundor (guest, #14621) [Link]

While I'm as suspicious of Microsoft as the next guy, I really don't see how this could be used to harm the foss community. It's not like they're introducing a new license and spreading it, they're using a known-good license.

I think this is really an example of one guy within microsoft who wants to use sourceforge and dabble open source, and management couldn't find a reason not to let him. It's not like every member of the company is uniformly evil ;)

MS Open-Source Move Is Straight from Playbook (eWeek)

Posted Apr 10, 2004 20:37 UTC (Sat) by havoc (guest, #2261) [Link]

You're obviously not as suspicious of Microsoft as I am... MS will do anything to damage the foss community. My suspicion is that MS chose the "known-good license" based on some weakness that their legal time thinks they can attack from "the inside" (having released code under it). While IANAL, I am a student of tactics.

You will never see "one guy within Microsoft" acting on his own like this. That's the short route to termination with prejudice, and a whole boat-load of legal trouble. While the company may not be "uniformly evil," I do suspect that there's a minimum evil requirement for employment.

MS Open-Source Move Is Straight from Playbook (eWeek)

Posted Apr 11, 2004 16:26 UTC (Sun) by foo@share-foo.com (guest, #7940) [Link]

I think their reasoning is not so strait forward. As the article says, part of the goal is to extend their proprietary XML extensions. Another part of the goal is to tempt developers and soften the good versus evil line between floss and M$. Additionally, if you look at what they released, it can't really bite them. It's code specifically for installing programs on M$ OSes.

oh come on

Posted Apr 11, 2004 17:49 UTC (Sun) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link]

For $DEITY's sake, the developer wanted to release as OSS, and got permission. Not all employees of Microsoft are Balmer wanna-bes. One of the contributors to the OSS project I work on was a Microsoft employee (well, contractor, but he worked on their campus). Used to take his Linux-running laptop to work (and got teased about it, I'm told), still contributes regularly. Microsoft is a *huge* corporation, and not every single decision every single employee, or even every single team, makes it based on the upper-upper managements anti-competitive practices.

Grow up, people.