User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Naughton's Microsoft bona fides

Naughton's Microsoft bona fides

Posted Aug 16, 2011 10:19 UTC (Tue) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
In reply to: Naughton's Microsoft bona fides by kmself
Parent article: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

I do doubt that the fact he worked for MS has very much to do with all this (although talking to MS ppl might have changed his opinions on things and the like).

Ok, I don't know, but it's not really needed to explain his behavior and as such I simply go for the simplest explanation: he just wants attention. Which works exceptionally well. Realize that this is typical FUD: only those who know what they are talking about (the average LWN reader, for example) know it's bullshit but 90% of the readers of his blog will probably take it as an insightful article by a good and clearly smart lawyer ("let's hire him to defend us/check our legal situation/etc").

Frankly those who think MS is behind this (same as with SCO) imho greatly over-estimate the intelligence of large corporations. This is too cunning a plan to come out of a bureaucratic entity as big as MS.

(Log in to post comments)

Naughton's Microsoft bona fides

Posted Aug 16, 2011 11:32 UTC (Tue) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link]

It is not uncommon for proprietary software vendors put forward such arguments in bids to scare parties that would consider a GPL-licensed alternative.

For instance, in 2006, Wasabi Systems argues that GPL Violations are Sarbanes-Oxley violations to discredit GPL-ed competition of their storage systems:

I am not saying that Microsoft instructed him to spread fear, but it is possible that he picked this up in Microsoft channels.

Since this FUD is probably used a lot, it is important that it is shown to be theoretical or false. If it is true, the situation is best remedied.

Naughton's Microsoft bona fides

Posted Aug 16, 2011 18:50 UTC (Tue) by kmself (guest, #11565) [Link]

It might be connected, it might not.

Microsoft have certainly spread anti-GPL FUD for years, and this would be highly consistent with their previous behavior.

They've also worked at arms-length through astroturf campaigns, lobbying groups, and various companies (the Alexis de Toqueville Institute and Wang v. Netscape come to mind). Multiple times.

And the key personnel at Microsoft then and now remain.

I see it as an institutional disease, and view them with extreme skepticism and prejudice.

Of course, he could just be an attention-whoring, not-too-bright attorney.

But I repeat myself.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds