Microsoft Fracturing the Open-Source Community 299
TechGeek sends us to eWeek, where Mark Shuttleworth is quoted to the effect that Microsoft has succeeded in fracturing the Linux and open-source community with its patent indemnity agreements. Quoting: "Microsoft's strategy was to drive a wedge into the open-source community and unsettle the marketplace, Shuttleworth said. He also took issue with the Redmond, Wash., software maker for not disclosing the 235 of its patents it claims are being violated by Linux and other open-source software. 'That's extortion and we should call it what it is,' he said." Shuttleworth added, "I don't think this will end well for the companies that slipped up and went down that road."
Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Letter to Mr. Gates (Score:2, Insightful)
I know which one you think you have, but I'm not sure if it's the same as what you're actually displaying.
Thank you, Mr. Shuttleworth! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what the open source community needs is a patent troll. Hey, SCO's looking to get bought out about now, huh? Maybe with the help of our billionaire friend here and some help from IBM, we could buy SCO and then turn Microsoft's dog against it. That's right. Have SCO sue Microsoft for patent infringement. And, oh, yeah, didn't SCO make some little known Linux distro? Maybe we could taunt them into countersuing and they'd be forced to reveal at least some of those supposed '235 patents'.
Unless it's all complete BS, like I've been saying all along...
Capitolism (Score:2, Insightful)
I generally think that the open-source community does this fine without anyone's help. Microsoft saw the opportunity to use it's weakness and exploited it.
Welcome to capitolism.
Lesson Learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem that the OSS community suffers from is that there are many licensing forms, and that some are in conflict with what's suitable for some end-users. It is also a challenge to make money from OSS solutions unless you have a good model available. And there are a large number of OSS projects that are sponsored in one way or another.
Anyway - one must recognize that the view of having source code as a valuable asset is about to decay. The source code is just a tool - like a hammer or a screwdriver - that allows users to manage their information. The code in itself is useful to some extent, but the knowledge of how to use it us far more important - and here it's possible to make money even in the future.
fracturing? (Score:2, Insightful)
For some perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Divide and conquer is an age old tactic. Open Source is meant to help us divide and yet still cooperate to use our separate works together, but MS is trying to get us to divide and argue amongst each other so that we no longer cooperate but stand divided on what MS is trying to make into an issue. Come on guys, MS walks in, saying "OK, half you guys get over here, and half you guys get over there because we say so. Hey hey hey, ubuntu guys, check out the way those Novell guys are looking at you...." etc. And it's like we're falling for it.
It all boils down to the fact that the software is not "under" any kind of agreement except the GNU GPL. We all know the patents are crap otherwise they would be disclosed. We all know patents do not even matter, otherwise MS (and any others who would want to squeeze GNU/Linux for some cash) would have made their move by now. All they're doing is prodding us and watching which way we squirm. Why should we squirm? Just get back to using FLOSS, nothing's changed. Except that maybe we're a lot bigger now and they're more scared.
Re:Fractured, schmatured... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like they needed help (Score:4, Insightful)
KDE v GNOME
vi v emacs
Linux v BSD
Qt v gtk v tcl/tk v Swing v raw X calls
O(1) scheduler v Completely Fair Scheduler
GPLv2 v GPLv3 v BSD license
stuffing v potatoes
Like the open-source world needs help in becoming fractured. We're perfectly good at doing that ourselves, thank you very much.
No surprise, but it won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't be divided, we are already utterly fragmented and internecine. Our strength is that we can never be absorbed; once open (and especially if GPLd) the code can never be killed.
Microsoft will try, and try, and try to divide the FOSS community, and each time they'll just make it stronger. Eventually the attempts will change Microsoft; the only real way it can fight and beat FOSS is to become FOSS.
Nothing Microsoft can do, no amount of money, patent blackmail, FUD, ISO corruption and bribery, not even murder and assassination, can stop the Community, because FOSS is not a business, it is a better technology, and like MSN/1.0 in 1995, where Microsoft thought, "let's beat the Internet by making our own private network", you cannot fight better technology. You use it, or your competitors do, and either way it survives.
Of course, in the meantime, Microsoft can and will cause a lot of pain and damage and destroy many careers and corrupt many officials, and mis-educate millions of young people. It's very sad. But in the long term, makes no difference.
Old FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "petty schisms" are all silly and the free software world has gone from strength to strength anyway. Free software encourages people to fork and merge, so disagreements are really a strength because the good results are always picked back up.
Yeah, because... (Score:1, Insightful)
- Vi vs EMACS
- ((Linux Vs FreeBSD) Vs NetBSD) vs OpenBSD 'cause Theo's a dick
- RMS vs Linus
- GNOME vs KDE
- C programmers vs everybody
- PERL vs sanity
etc...
the only thing everybody allegedly had in common was it was everyone vs Microsoft and/or closed source software in general - but even that was never true. There seems to be some romanticizing about this alleged "community." To be fair, I felt it until about 2002... then things started bloating and it became all about "market share" and legal wrangling rather than enjoying ourselves and making computers do cool tricks for each other.
oh well.
The only thing that can really fracture (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much. One of the major things that's actuall fracturing the open source community are the zealots out there that scream at people for using a solution other than theirs or, even worse, using anything (no matter what it is) that isn't open.
Ironically, they tend to be the same people that say "copying music isn't stealing" but turn around and raise mortal hell if someone misappropriates open source code in a closed project when the two things are actually pretty much on par.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
A long time side-effect of Linux can be that it can force through enough standards so that a new OS can compete on level ground with Microsoft. That would be extremely bad for Microsoft and thats why they are so afraid. Once the lockin dissapears the biggest reason to use Microsofts products also vanish. There is a reason why Microsoft hates standards and its not because they dont work or is hard to implement.
The only winner is Microsoft, they never do anything to be nice.
The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, the blame is not Microsoft's. It is the community. OSS under GPL3 is fast approaching the stance of the Catholic Church as recently expounded by the Pope. In otherwords, "its all or nothing", "you're either with us, or against us", and so forth.
GPL2 was fine, the lessers are fine. But, brow beating projects into GPL3 is going to make the community rebel, and these people are all about rebellion.
The split is not happening because of MS, it is because of RMS, all holiness to his name.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, GPLv3's been in the offing for some time. But I reckon so was the MS/Novell deal - these things don't happen overnight. Version 3 of the GPL actually has the potential to bring the OSS community closer together by making clear the issues surrounding things like software patents and preventing (or at least severely curatailing) similar deals.
We should be grateful that the only major player to take the Microsoft pill was Novell - it would be far worse if Redhat and Canonical had as well.
Re:Im not fractured (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't much matter what happens with the Linux kernel anyhow - much of the userland (including nice things like glibc and gcc) will be GPLv3 if they're not already. And they are major work to replace.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't copy music, nor do I download games, and I don't own any unpurchased-by-me movies either. I don't participate in copyright infringement, I don't condone it. I recognize that it is illegal and unlawful. But I also recognize that it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement.
Do you realize that murder and manslaughter and aggravated assault are different?
Do you realize that robbery and theft are different?
Do you realize that trespassing, breaking and entering and burglary are different?
If not, then I can understand that you don't know the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. But if you do understand the difference in all of those above, then why do you have such a hard time understanding that there is a difference between copyright infringement and stealing?
I will say it one more time: Copyright infringement, while still an illegal and unlawful act (in jurisdictions where the copyright is held), is NOT stealing. They aren't the same crime. Both are crimes, but they are not the same crime.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't just write to Dell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
This is another part of the reason why I view the Linux "community" as such a toxic, virulent sociological sickness. It's because things like this effort on Microsoft's part demonstrate that, while Linux advocates can talk about the community valuing unity to the degree that they do, that's all such talk is; talk. Linux users are a lot quicker to shun each other for imagined violations of Stallmanite philosophy than they are to genuinely stand together against a common enemy. This is easy for Microsoft to see, and in conflict, it is customary to attempt to capitalise on the enemy's weakness. Sun Tzu also wrote that one of the most important things in war is to divide the enemy wherever possible, and to prevent the enemy from forming alliances with anyone.
Microsoft signs one of these agreements with Novell or whoever else, and it wins in two ways. It wins by potentially driving said company out of business, because of said company no longer being able to sell its' distribution, and it also wins by making sure that members of the community are too busy fighting each other to be able to do anything else, because of splits between those who still want to keep using said companies' distros and those who think it is wrong to do so. So they can sign these agreements, and then merely stand back to observe the fireworks. You yourselves do the rest.
The only time I'm ever going to see the Linux community as being a good thing is when said community genuinely starts behaving like one. That means getting some basic maturity. It also means that if someone is doing what you believe is the wrong thing, that rather than shunning that person at the first sign of infraction, you instead at least initially attempt to talk to the person about what it is that they're doing, and also that in such situations you also check your own assumptions. Most importantly, the howling, red eyed zealotry needs to go.
Want to start beating Microsoft, Linux users? Stop thinking and acting like religious fanatics, and in general, grow the hell up. Right now, you're being played like a violin, and if you want that to continue, just keep doing more of the same.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the desktop market is the only computing market where Linux isn't a major player. Linux is well established in every other market I can think of (servers, mainframe, supercomputing, embedded, etc).
If "Linux on Servers" had been your benchmark, you would have recognized the threat to MS several years ago. Everybody else did.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fractured, schmatured... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, as I stated before, some businesses are wary of using open source because of the license confusion and conflicts in the community between groups of zealots when the sane among us just make and use software.
I have to say that, as a troll, you suck.
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: IANAD (I am not a developer) but for better or for worse, GPL3 is more restrictive than GPL2 (it's designed to be). I think at the very least this will cause people to re-evaluate the licenses they release their code under, some will switch to GPL3, some will stay with GPL2 (removing the "or any later version" from the license notice) and still others will opt for an altogether different open source license.
For a long time GPL has enjoyed it's position as the de-facto open source license, the development and controversy (FUD generated or not) surrounding GPL3 has made people a lot more aware of what was once taken for granted.
As for "brow beating" people into adopting GPL3, that of course remains to be seen, though RMS does arguably "brow beat" over the Linux naming issue so I could see how people could make the assumption (you know what they say about when you "assume") that he and the FSF will do the same over GPL3.
As for the grandparent's post, I don't think it's necessarily about people thriving on argument and chaos, I think it's about people not liking what they can, can't or have to do. And I agree with grandparent that the people who are open source developers are exactly those kind of people.
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, GPLv3's been in the offing for some time. But I reckon so was the MS/Novell deal - these things don't happen overnight. Version 3 of the GPL actually has the potential to bring the OSS community closer together by making clear the issues surrounding things like software patents and preventing (or at least severely curatailing) similar deals.
How does GPLv3 bring people together? Many who've contributed to the Linux kernal as well as others have already said they won't move to it. They don't and OSS is fractured. Sure the bits and pieces that aren't moved can be replaced but the fact is is that by some not moving to v3 OSS is fractured.
FalconHow so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Pulling the argument of "the information wants to be free" (which is what your basically doing) as a reason why the two are different is complete crap. Both cases are someone taking the work of someone else and using it in a way that the creators don't want (the creators have made their desires clear through the license.)
Both acts are equally wrong because you're trying to take away the rights of the person who MADE the thing (the information itself doesn't want to be free. it doesn't want to be anything.)
Poorly reasoned article contradicts its own quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
How eWeek's Peter Galli managed to divine that "Microsoft has succeeded in fracturing the Linux... community" from Shuttleworth's clear refutation that "Microsoft is trying to unsettle the marketplace. It isn't working..." is beyond me.
This dubious claim of Galli's is one of the clearest cases of "white is black" reporting I've seen in a while. Shuttleworth clearly, from his own statements, does not agree with the concept that the community is "fractured." At best, he believes that a few insignificant vendors have been "drawn into [negotiations with MS and] have paid a significant price."
I would say, from his clear, concise statements, that he sees the whole, sordid event as "extortion," and a crucible that has purified the community, rather than "fractured."
Read Shuttleworth's statements (in TFA) and see if you don't agree that Peter Galli is either a) a poor reporter who made a gross mischaracterization or b) has a strong agenda and preconceptions and can't even tell white from black in his zeal to follow them.
--
Toro
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I was unsure of GPLv3 for quite awhile. I read lots of articles and opinions on both sides. I really believe GPL3 and people like RMS, whether you love him or hate him, are important to the long-term survival of FOSS. I understand that people want Linux to be successful and right now we, as a community, are at a pivitol time. Linux has grown and matured and is now poised to claim a respectable percentage of the desktop market. These gains have come slowly and steadily, despite overwhelming odds and powerful enemies. This has happened because of the nature of free software and the GPL.
I believe that we need 'radicals' like RMS in the Free Software Movement to protect against those who would advocate compromise in the name of short term gains, that will in the long run destroy it.
I want FOSS to be around and giving MS sweats for years to come. I want to know that it will still be free, as in both beer and speech, for my kids to experiment with. Not negotiated into corporate mediocrity.
Re:The Blame is Not MS (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the developer. The developer either chooses it or not.
GPL3 does not remove any freedom from the user. The user is not subject to the GPL in any version. You are only subject to it if you modify the source code AND distribute it.
With your stunning ignorance of the GPL on such proud display one wonders what kind of a dumbass modded your post up.
Re:Fractured, schmatured... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you've just been lucky to work in companies that actually have a clue. Most don't, especially about technology. Or perhaps I've just been unlucky. As far as I've seen most people - and businesses - pay about as much attention to software licenses and EULAs as they do to the terms they're agreeing to when they buy a toaster. Unless software is their core business, it's just seen as a necessary but uninteresting expense. Most EULAs you don't even see until you've bought the software, anyway; and if you've bought it, you've obviously deemed it to be required for your business, so it's pretty unlikely that anything in there is going to make you change your mind about using it.
Anyway, your whole point is that the GPL is easy to understand. Unquestionably. I'm not arguing that. My point is that most businesses don't want to read the GPL, because they don't want to change how they do things, and the FUD about "viral licenses" and how Free Software is going to make you have to divulge all your secrets to your competitors plays into that desire.
This is what I meant by people being comfortable with paying for software; it's simply easier than trying to think about it in a different way. Sure, if a business decides it would like to use open source software they can easily determine that it's safe to do so, but most of the decision makers want to keep the status quo. They may complain about licensing costs and all the bugs in Microsoft software or whatever, but if you suggest using free software instead they come up with all sorts of excuses, including misinformation about the repercussions of the license; as well issues like compatibility, staff training costs, and so on.
The funny thing is, free software isn't fundamentally different from commercial software. I guess more and more are realising that, but I think it's still very much perceived as a fringe, hobbiest thing that's not suitable for business use, and only hippies would suggest it.