Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government Software Linux Politics

MS Has Free Software Removed From U.N. Paper 303

Posted by Zonk from the dirty-pool dept.
linumax writes "Microsoft asked for references to free software to be removed from a document presented at last week's UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference, the software giant admitted on Friday. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is unhappy that the document was changed and claims that even though it was on the panel discussing the document, it was not made aware of Microsoft's changes. The document (2.8MB PDF), known as the Vienna Conclusions, discusses issues around IT and creativity. The original draft of the document discussed how the free software model is changing the way people do business."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Has Free Software Removed From U.N. Paper More

MS Has Free Software Removed From U.N. Paper

Comments Filter:
  • Like, are we supposed to act surprised here? Bill and Steve and crew continue to bully the planet. Film at eleven.

    Warren

  • Commercial software buisness practices (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:38PM (#14114967)
    Well the paper might have originally described how free software works but what was done clearly shows how commercial software works.
    • The last gasps of the commercial software industry will not be nice, or any fun at all.

      MS should just be training its employees in other fields, and moving into other markets like everyone else, because paying for software is so 20th century.

      • The last gasps of the commercial software industry will not be nice, or any fun at all.

        Commercial software is in no danger. It might not be a good time to be developing commercial operating systems, but that's a small fraction of the industry (developer-wise, not revenue-wise). The software industry is healthy overall. The loss of Microsoft's multi-billion OS and office businesses would be less problematic than the end of Enron was. There were no big disruptions when Standard Oil and Ma Bell were br

    • Free software is commercial software.

      Perhaps you meant to say proprietary software instead of "commercial" software.

  • Trying to stop the sea with its hands (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Khalid ( 31037 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:40PM (#14114979) Homepage
    MS is trying to stop the sea with its hands as they say, all it will manage to do is perhaps to slow it a bit, but everybody knows that nothing will stop the revolution. In a certain way this is pathetic.

    • I don't know what Microsoft was thinking, but this move has the word DESPERATION written all over it. I hope they make the original available, so that every one can see how one entity persuaded the publishers of this document to withhold valuable information from everyone else.

  • Fine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hug_the_penguin ( 933796 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:43PM (#14114993) Homepage
    Let's remove all favourable references to microsoft off slashdot then.

    It's just so absurd, they walk around, flash some cash and get what they want done. This all after the whole european antitrust thing... I find it shocking they CAN have this removed. I wonder this isn't classed as attempted monopolisation, they are, after all trying to lock out other competitors from publicity.

  • What Microsoft doesn't understand.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chicane-UK ( 455253 ) <chicane-uk@@@ntlworld...com> on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:44PM (#14114999) Homepage
    ..is that for every token gesture they make to try and make the open source and free software movements warm to them and like them (opening up the next document formats in Office, etc), there is this kind of shit going on.

    Sorry Microsoft.. you've earned your reptuation as underhanded, dirty, cheating assholes - and stupid stunts like this just continue to prove that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
    • What really bugs me is how sycophantic the IT press has become. When a MS executive gives an interview and gives a line of bullshit about how they like open standards and how they want to have a genuine conversation with open source developes not one so-called journalists points out all the shit they pull like this. They just nod their heads and say "yes sir, may I get you another cup of cofee".

      • Re:What Microsoft doesn't understand.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SlowMovingTarget ( 550823 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @07:25PM (#14115476) Homepage

        Having actually been interviewed (and misquoted) by IT press, I have to say that I wasn't so impressed with there interest in getting the facts right. They were more interested in getting a quote about some technology of ours that was "insanely great" or about how my opinion of someone else's technology was that it was "monstrously horrible."

        There was very little journalism in the piece and significantly less technical savvy than I had hoped for. (I happened to mention XDoclet and it came out in the transcript X Doplet, and I was ostensibly speaking with Java-oriented "journalists.")

        For many in the IT press, talking to a Microsoft person is "a get" and the facts don't matter so much. If you actually are looking for solid computing journalism, I've been impressed with Linux Journal. It has the feel that Byte and PC Magazine used to have. If you really want to know where MS technology is and where it's going, you'd be much better off reading the MS developer blogs.

      • I think it has more to do with the fact that Microsoft is a large company, and the opposite arms don't seem to communicate well. Sony is the biggest culprit what with Sony BMG vs the rest of Sony.

  • Just looking out for us (Score:3, Funny)

    by eyebits ( 649032 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:44PM (#14115001)
    I am sure Microsoft was just doing whatever was in our best interest. :)

  • lets face it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:44PM (#14115003) Homepage Journal
    MS knows they cannot compete with open source software...... why else do they lie every chance they get, about it?

    Recently there was an article regarding a clone researcher being looked upon as being bad, when the fact of teh matter is that he only tried to hide the dishonesty of his associates upon his finding out they had lied regarding their donorship.

    Now that's a case of one level disconnection from the initial deception. And consider what happened to him for it.

    This MS constant lying is first degree deception, outright intentional ..... and they are very persistant about it.

    So why are they still in business?

    Or is this only more proof that they are not genuine researchers or innovators, just used car salesmen selling the research and innovation others outside of them have done, as their own?

    Its ok to lie, if you are a salesperson, but not a genuine researcher..... right?
    • So why are they still in business?


      Because microsoft forged a strong alliance with the current WH administration, which enabled microsoft to essentially "press delete" on the antitrust trial.

      This MS constant lying is first degree deception, outright intentional ..... and they are very persistant about it.


      a perfect match with politicians, don't you think?

    • Re:lets face it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by afaik_ianal ( 918433 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:59PM (#14115073)
      MS knows they cannot compete with open source software......

      And which universe are you living in? I think Open Source has a lot of potential, but until its advocates remove their blinkers, industry will continue to dismiss it as a group of eccentrics on a religious crusade. It is only when open source projects take a mature and pragmatic approach that the projects become relatively successful.

      • Re:lets face it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Obstin8 ( 827030 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @10:10PM (#14116218)
        I think Open Source has a lot of potential, but until its advocates remove their blinkers, industry will continue to dismiss it as a group of eccentrics on a religious crusade. It is only when open source projects take a mature and pragmatic approach that the projects become relatively successful.

        Hmm. Can't wait until Apache becomes mature and pragmatic. Or Debian, and Slackware too. And all those immature projects on Sourceforge. When that happens well, by golly, you'll probably see these eccentric oddities at Lawrence Livermore Labs [llnl.gov] or running on Cray hardware [cray.com].

        If they were really mature and pragmatic, they just might make it into government use [coverpages.org], or even become more commonplace [mozilla.org].

        We can only patiently wait for that wonderful maturity and pragmatism to blossom. Until then we should be thankful that we are skillfully guided by the benign monopolists. They only have our best interests at heart.

    • So why are they still in business?

      Because business -- REAL western business, and not the ideological extensions that so many around this place confuse for the real thing -- is ugly. Slashdot and those that drink the OSS Kool-Aid are hyper-sensitive to Microsoft's wheelings and dealings because it's something they care about. In reality, everyone who is very successful has pulled bullying tactics, and it usually slips quietly under the radar because it's not actually news.

      I find it ironic that the same

      • consumer choice is the rule..... read the declaration of independance for a better understanding of how that rule works.

        Yes people know corruption exist, thats why the OSS movement exist. Ultimately its the consumers producing it in response to proprietary mentality.

        Try researching the history of the likes of the FSF. Why it began.

        You can only fool the consumer for so long, before you get busted...again and again...

  • DOH (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `todhsals.nnamredyps'> on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:46PM (#14115014) Homepage Journal
    References to free software and Linux were removed from a UN document after Microsoft claimed that such software aims to 'make it impossible to make any income on software as a commercial product'

    Hello, Microsoft! Welcome to the post-GPL economy, where software income is based on services!
    • where software income is based on services

      I would be very wary about putting too much faith in a service-based economy. A service provider is a lot easier to replace than a manufacturing provider. This is a good thing if you are the one buying the service, but not so much if you are the one providing the service. Which, of course, everyone would be in one form or another in an entirely service-based economy, like the US seems hell-bent on moving towards.

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:46PM (#14115015) Homepage Journal
    This is the same UN that should run the DNS root servers since they would be more independent than ICANN?
    • The question remains though, whether the UN is still _less_ influenced/bought than the US.
    • (Actually it's not a paper BY the UN, but anyway..) For future reference, "the UN" won't be running no DNS servers, nor will the security council or even UNESCO or whatever UN agency you might have in mind - in fact, the ITU is the best (actuall, only UN-)candidate. Note how they've also kept the international country code scheme operative quite independently of any corporate bullshit. Also note that we're not talking about rocket science here, just the "IANA" responsibilities, which are pretty lightweight;

  • Software (Score:2, Funny)

    by SpinJaunt ( 847897 )
    Who needs free-software, when we have Microsoft.

  • Stage 3: fight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:51PM (#14115033)
    Guess the "ignore us" and "laugh at us" phases are officially over.

  • Tempest in a teapot (Score:5, Informative)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @05:53PM (#14115044)
    We're upset because this sentence:
    "Increasingly, revenue is generated not by selling content and digital works, as they can be freely distributed at almost no cost, but by offering services on top of them. The success of the free software model is one example,"
    got changed to this:
    "Increasingly, revenue is generated by offering services on top of contents,"
    These are U.N. peole (think University board members - only more useless) who play with words for a living.
    "Nothing to see here, move along."
    • Microsoft didn't "censor" anything, they made a comment fair and unbiased. The original contributioned pinned one example and the correction made a more general statement that was more true. Nothing wrong with that; but this is /. where everything Microsoft does is wrong and evil.

      -everphilski-
      • In fact the sentence is not yet general enough. I'm suggesting:
        "Increasingly, revenue is generated."
        And don't come to disagree!
      • Let's see here, is it a four-day weekend? Microsoft shills lining up to kiss Billy's ass, all pro-MS comments modded up, all pro-anything-else modded down, Anonymous Cowards spontaneously combusting all over the place...ah, Monday, you can't get here soon enough!

        OK, you're right, you've convinced me. Censorship is a good thing...as long as they START AND END WITH YOU I'M ALL FOR IT!!! Now, go be happy.

    • Re:Tempest in a teapot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zx75 ( 304335 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:53PM (#14115315) Homepage
      Would you rather they played with weapons and armies? For all of recorded history we tried that, and all it got us was to the brink of destruction.

      Open dialog is something new, we've only been really trying it since the Soviet Union fell. Give it time for us to learn how to get better at it and do it right before dismissing it.

    • Re:Tempest in a teapot (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is false. Heise online says [heise.de]:

      The statement that software should be seen as the cultural technology of digital society was watered down to "the practical and simple use of software." Likewise, the following two passages popped up out of nowhere: "Commercial products bring innovation to the mass of consumers all over the world"; and "To ensure ongoing innovation, Digital Rights Management (DRM) development and deployment must remain voluntary and market-driven."

      It's enough for me.

    • The first sentence sounds like an acknowledgement that selling software and software copyrights are dying, and that we're moving to a business model where the software is free, but we pay for extra services; e.g. the online component of a computer game.

      The second sentence on the other hand, sounds like a Microsoft dream come true, with everyone buying their software, and paying for the extra services as well.

      I think it's a big difference.
  • ...reason why I believe the UN is powerless in a world where it's purpose is to envoke change and to stick up for those recieving abuse. It has been seen that the UN has failed in it's mission to protect those in the undeveloped worlds from harsh conditions. The US itself sticks its thumb against it's nose and wiggles it's fingers in the UN's direction. Now yes, the UN does alot of good, but as long as it has support from one of the big guys in the world. We see it's failure to work due to a 'big guy' once

  • UN's document is absurd and oxymoronic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cyclops ( 1852 ) <rms AT 1407 DOT org> on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:00PM (#14115080) Homepage
    ICT x Innovation = New Economy and Old Business
    The rights of creators and the protection of their intellectual property require permission and compensations. These shall not be played off against the rights of citizens and society to have access to a common heritage of knowledge and a vast sea of new information.

    Quality contents should pay back their creators; and not just the intermediaries. They ought not to be nor should they be seen as being available for free. Such appearances are demeaning to creators and producers, authors and developers, and they deny them the fruits of their efforts and work.

    Anyone who wishes so should be free to share the outcomes of his or her creative efforts for no pay, but no one should be forced to do so or accept this as the dominant model. At the same time, success and market power should not be used to dominate and restrict the free exchange of ideas.
    In short, they believe in DRM, and that Free Content and Free Software is sub-standard and should be allowed to expand to the point of becoming the dominant model.

    Don't be fooled by those "market power should not be used to dominate and restrict the free exchange of ideas", this phrase can mean of anyone but established content providers.

    Immediately followed by...

    ICT x Monopolies = Digital Divide
    Monopolies undercut creativity. State monopolies and censorship strangle creativity in expression and in the production and exchange of ideas and opinions. Market monopo- lies and domination stifle creativity in innovation and in the production and exchange of goods and services. Securing the opening up of societies and markets means also to prevent the growth of new monopolies.
    This document is moronic and it's authors are nothing but paying lip service to their sponsors, Corporate America.

    • Re:UN's document is absurd and oxymoronic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cyclops ( 1852 ) <rms AT 1407 DOT org> on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:05PM (#14115109) Homepage
      They DO BELIEVE IN DRM and they explecitly say so:

      To ensure ongoing innovation, Digital Rights*cof*Restrictions*cof* Management (DRM) development and deployment must remain voluntary and market-driven.
      Of course they are voluntary, did Sony install a rootkit in your computer against their will? Of course not, they even thought you didn't need to bother about it because you didn't know what it was...

      Is it other than market driven? The editors practically control the market. I find it harder and harder to buy Music in an unencumbered format...
    • BUG: In short, they believe in DRM, and that Free Content and Free Software is sub-standard and should NOT be allowed to expand to the point of becoming the dominant model.

  • Pretty Rotten, Wouldn't You Say? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:03PM (#14115100) Homepage Journal
    And it's also yet anothing silent but glaring admission my Microsoft that they are VERY concerned about what is happening in the Free/Open software world. Perhaps they realize that there are several fronts they can't compete on with FOSS and would rather expunge it from view instead of, oh I don't know... COMPETING? Personally, I think competition is overrated and would rather see a more centralized system of forced cooperation by a world government. But that's just me... ;p Since a lot of you yahoos here are into "competition", what do you have to say for your capitalist masters Microsoft? (BTW... I'm not a commie either) And one last thing. Bill Gates... fuck you yet again.

  • What about this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:07PM (#14115113)
    However, living in a world of new digital economy does not mean that one can break all business rules. ... The rights of creators and the protection of their intellectual property require permission and compensations ... Quality contents should pay back their creators; and not just the intermediaries. They ought not to be nor should they be seen as being available for free. Such appearances are demeaning to creators and producers, authors and developers, and they deny them the fruits of their efforts and work.

    This was extracted from the document under discussion. I would have expected this forum to be much more upset about this transparent advocacy of DRM than it would be about some trifling changes regarding free software. If I didn't know better I might think the disclosure that Microsoft had the "free software" language stricken from the document was done deliberately to draw attention away from it's other content. But we in /. too smart to fall for that little diversion, aren't we?
  • ... to include Macro$haft in a discussion about creativity?

    The document (2.8MB PDF), known as the Vienna Conclusions, discusses issues around IT and creativity.

  • "Microsoft asked for references to free software to be removed from a document presented at last week's UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference, the software giant admitted on Friday"

    Which was worse? The fact that Microsoft askef for it to be removed or the fact that the UN happily agreed to it?

    • Re:Makes you wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Skiron ( 735617 )
      or the fact that the UN happily agreed to it?

      If I was a UN bod and was funded by MS bribes, I would be happy too. Pretty obvious what happened here.
    • I think it is worse what the UN did. You can expect Microsoft to act in their self-interest, but the UN is supposed to represent the world's countries. In this case, WTF are they doing listening to what some company has to say.

    • Which was worse? The fact that Microsoft askef for it to be removed or the fact that the UN happily agreed to it?

      Really it seems a bit shallow to start speculating on what's happened here. Claiming that "The UN happily agreed to it" is synonymous to claiming that the "US government" happily agreed to every tiny thing promoted by any and every employee or official associated with it. Clearly Microsoft got their way, but it's unclear just how involved the UN as an entity actually was. It could just

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Indirect comment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:31PM (#14115200) Homepage
    In a linked article in the article, Charles mentions that Linux is for "dorks".

    Every time I read that "Linux is behind, incapable" or whatever, I take note that they don't understand shit. First off, Linux is a small part of the Desktop setup. The other thing I note is I'm sitting here just happy on my Desktop running Gentoo. It does everything I want [which is more than WinXP can deliver anyways] and it didn't cost me a dime other than time to set it up.

    It's good that people are catching MSFT in their lies and poor behaviour but for every MSFT person saying "Linux is bad" there is just another person using an OSS kernel with OSS userland tools scratching their heads. And in the end it's really just that. Some MSFT guy saying something. Sure there are people who buy it without question but there are still more that are aware of it and people taking action on it.

    It's just far far far too late. I mean all the negative press in the world won't make the millions of OSS users switch. And as long as there is 1 OSS user out there, it won't die.

    So go ahead MSFT, act all desperate marketting and FUD'ing against OSS. You could be better served by actually delivering stuff of value. It sucks that an OS has lost "value" [in light of Linux or BSD + OSS userland] but that's it. No clever amount of marketting will make something that has no value all of a sudden have value.

    Tom

  • So where is the original draft? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:42PM (#14115243)
    So where is the original draft? Why doesn't some unhappy person release it on the web with a side-by-side comparison to the final draft? Done this way it should truly embarass someone.

  • MS software isn't free? (Score:5, Funny)

    by happymedium ( 861907 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @06:43PM (#14115246)
    That's odd... My friend BitTorrent tells me most of Microsoft's software is free, too. I wonder why they'd act against their own interests like this?

  • Owell (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25, 2005 @07:05PM (#14115375)
    He who controls the past, controls the future;
    he who controls the present, controls the past

    And he who can have reports and news stories edited on a whim, controls the present.

  • Background of the story (Score:5, Informative)

    by GeorgGreve ( 912912 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @07:09PM (#14115390) Homepage

    For those of you who are interested in the entire story and its background, here are the links:

    The best overall analysis and description of the situation so far was written by Germanys largest IT news provider, the Heise Verlag [heise.de]. They have the story online in both English [heise.de] and German [heise.de].

  • Simple explanation why this happened (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Do the math:

    Amount of campaign contributions made by FSF: $0
    Amount of campaign contributions made by Microsoft: > $0

    We elect our leaders and they appoint people who make decisions. Why do you continue to expect them to benefit you, who contributed $0 to the winning party, if the opposite decisions are desired by people/entities that contributed?

    Think of it this way: politicians and those they appoint want to keep their jobs. They will help those that contribute to them keeping their jobs instead of st
    • Sweetheart, you just go on with your little Monopoly-board-game way of life. We have more powerful ways to change things for our benefit. It's called a revolution. We're calling for one right now. And you don't have to be very rich to afford a guillotine.

  • Missed the point... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jjeffrey ( 558890 ) <slash AT jamesjeffrey DOT co DOT uk> on Friday November 25, 2005 @08:14PM (#14115768) Homepage
    I think a lot of you have missed the point. This says far more about the U.N. than it says about Microsoft. Microsoft is a corporate, inherently self serving and intended as such, it's silly to criticise them for being what any other corporate would be in their place. It is because coroprations are expected to behave like this that we have legislation to prevent it. The U.N. is meant to be about the greater good.

    The saddest thing about the U.N. at the moment though is the fall from grace of the once eminent Kofi Annan.

    • Re:Missed the point... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jc42 ( 318812 )
      This says far more about the U.N. than it says about Microsoft.

      I was wondering when someone would point that out.

      And a second question I have is: Why did the UN guys go along with it? When MS told them to make changes, why didn't they just say "Who are you to order us around?"

      What sort of hold does MS have over the UN guys? Why didn't the UN just publish the report as written?

      Anyone know?

  • scared? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stygianguest ( 828258 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @08:15PM (#14115769)

    Wow, the guys at microsoft are really scared so much that they're becoming irrational:

    "...Microsoft claimed that such software aims to 'make it impossible to make any income on software as a commercial product'"

    Just a question, how many of you have ever written free software explicitly to put a company (say, MS) out of business?

    Maybe you wrote a program after seeing a commercial implementation, but probably only because you wanted to improve on it or make it available for your favourite os. OS software is written because there is a need for it, not to push others out of business.

    Yes there are other companies using open source as a business strategy. A strategy that works well against competitors like microsoft, but clearly has its own pitfalls as well...

    so please Bill, keep your paranoia at home and stop messing with politics

    • Wow, the guys at microsoft are really scared so much that they're becoming irrational:

      "...Microsoft claimed that such software aims to 'make it impossible to make any income on software as a commercial product'"

      Just a question, how many of you have ever written free software explicitly to put a company (say, MS) out of business?

      I remeber there being an old wives tale/parable/famous quote/something of that nature which equates someone projecting their motives onto everyone who attacks them... little

  • Basically (Score:3, Funny)

    by Xerp ( 768138 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @08:51PM (#14115937) Journal
    That sounds like a very reasonable thing to do. It means that Microsoft can put forward a solid, well though out and reasoned debate. In essence, what Microsoft are saying is this:

    "Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh - I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"

  • Is there a record of Microsoft's activities? (Score:3, Funny)

    by lanner ( 107308 ) on Friday November 25, 2005 @09:14PM (#14116029)
    I would be very interested in having a reference of all negative things Microsoft has done. Is there such a thing? I've googled around for a few minutes, but have not yet found anything that lists it all.
  • What do you expect....

    From a company that claims your stealing from them when you buy a white-box (naked PC) computer. Even though you might be putting linux, OS/2, or a older version of Windows that you own on the box.

    From a company you have to ask permission to install the software that you purchased.
    That the software can disable itself once you change your computer seems to be of no big deal to people other than myself.

    From a company who wants to install DRM to limit the DVD quality of your movies.

    From a

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close