01.07.08
Gemini version available ♊︎Is Microsoft Already Redefining ‘Open Source’?
Tast month we published Pandu Rao's article which explained how Microsoft redefined “open” and used terms like “XML” to confuse. Dilution of important terms that are also distinguishing factor is something which Microsoft does frequently. Here is another good example from David Rosenberg.
Back in June of 2006 I wrote a post about Microsoft’s attempts to insidiously subvert and usurp the open source community. In that post I opined that Microsoft was using clever marketing to make nice with the open source community with the launch of a developer site called Codeplex.
This week Microsoft launched a SMB program that contains the words “open”, “value” and “subscription”, none of which are common to Microsoft products, culture, or marketing.
[...]
So if I read this right:
* There is nothing open about the code or the contract as you have to use the software for a set period of time
* The value isn’t really there as there is no cost-benefit
* It’s not really a subscription as “lease-like” means it’s a perpetual license–you just absorb the cost over time instead of upfront
* If you already bought all the Microsoft software you might get a discount if you buy this muck too
As you can see, innocent CIOs are likely to lose faith in key terms such as “open”, “subscription model” and it’s not so clear how “value” fits in. There are many similar examples of such ‘term-jacking’. █
Related articles (external):
- Using open source as a marketing ploy
- Microsoft’s newest Halloween documents
- Halloween XII: What’s really behind those Microsoft licenses?
- Reverse-Halloween: The Marketing Checkbox Strategy
- OSI email group gets catty over Microsoft’s Permissive License request
- Merging ‘Open Source’ and ‘Free Software’
- Microsoft not so ‘open’ after all?
- Is Microsoft Hijacking Open Source?
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA