EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

02.18.09

Whatever Microsoft Touches, Microsoft Ruins

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GPL, Law, Microsoft, OSI at 8:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Assimilation strategy revisited

Sheep
Ms-PL and G-PL — which is the black sheep?

INTERNAL PRESENTATIONS which are delivered at Microsoft clearly suggest that the company not only understands that attending competitors’ events/committees upsets the audience; Microsoft actively encourages its employee to exploit this and to ‘crash’ events by merely turning attention to itself and changing the agenda to include more of Microsoft. Recent examples include VMWare, but it's a complicated one. Better examples include the crashing of PlayStation3 launch parties and Microsoft’s flirt with the OSI. This was deliberate and it was nothing to be fond of [1, 2, 3].

Over at LinuxToday, GreyGeek composed a good new post which goes under the headline “The OSI was hijacked.” To highlight a couple of portions:

Linux is where it is today, despite the constant attacks from Microsoft and its sycophants, and other proprietary businesses, entirely because it is impossible for them to hijack GPL code.

So, if they can’t hijack the GPL they tried the next best thing: surround the GPL with licenses which CLAIM to be similar to the GPL but were not. The uninformed, walking into the forest of OSI “approved” licenses, stands a strong chance of being deceived into believing that a license they might choose is “identical” because they heard that the GPL is Open Source and the OSI is the “Open Source” Initiative. What their guides through the forest lead them away from is the TRUE open source license, the GPL.

When you acquire an application that is GPL you are guaranteed that:
1) You have the same rights over that application as the person or company from which you got the application.
2) You have the right to obtain the source code of the binary of that application which, when compiled, produces an EXACT copy of the binary of the application you were given.
3) You can modify the source code any way you wish and
3a) If you don’t share your modified application then you don’t have to share your changes,
3b) If you do share your modified application you MUST give the people receiving it the same rights you were given, which includes access to the original source and the source code you added.
4) If they violate the GPL then they lose ALL rights to distribute the GPL portion of the code, but you do not.
5) You cannot sign away your GPL rights as part of an agreement to recive a GPL application. See #4.

Why do these PHONY FOSS companies want to lure you away from the GPL with PHONY FOSS LICENSES? Simple. If it is not “Bait and Switch” then it’s called LOCK-IN.

[...]

SUMMARY: There is only ONE TRUE FOSS License, the GPL. Any other license gives the user less freedom and/or less security in knowing that the code can’t be hijacked they way Microsoft and Apple HIJACKED the BSD and the FreeBSD.

Jose X argues that “GreyGeek’s reply is missing something. I don’t disagree, but besides the license, it’s the licensor as well as the group that owns the copyrights to the license, e.g. an Ms-* license like the GPL will be interpreted differently by Microsoft and they would likely try to play the version x or higher trick so that later versions of the license are different in spirit, i.e. bait and switch.”

“The OSI may not be the only entity to have been ‘hijacked’.”“Bruce Perens couldn't get elected,” writes Balzac. “He was the most reasonable guy involved, and the most visionary. The OSI is irrelevant to those whose concern is computer users’ freedom.”

Balzac also writes that Bruce Perens was tossed for saying [paraphrasing] “It’s time to start saying free software again. Notice I didn’t say open source.”

The OSI may not be the only entity to have been ‘hijacked’. Some months ago we mentioned Redmonk because they have Microsoft’s money on their table, too. To their credit, they at least admit this upfront, as pointed out in this new post.

Their clients are posted clearly on their site. Every time they mention a client (in a blog or otherwise) they include the disclaimer. I see them as being more of a pulse on what’s going on than a mouthpiece for clients (e.g. Gartner). I never feel like I have to look at their research with a microscope and wonder if any string manipulation is going on. I know that many are curious how many companies have ever been in the Gartner Magic Quadrant without paying fees but if Redmonk had their own, this too would be transparent.

An opposite example used in this case is the Gartner Group, which we already have substantial proof to show as “corrupted by Microsoft.” For details:

Whether output from Gartner should be embargoed or not, well… that’s just left for others to decide.

Counting money

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

3 Comments

  1. Lyle Howard Seave said,

    February 18, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Gravatar

    Nice of you to give props to GreyGeek who is along with Brandioch Oconnor one of the best commenters on LinuxToday.

    Very often Grey’s intelligent interventions are much better than the article he comments on.

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 18, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Gravatar

    He has been on LT for ages. He understands what he comments on.

  3. NotZed said,

    February 18, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Gravatar

    The OSI has to keep adding to its set of approved licenses, otherwise their relevance will fade. They don’t really have any other purpose do they?

    Anyway, some of greygeeks objections apply just as equally to the GPL as well, and is actually used as a business model for many companies. For example when a company requires copyright assignment for any contributions – it may be so they can re-license it for other purposes, including proprietary ones. Although it’s a double-edged sword. A project I was working on was completely GPL, but we could not use any other GPL libraries or code because it would have ‘tainted’ the copyright, and messed up the licensing of additional proprietary components which were the mechanism to make money (the code wasn’t written in an externally extensible manner). Although on a practical level it didn’t matter a whole lot – we enjoyed reimplementing everything – it actually meant that it wasn’t so much a piece of free software as an ‘open source’ one, and I found it quite frustrating.

    On the other hand, you have something like the linux kernel with no copyright assignment, so nobody can own it. But now, because of short sighted decisions like removing the ‘or later version’ , they can never re-license it. And despite the shared copyrights, linus’s view is simply `worth’ more than anyone else’s – e.g. the legality of binary modules.

What Else is New


  1. Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) Willing to Work With Campinos But Foresees Difficulties

    New message from SUEPO regarding Battistelli's successor of choice (Campinos)



  2. Links 18/10/2017: GTK+ 3.92, Microsoft Bug Doors Leaked

    Links for the day



  3. The Darker Past of the Next President of the EPO - Part I: Introduction

    Some new details about Mr. Campinos, who is Battistelli’s successor at the EPO



  4. Confessions of EPO Insiders Reveal That European Patents (EPs) Have Lost Their Legitimacy/Value Due to Battistelli's Policies

    A much-discussed topic at the EPO is now the ever-declining quality of granted patents, which make or break patent offices because quality justifies high costs (searches, applications, renewals and so on)



  5. Patent Firms From the United States Try Hard to Push the Unitary Patent (UPC), Which Would Foment Litigation Wars in Europe

    The UPC push seems to be coming from firms which not only fail to represent public interests but are not even European



  6. In the Age of Alice and PTAB There is No Reason to Pursue Software Patents in the United States (Not Anymore)

    The appeal board in the US (PTAB) combined with a key decision of the Supreme Court may mean that even at a very low cost software patents can be invalidated upon demand (petition) and, failing that, the courts will invalidate these



  7. IAM is Wrong, the Narrative Isn't Changing, Except in the Battistelli-Funded (at EPO's Expense) Financial Times

    The desperate attempts to change the narrative in the press culminate in nothing more than yet another misleading article from Rana Foroohar and some rants from Watchtroll



  8. The Federal Circuit Continues Squashing Software Patents

    Under the leadership of Sharon Prost the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues its war on software patents, making it very hard to remember the last time it tolerated any



  9. SUEPO Representatives Like Elizabeth Hardon Vindicated as Battistelli's Detrimental Effect on Patent Quality is Widely Confirmed

    Feedback regarding the awful refusal to acknowledge patent quality crisis at the EPO as well as the appointment of a President so close to Battistelli (who most likely assures continuation of his policies)



  10. Links 17/10/2017: KDE Frameworks 5.39.0, Safe Browsing in Epiphany

    Links for the day



  11. Judge Bryson Rules Against Allergan After It Used Native American Tribes to Dodge Scrutiny of Patents (IPRs); Senator Hatch Does Not Understand IPRs

    Having attempted to dodge inter partes reviews (IPRs) by latching onto sovereign immunity, Allergan loses a key case and Senator Hatch is meanwhile attempting to water down IPRs albeit at the same time bemoaning patent trolls (which IPRs help neutralise)



  12. Rumours That António Campinos Initially Had No Competition at All (for Battistelli's Succession) Are Confirmed

    Succession at the EPO (mostly French) shows that there's little room for optimism and Battistelli's people are too deeply entrenched in the upper echelons of the EPO



  13. EPO Stakeholders Complain That the New Chairman Does Not Grasp the Issues at the EPO (or Denies These)

    Some information from inside the EPO’s Administrative Council, whose Chairman is denying (at least to himself) some of the core issues that render the EPO less competitive in the international market



  14. Another Misleading Article Regarding Patents From Rana Foroohar at the Financial Times

    In an effort to promote the agenda of patent maximalists, many of whom are connected to the Financial Times, another deceiving report comes out



  15. Monika Ermert's Reports About the Crisis at the EPO and IP Kat's Uncharacteristically Shallow Coverage

    News from inside the Council shows conflict regarding the quality of European Patents (granted by the EPO under pressure from top-level management)



  16. Patent Troll VirnetX a Reminder to Apple That Software Patents Are a Threat to Apple Too

    VirnetX, a notorious patent troll, is poised to receive a huge sum of money from Apple and Qualcomm is trying to ban Apple products, serving to remind Apple of the detrimental impact of patents on Apple itself



  17. Links 16/10/2017: Linux 4.14 RC5, Debian 9.2.1, End of LibreOffice Conference 2017

    Links for the day



  18. The Systematic Erosion of Workers' Rights and Holidays at the EPO Goes Years Back

    The legitimacy of the staff's concerns at the EPO, having seen basic labour safeguards being shredded to pieces by Battistelli for a number of years (predating even the escalation of the conflict)



  19. Articles in English and German Speak About the Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    Heise and The Register, two sites that have closely watched EPO affairs for a number of years, speak about the real problem which is declining patent quality (or rushed examination) -- a recipe for frivolous litigation in Europe



  20. Software Patents and Patent Trolls Not a Solved Issue, But the US is Getting There

    A media survey regarding software patents, which are being rejected in the US in spite of all the spin from law firms and bullies such as IBM



  21. US Patent Trolls Are Leaving and the Eastern District of Texas Sees Patent Cases Falling by More Than Half

    The decline of patent aggression in the US and the patent microcosm's response to Justices, having ruled in TC Heartland, curtailing patent trolls



  22. Qualcomm's Nightmares Are Getting Worse as Antitrust Questions Are Raised and Assessed

    Qualcomm is getting itself deeper in trouble as fines pile up and its multi-billion dollar dispute with Apple isn't getting it anywhere



  23. Forget About Apple; Two of the Leading Phone Makers (Samsung and Huawei) Are Bickering Over Patents

    Massive Android OEMs, Huawei and Samsung, are in a big patent dispute and this time, for a change, China is a legal battleground



  24. Tim Heberden From the Glasshouse Advisory is Throwing Stones in a Glasshouse to Create Patent Litigation

    IAM's latest lobbying, aided by the patent microcosm, for a climate of feuds and disputes (to line the pockets of the litigation 'industry')



  25. Access to Medicine is More Important Than Patents

    Some of the latest news about patents that impede/deny access to crucial medication; strategic litigation from the generics sector, seeking to invalidate patents and then offer low-cost alternatives



  26. Links 14/10/2017: Windows Breaks Dutch Law, Wine 2.19 Released

    Links for the day



  27. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Supported by Congress, a Federal Judge, Soon to be Supported by the Supreme Court Too?

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is still widely defended, except by the patent microcosm which likes (and profits from) patent trolls and litigation Armageddon



  28. Patents Are Turning BlackBerry and Nokia, Which Used Android, Into Anti-Android Fronts That Tax Android OEMs

    The Canadian BlackBerry has sued BLU in the US only to compel it to pay 'protection' money; Nokia's patents are being scattered to trolls, which are doing something similar (without risking litigation themselves)



  29. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Rotting Like the European Patent Office

    The Unitary Patent litigation pipe dreams (or prosecution/trolling fast lane), which Battistelli's EPO long relied on, turn out to be the road to nowhere



  30. Lying and Faking Now a Standard Procedure at the European Patent Office

    The European Patent Organisation (EPO) under the leadership (or chairmanship) of Christoph Ernst continues to relay lies from Battistelli's Office, SUEPO rejects these, the Office lies about SMEs, prioritises Microsoft (again), and probably buys fake Twitter "followers"


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts