07.24.09
Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Google, GPL, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 4:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: While the FSF marks a triumph with GPLv3, Linus Torvalds shies away and people respond
ACCORDING TO this encouraging claim from Google’s Chris DiBona, adoption of the GPLv3 is very high. This was expected, but Microsoft front groups were among those attacking the GPLv3, for obvious reasons.
In July 2007, version 3 of the GNU General Public License barely accounted for 164 projects. A year later, the number had climbed past 2,000 total projects. Today, as announced by Google open-source programs office manager Chris DiBona, the number of open-source projects licensed under GPLv3 is at least 56,000.
As Kuhn puts it, “Even Chris DiBona w/ his secret data admits that GPLv3 is taking over fast (> 50%) and AGPLv3 is growing very very fast.”
We have also learned from an anonymous source that the new general policy at Novell is that all open source code developed in-house should be released as GPLv2 only (not GPLv3). This is not particularly surprising given Novell’s attitude towards the FSF, but it is nice to have it repeated by another party that says:
I just learned that Novell has a new general policy according to which all Open Source code developed by/for the company should be released as “GPLv2 ONLY”. This information is 100% good as it comes directly from the source. This policy interestingly coincides with that of Microsoft. If I learn more details I will let you know.
Linus Torvalds would not be happy about the news regarding GPLv3 adoption. In due time, it may pressure Linux as well to follow suit and evolve. Torvalds had some very harsh words for critics of Microsoft the other day, but rebuttals other than ours have already been published. Here is Jason’s:
On Linus and Free Software
[...]
I see the situation like this:
1. Oversimplifying a situation into a dilemma is a fallacy, but that won’t stop me here: If you want to picture situation in the FLOSS world as having two poles, with rms and “Freedom or Death” on one end, and Linus “Shut up and code” on the other, then that’s fine. The bottom line is Free Software is here to stay because of the GPL, so even the most pragmatic pragmatist needs to come to terms with that. The converse is true, as well, of course.
2. If you blindly and unequivocally side with Linus, you are just as much in error as if you blindly and unequivocally side with rms. Neither are gods, both are men trying to figure out the best way to do things.
In relation to the above, one reader writes to tell us: “Linus Torvalds made a provocative statement about Free Software recently. What does it mean?”
One reader says that Jason “debunks the myth that anti-mono folks are just zealots who can’t see reason.”
The same reader says that Jason “debunks the myth that anti-mono folks are just zealots who can’t see reason. Finally, he has this to address the issue of Torvalds’ remarks about “free software purists.”"
Here is another new criticism of Mono (in Italian) and Jason on what would change his mind on Microsoft, Mono, and Moonlight.
The short story is that it would take a lot for Microsoft and its associated software to gain trust. Another reader contributed the following thoughts in response to the interview with Linus. We append them below with suitable formatting.
Okay, a lot has been said on this blog, and there is some that I approve of, and a great deal that concerns me, and all of it brings up a lot of thoughts about my own feelings and loyalties. People are not the same, and have opinions that are all across the spectrum. But what concerns me most right now is how one person in particular seems to be painting a lot of us with the same brush, and more importantly, how there might be a kernel of truth to it.
Let me tell you about myself. I call the operating system GNU/Linux out of pride and respect for the GNU Project. I call it “free software”, because I believe it is exactly the freedom component of this operating system that makes it special. And I have a great deal of admiration for Richard Stallman and for what he has been able to accomplish.
All the same, I think that in the free software community the lines between advocacy and zealotry are often crossed too easily. I find many of the conclusions that Roy here jumps to hasty, and this concerns me. And this only serves to support many of the things that critics has been saying, and puts me in a position where I don’t know if I dislike what they have been saying because the statements are false or because I wish they weren’t true. But first let me put up a few points of agreement.
DEGREES OF SEXISM
Apparently, a lot of this controversy started due to a poorly performed joke that RMS made at a conference to GNOME and KDE developers. I think the details of this joke, and why it has been found offensive, have been nit-picked to death, so I won’t get into it here. But calling RMS sexist, or even continuing to insinuate that the man is sexist, I think really requires some perspective. In fact, lets begin a list starting from the most sexist thing you can do to least, and see where RMS’s joke belongs on this ladder.
1. Rape and physical abuse of women.
2. Instituting laws and rules that take away the rights of women.
3. Discrimination as an employer or leader of an organization.
4. Misogyny.
5. Emotional abuse or tormenting of women.
6. Acting on sexist stereotypes.
7. Treating women as physical objects (e.g., of lust).
8. Mean-spirited jokes directed at women.
9. A poorly worded joke said at a conference that makes women feel uncomfortable.
10. Using the words “he” and “his” as a gender neutral pronoun.
So, where does RMS fall in this list? By a lot of the comments I’ve been hearing, I would get the impression that RMS has made an offense somewhere near the top of this list. But actually, I’d put RMS at level 9 of sexism.
Now, contrary to what Roy and others have said, I actually don’t scorn critics at all for speaking up about this. If they believe this was a serious lapse of etiquette, then it is their right to speak up about their feelings on the matter. And if women are offended by this because they are women, then I think they should also speak up. That’s fine, but so long as you see it as a violation of etiquette rather than something worse. Again, you need perspective.
At best, I would consider the event embarrassing for the free software community. But there are other messages out there that are saying that he free software community needs to move on, or that we should abandon free software principles and endorse the apathy of Linus Torvalds. Well, I disagree. But if I’m embarrassed by the event, why would I still admire this man?
DEGREES OF SUPPORTING THE CAUSE
To understand, let’s look at another list, this time in the reverse direction. We all support the free software movement, don’t we? If you don’t, then none of this should matter to you. But here are ways of supporting the free software community in order to least effective to most effective.
10. Chatting about “Linux” on IRC, twitter, blogs, and web forums.
9. Installing GNU/Linux on your own computer, and telling others about it.
8. Helping other people install GNU/Linux.
7. Writing fixing bugs and contributing documentation to the community.
6. Helping new users install and run free software on their computes.
5. Working on a minor free software application and contributing it to the pool.
4. Working on a major free software application and contributing it to the pool.
3. Working on a high priority application and contributing it to the pool.
2. Starting and leading a major free software desktop project for the purpose preventing the free software community depending on a proprietary toolkit being used by a competing project.
1. Quitting your job, starting the GNU Project, begin working on the basic free software needed for the development of an operating system, establish the legal foundation for free software by writing the licensing, start the Free Software Foundation to give the community a legal backbone, stay true to your principles, never compromise, never give in, and take abuse from members of the community for doing exactly what it takes to win.
Okay, so I’m biased. Number 1 is obviously RMS, but for the sake of the cause that *I* support, there is no one more deserving of that slot. But notice who Number 2 is? Come on, does anyone remember their history? That’s right, the leader of the dreaded Mono project was also the instigator of the GNOME project. In fact, even before GNOME, Miguel de Izaca was a GNU developer and contributed GNU software like the Midnight Commander. Then, while developing GNOME, he started a company developing and supporting free software. Now why would he have gone to all this hassle if Miguel didn’t care about free software principles? Come on, people! when a contradiction is staring at you square in the face, admit to it! Reason with it! Learn from it!
I don’t know de Izaca personally, but in all probability he likely *still* believes in free software principles. But, you ask, how is this possible when Mono is this huge threat to the free software community? First, remind yourself that Mono software is all distributed under free software licenses. Even now, working for Novel, Miguel is writing free software. Could it be, just maybe, that Miguel disagrees with the patent situation?
WHERE WE STAND
And that’s the thing, people have the *right* to disagree. But even more importantly, *consult your lawyers!* This is, fundamentally, a legal question, and one that people uneducated in law should stay out of. I trust the opinion of the SFLC and the FSF, they have been the legal backbone of the free software community from the beginning. And, I know that Canonical has consulted their lawyers, and Red Hat has consulted their lawyers, and so on and so forth. That’s what everyone should be doing.
But in certain respects, patent problems isn’t anything new to the free software community. They are a huge problem because the patent process rewards the person who first patented the idea at the expense of your average free software developer who doesn’t care about getting an intellectual monopoly over a particular technique. So the .NET framework isn’t anything new in that respect. If all else was equal, this would be just another case of crossing the bridge when we get there.
I’m as worried about Microsoft as the next GNU/Linux user. But *hatred* of them is simply foolish at this point. There is nothing personal about Microsoft. They are a company in search of profit, and they are using everything they can to achieve that goal. This makes companies remarkably predictable in this respect.
But there are a few things we know about Microsoft. We know that free software is a direct competitor to Microsoft software. We know that free software has already cost Microsoft an untold amount of money. We know that the GNU/Linux system commoditizes the products that Microsoft is trying to profit by. We know that the free software community is on their crosshairs.
It’s one thing to be paranoid, it’s quite another to *know* they are out to get you. But we shouldn’t be fanatical. We shouldn’t be afraid. We should just…*breathe*. We don’t have to fight Microsoft. All we need to do is to continue working with the GNU project, the Free Software Foundation, the GNOME and KDE projects, and all the other wonderful free software projects out there to create a more perfect system. Build a solid foundation and no one can break you.
KNOW WHO THE ENEMIES ARE
But what we don’t need here is this *false antagonism* that is being spread around, from blog to blog, dividing the community, creating animosity between people writing software under the same set of licenses. *We’re all on the same side here.* Aren’t we? The Mono team isn’t the enemy here. If Mono turns out being patent encumbered, then we will learn we just can’t use their software. The free software community has dealt with worse before. I’m not going to encourage the use of Mono myself, but if other people have different legal opinions, and believe they are safe from Microsoft, then I hope they’re right! But know who our enemies really are: Microsoft and proprietary software. *Not* free software developers! Even if you think their lawyers aren’t as smart as your lawyers 
I know a while back there was this meme on Planet GNOME that said “I’m not afraid of people writing code” and because that meme spread widely that is pretty sad, really. It’s a consequence of this false antagonism that I’m talking about. Be honest. Be sincere. Be true about your feelings, and you won’t have any opinions worth spreading a meme about:
I’m afraid of software patents and Microsoft.
Any more thoughts would be welcome. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in ECMA, Formats, ISO, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard, XPS at 3:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: ECMA is done with Microsoft XPS, time to shove it down ISO’s throat
LAST YEAR we warned that Microsoft would attempt to repeat something like the OOXML fiasco, this time for a static document format. This was also alluded to in [1, 2, 3].
“It is Microsoft’s proprietary, inferior duplicate of PDF — just another proprietary format in Microsoft’s control.”Now that ECMA, a body that stamps virtually anything provided sufficient payments, is done with XPS (press release from this week), it is expected that Microsoft will try to ram it down ISO’s throat. It is Microsoft’s proprietary, inferior duplicate of PDF — just another proprietary format in Microsoft’s control. As David Gerard puts it, “Microsoft tries to push completely superfluous garbage through ECMA in preparation for ISO.”
Over at Wikipedia, the Microsoft proponents are pushing opinions of Microsoft as facts (see edit: “opinion was stated as fact”) and there are more corrections that annul the latest deeds of Ghettoblaster et al. It is worth keeping an eye on Microsoft's intervention in Wikipedia because of whisper campaigns. █
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, Kernel, Law, Microsoft at 6:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft’s Linux code is from Microsoft, for Microsoft, which fights Linux
“The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it’s simply seeking to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It’s quite revealing that Mr. Gates equates the two.”
–Government official
Summary: Microsoft’s Linux module was made GPL-licensed only because the law required it after accusations of GPL violation
THIS will hopefully be the last post about an issue that we previously covered in:
A blog post that we linked to the other day revealed that Microsoft merely did what it had to do. It was a legal obligation, not a moral obligation. The pro-Microsoft folks wrote about it by citing the blog with the original claim.
As revealed by Stephen Hemminger – a principal engineer with open-source network vendor Vyatta – a network driver in Microsoft’s Hyper-V used open-source components licensed under the GPL and statically linked to binary parts. The GPL does not permit the mixing of closed and open-source elements.
This is further confirmed in Mary Jo Foley’s blog and there is wider coverage of this in Slashdot and OSNews, which chose the headline “Microsoft’s Linux Kernel Code Drop Result of GPL Violation”
To put things in the right order, also consider the headline from IDG: “Engineer: Microsoft Violated GPL Before Linux Code Release”
So, in hindsight, it was not Microsoft’s intention to release the module as Free software. Microsoft screwed up. Linus Torvalds responds to this too, but in his assessment he makes the mistake of comparing Microsoft’s patches to IBM’s. IBM is not the company which is attacking Linux; Microsoft is very unique in that regard. Why would Torvalds refuse to see that Microsoft writes code to advance the competitor/s of GNU/Linux, which is what makes Microsoft’s code different from code of Intel or IBM? Matthew Aslett says that “we should all be very grateful for Linus Torvalds.” We probably all are (I sure am), but this does not imply that there should be no disagreements at times. As Aslett noted:
Glyn Moody reminds us that there has always been a divide between purists and pragmatists, and that actually there is value in that divide in that debate helps expose weaknesses and refine arguments.
We wrote about this a couple of hours ago.
The Microsoft-faithful (and Microsoft investor) Synder daemonises those who warned about Microsoft’s code, so it’s clear that these folks are trying to bury something. Specifically, he writes:
In case you missed it, Microsoft has released 20,000 lines of Hyper-V device driver code to the Linux kernel community. The news prompted a number of commentators, including InfoWorld’s own Randall Kennedy, to go full-bore ballistic. You’d think the black helicopters were about to swoop down on Linuxland.
The other day we noticed the same type of denial in Beta News, which is typically biased in Microsoft’s favour. They are very specifically targeting critics of the big patch. It has always been self serving and it would be foolish to expect otherwise. Here is another interesting take on the subject.
Now ask yourself this question: would Microsoft have released their virtualization drivers as Open Source if they could have been included in the kernel as binary drivers? Probably not! (especially if as some suggest Microsoft had little choice)
The bottom line is that Microsoft did nothing out of altruism (companies are not like humans with compassion and ubuntu), so to claim this was a change of heart is to totally miss the point and to tactlessly embrace Microsoft’s PR. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, Novell at 5:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Microsoft is asking people to pay them for patents, but they won’t say which ones. If a guy walks into a shop and says: “It’s an unsafe neighbourhood, why don’t you pay me 20 bucks and I’ll make sure you’re okay,” that’s illegal. It’s racketeering.”
–Mark Shuttleworth
Summary: Had Microsoft been up to any good, it would rescind the patent threats too, implicitly claims Red Hat
WHEN Microsoft gave its self-serving patch to Linux [1, 2, 3], it pretended to have done something generous, but as the next post will show, Microsoft merely violated the GPL and decided to correct this.
Microsoft’s patent racketeering against Linux was last seen over a week ago, so Red Hat uses this opportunity to tell Microsoft that it must end.
“To win the respect and trust of the Linux community, Microsoft should unequivocally disavow such conduct and pledge that its patents will never be used against Linux or other open source developers and users,” Red Hat stated.
Microsoft however has a different opinion. Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel at Microsoft, has blogged his own response to Red Hat’s call.
Asay wrote about this too:
Red Hat’s legal team has given a half-hearted pat on the back to Microsoft’s open sourcing of Linux device drivers this week.
The observation of the Bible’s James came to mind: “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.”
[...]
The spirit of Red Hat’s comment–compete on the basis of technology and execution, not patent threats–is absolutely correct. But the course of action suggested by Red Hat’s legal team for Microsoft is a double standard that no company or individual should follow.
From IDG:
While applauding Microsoft’s contribution of code to the Linux community this week, Red Hat nonetheless urged its rival to pledge that it will never use its patents against Linux.
The funny thing is that Microsoft knows it merely complied with the GPL, but this never prevented the company from pretending to have done something owing to niceties. Dishonesty rather.
Now that Sun Microsystems is sold to Oracle, many will say that Red Hat is the largest or at least most prominent among open source companies. So it is sad that the following Register Webcast, which is about “open source”, is speaking to Novell and Microsoft; they don’t describe themselves as open source companies.
Experts from The Register, Novell, Freeform Dynamics and Microsoft will provide their opinions, practical advice and answers to attendee questions throughout this hour-long event. Topics include:
# What are organisations adopting when it comes to Open Source and Proprietary software?
[...]
# Virtualization and flexible operations
# Novell and Microsoft working together
Why is a show which purports to be about open source so overly focused on Microsoft on Novell? Those two companies are mixing code and using software patents. That’s not open source. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument at 5:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another sign of Microsoft’s arrogance is its official reply to well-founded accusations of misconduct
FOR THOSE just joining, here are some background posts that outline Glyn Moody’s attempt to bring ODF to the UK authorities:
As that last link indicates, Richard Steel quit very suddenly, so Moody sent his feedback directly to Microsoft, which would not prove especially helpful. Prior to that, Glyn Moody showed a series of misconduct (OOXML incidents) from Microsoft, but Microsoft, in response, totally neglects to address them (see the new update at the bottom). To make matters worse, Microsoft turned accusations against it into another PR stunt/effort, wanting/claiming credit for harmful intervention in ODF. Microsoft only ruins ODF interoperability with its ‘MSODF’ implementation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], all of which is completely beside the point. What is probably most telling are the many irregularities the company cannot retract or refute; not even an apology here is indicative of attitudinal issues.
In IDG, an article was published suggesting that Microsoft should get its act together and fix its broken implementation of ODF.
2) Be sure and make the upcoming free Web version of Office 2010 work with the world-standard Open Document Format (ODF) and the open source OpenOffice and its related alternatives from Day 1. The rest of the world believes in ODF and its lovely file compatibility to make it much easier for users anywhere to share their documents without vendor lock-in and problems. You began working on this in earnest with Office 2007 Service Pack 2, but its time to really hit the ball a mile. No more half attempts just to try to score some points. Instead, make ODF compliance a key feature and watch Office 2010 head out of the sales park.
John Cody, an Albany-based Attorney (New York State Office of the Chief Information) writes: “Reading “interop” blogs & shaking my head-why do vendors spend so much time on OOXML and OOXML interop when ODF is the only ISO document format?”
New York has already produced relevant reports in the past — ones which were favourable to ODF. Here is another new example of ODF support:
Spanish open source project featuring an ODF viewer for JavaME phones.
ODF has had many big wins recently. Standing in the way of its adoption are poor-yet-ubiquitous implementations such as Microsoft’s, which is designed to work only with Microsoft. █
“I have lost my sleep and peace of mind for last two months over these distasteful activities by Microsoft.”
–Professor Deepak Phatak
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 4:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Bits of minor news about Mono
AS our later post will show, Microsoft delivered not 20,000 lines of code but 20,000 lines of GPL compliance. Despite the illusion or bubble of PR bursting, some pro-Microsoft blogs are using this forced compliance (and Mono) to describe Microsoft’s self-serving actions as a “love-fest over open source” for which Microsoft deserves special credit. This spin is also pushed by the business press. At the same time we are seeing personal attacks on those daring to criticise some things like Mono, disdain of Stallman, and trust in Microsoft. Trust needs to be earned (c/f TomTom lawsuit in 2009)
Glyn Moody is able to see the disagreements at play and he has published a post that tells apart “Purists” and “Pragmatists”. It’s an old story and nothing particularly out of the ordinary; tension has always existed at some level.
Now we have a similar situation regarding Mono. The purists are concerned that there may be issues to do with software patents in jurisdictions that recognise them. To them, it seems folly to create what may be tainted code because of the digital sword of Damocles hanging over them through such intellectual monopolies. For the pragmatists, by contrast, Mono is simply a good way of programming that can serve the useful purpose of allowing people to run .Net-based programs on free software. All in all, then, they believe it is to be welcomed as a way of increasing the use of open source.
There is a particular irony in this situation, because this time it is the GNOME project’s use of Mono that is proving unacceptable to the purists, whereas ten years ago, GNOME was the purist solution to the problems with KDE’s pragmatism. If nothing else, this shows how foolish it would be to judge projects on their past alignments rather than present actions.
Despite warnings from the FSF, Novell is replicating Microsoft and it shows no signs of abatement. Taking Banshee for example, it is being further extended into territories which beg for trouble [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Tomboy has many users, but unlike Banshee, Microsoft’s Community Promise covers it for the time being. One of the biggest issues happens to be Moonlight, which was covered in ZDNet UK a few days ago.
Silverlight is based on .NET — the open source implementation of .NET is Mono. Microsoft has assisted Mono development. The open source version of Silverlight is called Moonlight, which is based on Mono, and sponsored by Novell. Moonlight enables Silverlight content to run on Linux.
Microsoft never appeased the concerns raised by the SFLC regarding Moonlight.
What also ought to be added is that David Worthington seems to have been promoting “everything Microsoft” recently (ever since they bought him lunch, but he was in touch with Microsoft for longer than that). Anyway, one of the latest posts from him is once again promoting Mono by deception, even spin and borderline lies. Pascal from the OpenSUSE Board is annoyed by it. He wrote:
This piece of… “art” has to be one of the most factually wrong and ridiculous pseudo-technical articles ever. Because its utterly unqualified author has 3 or 4 desktop applications running on Mono on his desktop, he states that Mono has overtaken Java (and, unlike the title of that article, he actually writes that it’s not only on the desktop).
And even later, Worthington carries on promoting Mono. It must be good for Microsoft, but we already knew that and wrote about it yesterday. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Hardware, Vista 7, Windows at 3:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Update on the ASUS ‘contest’ situation, more on Vista 7
ABOUT a week ago we wrote about ASUS generating positive coverage through incentives to bloggers. This was particularly relevant because Microsoft is doing the same type of things. Well, it was only yesterday that The Inquirer offered some follow-on coverage of what ASUS had gotten itself into.
The INQ reported that Asus had chosen six reviewers, laden them with its kit – laptops and netbooks – and dropped them into the bog(osphere). The idea was that readers would be able to vote for the bogger they liked best. The winner would receive an Eee PC 900.
This is worth mentioning because of the warped perceptions of Vista 7, which SJVN has just insisted would not work properly with sub-notebooks. He had reviewed the operating system at an earlier stage before it got even heavier.
No matter how Microsoft spins it, Windows 7 is not suitable for a netbook. It’s lighter than Vista was in terms of its impact on system resources, but then, what isn’t? If you want a cheap netbook with decent performance, you want Linux. And, if you want one after Windows 7 starts shipping, you’ll want to check ones running Moblin or Google Chrome OS.
And here is another new example of people losing control of their computers because Windows is installed on them.
So thank you, Microsoft. Your “awesome” Windows Update process needs some work. Why is System Update not really done installing patches until you shut down? This doesn’t make sense to me. It should have installed those other patches while the system was up, then let them take effect after reboot. I’m most shocked that System Update had to “own” my machine when I was trying to shut down.
When it comes to operating systems that one truly controls, there is no substitute as good as GNU/Linux. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
