12.18.09
Posted in FSF, GNOME, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents at 6:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat.”
–James Plamondon, Microsoft Technical Evangelist. From Exhibit 3096; Comes v. Microsoft litigation [PDF]
Summary: Analysis and deconstruction of the latest Moonlight PR; more about Mono and the GNU/GNOME kerkuffle
SOME people have begun responding to news regarding Moonlight. The following article uses an amusing headline which says that “Moonlight 2.0 Gets Microsoft’s Blessing”
Considering the fact that it’s a Microsoft project as much as it is a Novell project (the Novell/Microsoft Web site calls it "Microsoft Moonlight"), why would it need any additional “blessings”? Microsoft has blessed the project since its inception.
In 2006, Novell and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) entered into a joint patent and interoperability agreement, giving Novell users the OK to use open source technologies on which the software giant has said it may have intellectual property claims.
As a result of today’s expansion of that deal, Moonlight users will enjoy protection under the patent covenant regardless of whether they’re using Novell’s (NASDAQ: NOVL) Linux distro or another distributor’s.
Here is how Miguel de Icaza put it:
Culturally, we started on two opposite ends of the software licensing spectrum. The covenant not to sue that was issued for Moonlight 1 and 2 covered every user that used Moonlight, but only as long as the user obtained Moonlight from Novell. This is a model similar to how Flash is distributed: there is a well-known location where you get your plugin.
The open source world does not work that way though. In the open source world, the idea is to release source code and have distributions play the role of editors and curators and distribute their own versions of the software.
Microsoft’s intention was to expand the reach of Silverlight, but the original covenant was not a good cultural fit. We worked with the team at Microsoft (Brian Goldfarb and Bob Muglia’s teams) to make sure that the covenant would cover the other Linux distributions.
Microsoft’s intention is still “to expand the reach of Silverlight,” which it totally controls, unlike HTML for example. The biggest issue — as we have argued for years — is one of control. Patents are another issue, but not the main one. Moonlight (like Mono) gives Microsoft the sceptre and crown with which to rule and watch over FOSS developers. If they use Microsoft as their reference, then it not only helps Microsoft’s fight against Web standards but also against LAMP and Java, among a lot of other software. It’s mono-culture.
The Source (same author as Mono-Nono) has responded to the above announcement and made some predictions.
Here are my predictions, based on the last similar situation when Mono fell under the “promise” from Microsoft:
1. The new covenant will not be as comprehensive as Mr. de Icaza states. I do think he isn’t overselling this one near as much as the last one, which I think points to a lesson learned.
2. Team Mono will rail on and on about how this is a win for them and should “silence the critics”, never noting the incovenient fact that they promoted Moonlight just as hard without the “proper” coverage, and there are still remaining issues.
3. There will still be at least 3 obvious problems with the “Covenant” and a half-dozen subtle and complicated problems.
Our reader Oiaohm says that “the Moonlight agreement still sucks. It expires September 1, 2011.”
In other news, one reader told us that Storm OS is adding Mono software that falls outside the Microsoft Community Promise and thus makes it sensitive to Microsoft’s threats and lawsuits (both deterrents).
Here is something I’ve been working on for a little while, getting Mono to work properly. Properly = with dbus so you actually runs some apps with it. Banshee, F-Spot, Gnome-do and Monodevelop appear to be working with very few changes
According to Microsoft’s own words (no speculation), this is trouble. Longtime proponents of Mono (like Ryan Paul and others who still give it coverage) should pay more attention to the issues and bring light to them. The latest episode from Linux Outlaws (recommended show) is titled “Reverse Mono Trojan Horse”
Another proponent of Mono, Thom Holwerda (mentioned a few days ago in the same context), writes a little more about GNOME and GNU [1, 2, 3]. So does Bruce Byfield (whose words we unfortunately misinterpreted the other day, so we sincerely apologise to him). The latest from Byfield is a good writeup which concludes with:
Staying within the GNU Project may have very little practical effect on GNOME. However, making any formal decision under these circumstances might. At the very least, any vote might be delayed six months so that people have a chance to consider the idea on its merits and not on the emotions stored up over the last six months.
Genuine critics of GNU do exist (Lasse Havelund for example), but some of the more proactive and vocal critics appear to be doing this for other reasons. Someone quoting Upton Sinclair says that “It’s hard get a man to understand something, when he’s being paid not to understand it.”
“It’s probably better to keep funding and decision-making separate. Decide who gets to make decisions based on merit, not money.”
–MinceRHe adds: “perfectly nails all these corporate swine trying to defame RMS and ruin Free Software.”
Our reader Brandon says: “some idiot keeps going around saying FSF accepts corporate funding as well, however GNOME is set up in a way where if you fund them via businesses, you get onto the “advisory board” which makes suggestions to the executives. this is exactly like the congress – lobbying connection – whereas, in other projects such as Apache, they will take your funding but won’t let you dictate [anything]. Apache has funding from MSFT, but they’ve publicly said that doesn’t mean crap because they still make all the decisions. GNOME on the other hand, with the advisory board at least has to listen to these suggestions. They don’t have to act upon them, but they gotta listen still.”
“It’s probably better to keep funding and decision-making separate. Decide who gets to make decisions based on merit, not money,” says MinceR in response.
Brandon adds: “I can’t find an equivalent in FSF for a corporately paid subsection which gets to tell board members suggestions based on them paying tens of thousands of dollars. I don’t mind if an organization takes funding, but funding/decisions should be separate. The “advisory board” is just a euphemism for “lobbying board”, I can’t see how its different. They pay tens of thousands of dollars, and get to make suggestions. Lobbyists pay congresspeople tens of thousands of dollars, and get to make suggestions.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF, GPL, Law at 5:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Response to critics of those who are law sticklers, standing up for their right
THE SFLC’S LATEST batch of lawsuits is a simple case of compelling companies to obey the law. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Mark Radcliffe has just written about Palm’s GPL infringement, which he partly blames on the mixing of proprietary with free/libre.
This complaint may signal the beginning of a trend by commercial open source companies with ”dual licensing” models: the success of that model, which is used by most commercial open source companies, depends on the difference in the scope of rights available under an open source license and a commercial license as well as the value of the additional protections (performance warranties, support and indemnification) available under the commercial license.
An essay from Bruce Perens was taken slightly out of context and used by critics of the FSF/SFLC to daemonise them. Here is a clarification from the SFLC, which only came later, in the form of an update:
Update – When asked by The H about Perens comments, Aaron Williamson, SFLC Counsel, said “Bruce Perens is a very important figure in the free software community, but he is not our client. Many developers have contributed to the development of BusyBox and hold copyright in the program, including Bruce Perens. Whether, or to what extent, Mr. Perens holds copyright in any version of BusyBox is irrelevant to the lawsuits we have filed; a developer need not hold a “majority interest” of copyright in a program in order to bring a claim for infringement against a third party.”
Regarding the same subject, Ryan Paul showed his bias and Rainer Weikusat replied by saying:
Inaccuracies.
Bruce Perens is not ‘a former contributor of busybox’ but the original author. Judging from the linked-to code audit, he objected to nailing the license at GPLv2 instead of the original ‘GPLv2 or any later version’ and in response to this, his name has generally been deleted from all files it still appeared in based on the assertion that he wouldn’t really own any copyrights in the code anymore.
In reply, says another person: “Based on my (minimal) understanding of copyright law, at least in the U.S., both of those sound like murky areas that could be debated at length (and at great expense) by lawyers in court.”
Eric Powell calls the whole thing “biased” and explains:
There is no bias here….no, no way!!!!
This is nothing but a hit piece on Bruce Perens. Characterizing his blog post as ‘whining’ is nothing but petty name calling. I found his posting to be reasonable and balanced.
A BALANCED article would have discussed both sides of the controversy without resorting to name-calling.
it is pathetic that journalism seems racing toward the bottom of the barrel.
Well, it could be worse. While the 451 Group makes a subtle attempt (whether deliberate or not so deliberate) to describe GPL as “anti-business”, longtime critic Jason Perlow, whose attacks on Stallman and the FSF are nothing new [1, 2], compares GPL enforcement to public hanging.
What else can be said? Standing up for justice typically gets the justice seeker daemonised [1, 2].
Here is IDG’s latest Free software FUD from what seems like guest writers. It is disguised under a seemingly friendly headline.
It sometimes seems like the corporations which take advantage of Free software (wrongly treating it like BSD-licensed) and those who make money through ill practices will always try to delegitimise the FSF. Broadly speaking, those companies represent the wallets/interests of some people, so these people — just like any people — can literally attack people who stand in their way. As Free software continues to expand, its very core will continue to receive more flak. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.17.09
Posted in Microsoft, Office Suites, Security, Vista, Vista 7, Windows at 10:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The status of Windows XP as a platform Microsoft cares about is waning
Microsoft already neglects Windows XP when it comes to security. Maybe they are running out of developers who are familiar with the code or maybe they just can’t be bothered obeying their promises of long-term support. Based on the following new story, Microsoft is starting to neglect non-Vista (including Vista 7) versions of Windows, perhaps pushing for unnecessary "upgrades" that way.
Microsoft explains why the upcoming Office 2010 will not support Windows XP 64-bit nor Windows Server 2003.
Gone so soon. 64-bit is still not a priority at Microsoft, either. Existing users of XP are advised to try GNU/Linux, which would not require new hardware. █
“Microsoft, like much of the IT industry, was caught off-guard by the rapid rise of the netbook category, but moved quickly to offer a netbook-specific version of XP Home to stem the tide of Linux on netbooks.”
–CRN
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Search at 9:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft Evangelicals take over the debate
Summary: Microsoft-funded people are still being quoted by the press (regarding Microsoft) and even described as “analysts”
YESTERDAY we mentioned Rob Enderle in reference to articles that quote Microsoft pundits and call them “analysts”.
Well, some analysts might still have some integrity, for example those who just state the obvious:
A Microsoft official has come out and said that Windows Mobile 7 is coming in late 2010. At the same time, an analyst says that it’s already game over for Microsoft.
Windows Mobile is a dead end and it doesn’t take an “analyst” to see that. Regarding the phones arena, former Microsoft employee (“evangelist”) Gartenberg [1, 2] is quoted as an “analyst” despite being nothing less than a shill of Microsoft; as he has proven for years.
Analyst claims Apple is moving towards Microsoft
[...]
According to Michael Gartenberg, a vice president at Interpret, the Bing app is a wise move on Microsoft’s part because of the popularity of the Iphone and the importance of mobile search and mobile location-based devices.
This must be a joke. It’s like quoting Richard Stallman as an “analyst” regarding OpenMoko.
There is actually more of the same in today’s news. Here is an article that relies on Microsoft’s paid partners Nielsen and comScore, which we wrote about in:
It does not say anything in the article to emphasise that it’s US-only and it does not say a thing about conflicts of interests, either. How typical. Microsoft has only about 3% in terms of market share because its “Bing” experiment has pretty much failed. █
“Analysts sell out – that’s their business model…”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Law, Microsoft, Novell at 9:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Professor Eben Moglen responds to disinformation from Novell’s Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier, who was sent to London by Novell’s PR team in order to speak to journalists
“DOWNHILL” is where Novell is going, but even on its way down to the bottom Novell resorts to lying and revisionism. Brockmeier’s lies about Eben Moglen's stance are finally being refuted and rebutted by Moglen himself.
In a short exchange with ITWire, Moglen has some strong words to share:
OpenSUSE’s Brockmeier caught out over Moglen claim
OpenSUSE community manager Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier has been caught out spreading misinformation about the patent deal that Microsoft signed with his employer, Novell, a little over three years ago.
During a recent tour of Europe, Brockmeier gave an interview to eWeek Europe to spruik his company’s position and what he claimed it had gained from the patent licensing deal over the three years since it was signed.
He was quoted by Peter Judge of eWeek as saying: “Even Eben Moglen [Columbia law professor and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center] approved of the deal and said it was compliant with the GPLv2 licence agreement.”
Such a claim is surprising considering that Moglen is well-known as a co-author of the GPLv3 which introduced a clause that would prevent such deals from happening in the future.
Contacted by iTWire, Moglen said he was surprised by the claim. “I *did* say the deal didn’t violate GPLv2 section 7,” he said.
This, however, is not surprising as many people knew that, legally, the GPLv2 did not prohibit the deal. However, many people at the time felt that it did violate the spirit of the licence. Prominent free software developer Jeremy Allison quit Novell in disgust over the deal.
Moglen, who is highly respected both for his academic scholarship and his contributions to free software, was surprised that he had been painted as someone who had approved of the deal.
“I *disapproved* of the deal, quite firmly; there is some rather popular video of me on the web explaining why, in relation to Microsoft’s annual ‘Be Very Afraid’ tours,” he said.
[...]
While some who read the article have contested these claims in comments at the end of the piece, Brockmeier has offered no comment.
The Source was probably the first Web site to properly expose Brockmeier for his lies. In reference to the above it adds:
Everyone who knows anything about the Microsoft/Novell deal – among whom I assume Mr. Brockmeier is counted – understand this position. The entire “trick” that permitted the deal was a this loophole of letter-compliance but spirit-violation under the GPLv2 which was specifically closed in the GPLv3.
And when I say specifically, I mean the Microsoft/Novell deal was listed by name.
Why the pretense that someone acknowledging Novell pulled a fine-print fast one and got away with it is equal to approval and endoresement? I understand the desire to spin a shameful collaboration of betrayal and discrimination on Novell’s part, but why try to use the name and reputation of someone who publicly condemns you? They will surely correct your gross distortions, and then where are you? (Still on Novell’s payroll! <rimshot>)
Yes, he is being paid to say such nonsense. Upton Sinclair once said, “It’s hard get a man to understand something, when he’s being paid not to understand it.”
Here is a new interview with Brockmeier, where he is asked about many issues including Mono:
HO [Heise/H Online]: Novell appears to have set itself high hopes for Mono and you say that this is the first commercial development tool for the rapid creation of .NET applications for Linux, Unix and Mac OS X within Visual Studio. Is it really the ‘first’ tool of this kind and what do you think will appeal most to developers about its form and function?
JB [Joe Brockmeier]: As far as I know, it is the first tool of its kind. But I’m not the ‘Mono guy’, so I don’t spend much so time with it – but I would say that the most appealing thing about the tool is what you’ve emphasised in the question: that it allows rapid development of cross-platform .NET applications. Giving developers an opportunity to easily target cross-platform development with a language they’re already familiar with is a big incentive.
Later on we will write a long post about the latest of the Mono folly.
Georg Greve passes on the words of the FSFE (which he founded): “EC’s Microsoft browser settlement better than expected, but interoperability promises utterly useless…”
This is a subject that we covered yesterday, having previously explained that Microsoft attacks Free software as commercial software using the so-called “interoperability promise”. Groklaw has just analysed this too and made a comparison to the Novell/Microsoft deal:
Microsoft tries this trick every time. Same thing with the Microsoft-Novell patent pledge, if you recall. It means the same thing here, that you are not covered unless you are not a commercial competitor of Microsoft. So Linus in his bedroom would be covered, but once people actually started to use Linux to the benefit of the world’s economy, the deal is off? Then what happens? Is the old code still covered? How is it interoperability if your main competition is excluded from interoperability? My guess is Microsoft means for you to have to pay for a patent license, if you are commercial, judging by Jason Matusow’s comment about similar language in the Novell deal:
The offer not to sue open source software developers for patent infringement might sound philanthropic, but it has been dismissed from various quarters as “divisive” and “worse than useless”.
Earlier this week the Samba development team urged Novell to rethink its agreement with Microsoft as it favored non-commercial developers or those contributing to Novell’s openSUSE project over contributors to other commercial open source projects.
Meanwhile the Software Freedom Law Center said the offer was “worse than useless” and was not to be relied upon.
While Matusow’s request for input from the open source community shows that the company is open to criticism, it appears it will not be changing its position on commercial open source developers.
“Our design goal is to get language in place that allows individual developers to keep developing. We are not interested in providing carte blanche clearance on patents to any commercial activity – that is a separate discussion to be had on a per-instance basis,” he wrote.
But the GPL forbids paying for a patent license, so it’s a cute trick to keep GPL code, and that includes Linux, out in the cold, unable to interoperate.
Microsoft is modeling a deal with the EU in a similar fashion to that which it signed with Novell. It is surprising that the FSFE has been as polite as it is about it. █
“People that use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us.”
–Steve Ballmer
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Africa, America, Europe, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 8:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Botnets resulting from Microsoft’s poor coding (e.g. Conficker) are ruining the Internet for everyone, especially in places where the infrastructure is limited to begin with
EARLIER this month we wrote about Germany paying Microsoft “tax” no matter what operating system it uses. That “tax” is not for licences of products however; it is a “tax” that goes towards undoing the damages caused by Windows malware (such as Conficker, from which Microsoft is profiteering).
Here is some interesting new research:
The infamous Conficker worm has disproportionally affected computer systems in the developing world, according to new research.
Despite high profile infection at the UK’s Ministry of Defence and a series of British hospitals, to cite just a few examples, Conficker has proportionally affected systems in Africa and south America far more. Developing nations have become “malware ghettos”, stats from Shadowserver suggest.
When hundreds of millions of Windows PCs are infected with malware, this should not be surprising. Nations like Nicaragua, Argentina [1, 2] and Brazil [1, 2] will hopefully move to Free software quickly and fully, despite Microsoft’s attack on these moves. Microsoft also works overtime to suppress Free software adoption in Africa [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Bill Gates, Boycott Novell, Deception, Microsoft, Patents at 8:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Gates has created a huge blood-buying operation that only cares about money, not about people.”
–AIDS organisation manager in China, December 2009 (New York Times)
Summary: The bad behaviour of the Gates Foundation (the one it does not let the mainstream press talk about) leads to more backlash
A CHINESE blogger has just called for a boycott against the Gates Foundation (the above title is a direct quote). This morning we mentioned Monsanto for its market abuses, which the Gates Foundation is funding and actively promoting (see references at the bottom of this post). As the quote at the top shows, agriculture/gene patents are only part of the problem because the Gates Foundation also pumps a lot of money into pharmaceutical/medical patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] (even surgeries are now subjected to patents).
The Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) has just issued the following statement regarding AIDS patent pools.
A number of NGOs have recently raised important criticisms about the patent pool and the process, and as the pool moves forward it is important to expand the transparency of the patent pool initiative, and to ensure that all patient and public health groups, generic drug producers, academic experts, governments and other concerned about, interested in and impacted by the pool will have the effective opportunity to review, comment and influence outcomes, including the many policy decisions will be made in the next 12 months.
The short story is that patents are standing in the way of people whose health problems would otherwise be treated. If only the rich are able to afford these cures/medicines, then the drugs are more profitable to shareholders; they fear a devaluation of vital drugs more than they fear death of people whose life can trivially be saved.
Regarding Monsanto, here is another report (among many).
Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.’s business practices reveal how the world’s biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.
By eliminating competition Monsanto is hoping to set the price. It’s just like Microsoft, maybe even worse. Either way, Monsanto’s public promotion and funding comes from Bill Gates, who also funds the world's biggest patent troll. Just because he gives money away doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. The Los Angeles Times did a whole exposé about the subject of where money actually goes. █
References:
- With Microsoft Monopoly in Check, Bill Gates Proceeds to Creating More Monopolies
- Gates-Backed Company Accused of Monopoly Abuse and Investigated
- How the Gates Foundation Privatises Africa
- Reader’s Article: The Gates Foundation and Genetically-Modified Foods
- Monsanto: The Microsoft of Food
- Seeds of Doubt in Bill Gates Investments
- Gates Foundation Accused of Faking/Fabricating Data to Advance Political Goals
- More Dubious Practices from the Gates Foundation
- Video Transcript of Vandana Shiva on Insane Patents
- Explanation of What Bill Gates’ Patent Investments Do to Developing World
- Black Friday Film: What the Bill Gates-Backed Monsanto Does to Animals, Farmers, Food, and Patent Systems
- Gates Foundation Looking to Destroy Kenya with Intellectual Monopolies
- Young Napoleon Comes to Africa and Told Off
- Bill Gates Takes His GMO Patent Investments/Experiments to India
- Gates/Microsoft Tax Dodge and Agriculture Monopoly Revisited
- Gates Foundation Funds Literature Supportive of Its Objectives
- Bill Gates Tightens Information/Agriculture Grip on Africa by Funding African Journalists, Expanding to India
- Beyond the ‘Public Relations’
‘“Other than Bill Gates, I don’t know of any high tech CEO that sits down to review the company’s IP portfolio” —Marshall Phelps
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Asia, Europe, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Windows at 7:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Bad news for Microsoft (and particularly for Vista 7) in Turkey as OEM stranglehold gets cracked
BACK in April we wrote about Microsoft's attack on GNU/Linux in Turkey. A reader of ours (potentially from Turkey) has enthusiastically mailed us with this new information about a major development:
It’s a good day for free software. Why? Because Microsoft will no more be able to force Windows pre-installed PC’s onto Turkish citizens.
Lawyer Nihat Karslı -who is the president of Pardus Users Group (Pardus Kullanıcıları Derneği) and also a member of Linux Users Group- filed a lawsuit against Windows pre-installed PC’s. Consumer Court of Ankara (Ankara 1. Tüketici Mahkemesi) ruled for Karslı and banned the forced sales of Windows operating system with a new PC. We’ll see if this ruling will be taken seriously by PC stores.
This is a step in the right direction. Microsoft Windows is a very user-hostile operating system; nobody should be required to buy a Vista- or Vista 7-saddled PC.
Another reader, Marti, has tried Vista 7 and shared the following experiences, which we thought would be worth publishing here.
Vista 7 is is not only insecure it is malfunctioning as well. It doesn’t support Microsoft’s own proprietary implementation of SMB/CFIS, called “NetBUI”.
It is next to impossible to connect to “Windows shares” that use SAMBA or previous versions of NetBUI, like Windows XP.
In Windows 7 “Windows shares” are implemented in “The Home group” which is incompatible with its predecessors.
IMHO Windows 7 is the most user hostile OS ever. It is extremely complicated, even for a seasoned “Windows Tweaker”.
I am not kidding, it is even worst than Vista.
Wireless Internet is also very problematic.
This brings me to the conclusion that networking in general is a mess in Windows 7.
It is crystal clear: Windows 7 is Vista reloaded with a new paintjob and a few distractions (screwed up networking) all for the single purpose of Vendor Lockin(tm), making its predecessor (Windows XP) and interaction with competitive technologies (GNU/Linux etc.) next to impossible.
On top of that, the so called speed of Windows 7 as advocated by the Munchkins is fully made out of cloth.
Windows 7: the ultimate piece of junk!
I installed the RC1 build 7100, only to confront the Munchkins with facts. My conclusion is, that it’s not worth a single penny. It’s garbage, junk, trash.
Even my ex-lover “Julian” – a Microsoft Victim pur sang – agrees with me, regarding Windows 7.
My conscience requires me to spread the truth about Windows 7 and to warn potential users for wasting their hard earned money on that worthless piece of junk.
It is being reported that GNU/Linux gains in developing nations, new form factors (e.g. sub-notebooks), and emerging markets. Vista 7 cannot stop this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
