Summary: Microsoft's lobbying apparatus is trying to hook entire nations into PRISM (i.e. NSA espionage) with proprietary Microsoft formats and proprietary software, especially now that nations have policies in place and Free software available which renders Microsoft obsolete

DESPITE Microsoft's gross behaviour and sheer influence in the Indian government, the Government of India recently managed to pass new laws in relation to software, making Free software a necessity (to what degree depends on the article one trusts the most, as there have been at least a dozen of them in English). This makes perfect sense for a software powerhouse like India. It would benefit local industries. India can be self-sufficient in the software sense.

Meanwhile, here in the UK the government managed to pass pro-ODF policies, despite lobbying by Microsoft, its proxies, and its British partners. We covered this last year and we played a role in giving feedback to the government, at the expense of many hours and as much as one day's work. We now have what can be cautiously labelled Free software-friendly procurement policy even in the UK, which has historically been one of the most Microsoft-friendly countries in the world.

"We now have what can be cautiously labelled Free software-friendly procurement policy even in the UK, which has historically been one of the most Microsoft-friendly countries in the world."Microsoft is of course not accepting defeat. It is now pretending to be "Open Source", starting with lies about the status of .NET, accompanied by concealment patent issues (as with OOXML) and openwashing of Visual Studio -- an integral part of .NET -- even though it's a mischievous distortion of facts. Microsoft pretends to be "Open Source" because it wants a loophole into government contracts even where governments strictly require Free software and open standards. A new article by Liu Qihao & Ciaran O'Riordan highlights the reality behind so-called 'Open Source' .NET. The instruction states:

Microsoft is publishing the source code to certain parts of .NET. The terms of distribution (the licence) is the combination of the MIT licence and a separate patent promise. Given that Microsoft has a history of aggressively using software patents against free software, we decided to take a look at the legal details.

The conclusion is as follows:

If you only intend to use the software as published by Microsoft, then everything looks fine. The patent promise (if it's even necessary) will apply. If you intend to modify the code, then the protections of the patent promise may be necessary or useful and you should take care. And if you're looking for a project to contribute to, then it would be worth giving your preference to projects which don't contain conditions which create or suggest patent risks if the code is used in other free software projects (outside of the set of .NET Runtime projects).

So it's basically false marketing, as one should expect from Microsoft. The Economist has just released a horrible Microsoft puff piece (more like an advertisement in article form), misleadingly titled "Opening Windows". Opening, really? As in "Open Source"? The article, written in Redmond, says: "At an event in San Francisco last October Mr Nadella showed a slide that read: “Microsoft loves Linux”. In contrast, Mr Ballmer once called the open-source operating system a “cancer”."

Paul Krill, a Microsoft-friendly writer (for many years now), has meanwhile published "Windows goes open source?" (not April's Fool). Paul Krill consciously (or not) helps Microsoft openwash Windows, pretending there are such legitimate claims as policies in governments change to require "Open Source".

What we have here is a misinformation campaign. You love Open Source? Then you will love Microsoft. That's the (almost) daily message from your Microsoft-affiliated and at times Microsoft-bribed friends (acting as 'reporters').

Here in the UK our government is apparently so dumb that even when it adopts ODF as the editable documents standard and asks for Free/Open Source software it remains stuck with the prospect of blobs from Microsoft. Regarding an article that seeks to associate Microsoft with ODF, iophk told us: "In practice it is unlikely that it will actually comply with the standard."

This relates to statements like this one from Linda Humphries, titled "Making document formats open, it makes them better" (the same applies to software, not just data).

Francis Maude has just met (i.e. lobbying) with a Microsoft liar, Michel Van der Bel (see her mentioned in this older post). Microsoft pretends that it can deliver ODF support and that therefore the government's requirement (ODF) and preference (Free software) should be compatible with Windows and Office. To quote the article: "Stanchak said Cabinet Officer minister Francis Maude met with Microsoft's UK country manager, Michel Van der Bel, to discuss the company's work on open standards to enable universal document access across government departments.

"Maude said the use of ODF will deliver significant savings to the public sector.

""This will give people more choice about the software they use. This supports our digital by default agenda, which is helping save citizens, businesses and taxpayers €£1.2bn over this Parliament as part of our long-term economic plan," he said.

"The update comes despite Microsoft arguing last year that its own Open XML file format is more widely adopted than ODF and therefore should be on the government's approved format list."

So Microsoft attacked ODF and now it wants to be part of ODF. Is that how it works? The UK government should shun Microsoft. As this other new article reminds us: "In 2014, Microsoft went against the government’s request to support ODF, claiming its own XML format was more heavily adopted. The UK government refutes the claim, stating that ODF allows users to not be boxed into one ecosystem."

Microsoft now pretends otherwise. More lies from Microsoft UK, an opportunist with NSA connections. The British government's decision on office suites (if they're needed at all) shouldn't be about picking a 'cloud'; it would be a privacy farce. If the government was ever to adopt Microsoft 'cloud' (i.e. NSA PRISM with that glorified 'cloud' buzzword which appeases non-technical people), would it be sued by any British citizens for supporting espionage by foreign spies? A lot of personal data is being encoded and stored in such documents. In the past, for NSA to acquire data/files from Office it needed to use Microsoft's Windows back doors. With Office 360 [sic.] it's becoming trivial. Microsoft is in PRISM.

The British government needs to adopt Free software such as LibreOffice and stop wasting time being lobbied by the company that attacked open standards and Open Source software like no other company in the history of computing. ⬆