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

04.22.16

[ES] Creciéntes Amenazas de las Patentes de Software en Europa y la Trampa FRAND Que Microsoft Promueve/Cabildea

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND at 3:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND 9:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

¿Y Microsoft nos dijo que ´ama´ a Linux?

EU lobbying

Sumario: El Cabildeo de Microsoft’s contra Android in Europe y por FRAND (esenciálmente patentes de software) el los estádares Europeos logra resultados

Las patentes de software en Europa han sido cubiertos aquí por mucho más tiempo que la EPO. Empresas como Microsoft las han venido usando para prohibir efectivamente software de código libre/ abierto (FOSS), o excluir este tipo de software de la política de contratación de acuerdo con las normas. De acuerdo con este nuevo artículo del Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft ha tenido éxito con esto, ya que sus grupos de presión siguen presionando por FRAND en Europa [1, 2]. Sí, además de su presión ante la Comisión Europea por muchos años contra el software libre/Android [1, 2, 3], que finalmente consiguió acción antimonopolio contra Google, “Mientrás que Microsoft está ¨adoptando¨al código abierto, la UE está excluyéndolo de la política – como Microsoft demandó originalmente “, para citar a Simon Phipps, quien a su vez cita Moody diciendo:” no es de extrañar que la Comisión estaba tratando de mantener ese detalle en particular escondido, debido a la concesión de licencias FRAND, supuestamente acrónimo de “justo, razonable y no discriminatoria “, es incompatible con el código abierto, el que por lo tanto, se encontrará excluidosde gran parte de la gran nueva estrategia de mercado único digital de la UE. Eso no es una “política de derechos de propiedad intelectual equilibrada“.

El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE

El problema con open source es que el estandar licensign puede ser perfectamente justo, razonable y no-discrimínatorio, pero sería sin embargo imposíble de implementar para el open source.Típicamente, el licensiamiento FRAND requiere un pago por copia, pero para el Software Libre, que puede ser compartido innumerables veces, no hay manera de llevar la cuenta en cuántas copuias hay afuera. Incluso si el pago es pequeño, todavía un requerimiénto de licensias que el open source no puede implementar.

El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE. Es una laguna o incluso una distorsión de la legislación Europea. Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos … su grupo delantero, la infáme Business Software Alliance, ha adoptado este tipo de política durante casi una década.

Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos …

Incidentálmente, ayerIP Katpublicó este artículoacerca de laPatentabilidad del diseño de interface del usuario”, citando al Jurado de Apelaciónesqueparticularmente no es amigable a las patentes de software (a diferencia de la EPO, no busca máximizar ganancias al bajar la calidad de las patentes o al expándir su esfera con el tiempo en desafío a la EPC*).
Un comentario del presidente de la FFII dijo: “Jacob dijo que” redacción técnica “es una reformulación del mismo problema. “Técnico” se convierte en el agujero negro, donde la EPO encuentra manera de evitar el espíritu de la EPC, materias en las que las exclusiones se relaciónan con lo abstracto “.
Técnico es generalmente un término sin sentido
Una persona respondió diciéndo: “te has molestado al leer el post? Explica como al contrario, el BoA de la EPO ha rechazado ver algo “técnicoen presentaciónes de información, excepto en tres ahora viejos casos (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Aparte de ello, por una cosa sé que la T 49/04 fué una decisión controversial de la EPO, y esto pueda explicar el porque, después, los Boards no continuaron en el mismo camino.”
Aquí tenemos una persona voluntáriamente ignorando la correlación entre la UPC y las patentes de software (personas de alta reputación han hablado al respecto) y ella diceconspiraciónpara desacreditar a aquellos que hablan acerca de ello, matándo al mensajero como sigue:

Si “Zoobab” es el mismo Zoobab de Twitter, parece ser un activista anti-software-patentes y parece ser un fiel seguidor del blog Techrights, quienes ven cualquier cosa que se menciona incluso las patentes de software o la UPC (incluso en un contexto negativo) como evidencia de algún tipo de gran conspiración para defraudar al público europeo.
Da la casualidad de que estoy dudoso acerca de los méritos de las patentes de software o incluso de la UPC. Pero he aprendido que nada menos que totalmente de acuerdo, de todo corazón con las teorías de la conspiración loca de esos personajes es visto como una prueba más de que no hay solamente una conspiración, sino también que eres parte de ella, incluso si comparte ampliamente su recelos si bien por diferentes razones.

Lo anterior pone palabras en la boca de tanto Benjamin Henrion y la mía – palabras que nunca se pronunciaron en absoluto. A pesar del secreto que engendra sospecha **, hay una gran cantidad de información se puede acumular cavando lo suficientemente profundo. En realidad, hay un montón de pruebas que demuestran lo que ambos dijimos (no lo de arriba), la administración de la EPO mantiene la promoción por la UPC *** y las patentes de software (escribimos acerca de ello con ejemplos a principios de este año), y esto llamó la atención de otras personas anoche. “Técnica” es generalmente un término bastante sin sentido (como “innovación¨, “novedoso” y otros marrulleos). Una taza del baño es muy técnivo. Vea esta reacción a la frase “el efecto de un perfil mental particular del usuario puede ser considerado técnico” (respuesta en Español).
______
* “Cliente”, aparentemente, basado en este nuevo tweet, es una nueva palabra por “solicitante” que la EPO heredo de la mentalidad ENA de Pinocho Battistelli.

** La EPO de nuevo (dos veces por semana) promovió a la EUIPO. Recuérden el overlap entre esos dos [1, 2, 3]].

*** He aquí la última Promoción de la UPC por parte de la EPO (last night).

04.21.16

Growing Threats of Software Patents in Europe and the FRAND Trap Which Microsoft Promotes/Lobbies For

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND at 9:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And Microsoft told us it “loves Linux”…

EU lobbying

Summary: Microsoft’s lobbying against Android in Europe and for FRAND (essentially software patents) in European standards yield results

Software patents in Europe have been covered here for much longer than the EPO. Companies like Microsoft were using them to effectively ban Free/Open Source software (FOSS), or exclude such software from procurement policy as per the standards. According to this new article from Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft was somewhat successful with this as its lobbyists continue lobbying for FRAND in Europe [1, 2]. Yes, in addition to lobbying the European Commission for many years against FOSS/Android [1, 2, 3], eventually leading to antitrust action against Google, “Just as Microsoft is adopting open source, the EU is excluding it from policy – like Microsoft originally demanded,” to quote Simon Phipps, who in turn cites Moody who’s saying: “It’s no surprise that the Commission was trying to keep that particular detail quiet, because FRAND licensing—the acronym stands for “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory”—is incompatible with open source, which will therefore find itself excluded from much of the EU’s grand new Digital Single Market strategy. That’s hardly a “balanced IPR policy.”

“An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU.”“The problem for open source is that standard licensing can be perfectly fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, but would nonetheless be impossible for open source code to implement. Typically, FRAND licensing requires a per-copy payment, but for free software, which can be shared any number of times, there’s no way to keep tabs on just how many copies are out there. Even if the per-copy payment is tiny, it’s still a licensing requirement that open source code cannot meet.”

An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU. It’s a loophole or even a distortion of European law. Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway… its front group, Business Software Alliance, has pursued this kind of policy for nearly a decade now.

“Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway…”Incidentally, yesterday IP Kat published this article about “Patentability of user interface designs”, citing the Board of Appeal which isn't particularly software patents-friendly (unlike the EPO, it doesn’t just seek to maximise profit by reducing patent quality or by also expanding patent scope over time, in defiance of the EPC*).

One comment from the FFII’s President said: “Jacob said the “Technical” wording is a restatement of the same problem. “Technical” becomes the black hole where the EPO finds it way to bypass the spirit of the EPC, where all the exclusions concerns abstract matters.”

““Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term.”One person responded by saying: “have you bothered to read the post? It explains how, on the contrary, the BoA of the EPO has refused to see anything “technical” in presentations of information, except in three now rather old cases (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Apart from that, I know for one thing that T 49/04 was an extremely controversial decision within the EPO, and this may explain why, afterwards, the Boards didn’t continue on the same path.”

Here we have a wilfully ignorant person who doesn’t know the correlation between the UPC and software patents (high-profile people have spoken explicitly about it) and s/he says “conspiracy” to discredit those who speak about it, shooting the messengers as follows:

If “Zoobab” is the same Zoobab as on Twitter, s/he seems to be an anti-software-patent activist and appears to be a loyal follower of the Techrights blog, who see anything that even mentions software patents or the UPC (even in a negative context) as evidence of some sort of grand conspiracy to defraud the European public.

As it happens, I’m dubious about the merits of software patents or indeed the UPC. But I’ve learned that anything less than full, wholehearted agreement with the wacky conspiracy theories of such characters is seen as yet further evidence that there’s not only a conspiracy, but also that you’re part of it, even if you broadly share their misgivings albeit for different reasons.

The above puts words in the mouth of both Benjamin Henrion and myself — words that were never at all uttered. In spite of the secrecy which breeds suspicion**, there is a lot of information one can accumulate by digging deep enough. There is actually plenty of evidence to show what we both said (not the above), the EPO’s management keeps promoting both the UPC*** and software patents (we wrote about it with examples earlier this year), and this got the attention of other people last night. “Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term (like “innovative”, “novel” and other such buzzwords). A toilet bowl too is technical. See this reaction to the phrase “the effect of a particular layout on the mental processes of the user could be considered… technical” (response in Spanish).
______
* “Customer”, apparently, based on this new tweet, is a new word for “applicant” as EPO inherits the ENA mentality of Battistelli.

** The EPO has once again (second time in a week) promoted the EUIPO. Recall the overlaps between those two [1, 2, 3]].

*** Here is the latest UPC promotion from the EPO (last night).

04.14.16

FUD Contra la Adopción de Free Software en el Gobierno y Negocios Proviende de Firmas Conectadas a Microsoft

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 8:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicadaen Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 10:34 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Elnuevo’ Microsoft no ataca al Free software directamente, o no tán visiblemente como antes, sin embargo todavía lo hace

Many arms

Sumario: Free software (FOSS) está todavía bajo constante ataque de Microsoft, incluso si estos ataques son ástutamente disfrazados para no poner en riesgo la fantasía de “Microsoft ama a Linux”
LA E.E.E. estrategia de Microsoft (destruir Linux desde su interior) está progresando mientras que Microsoft todavía está tratando de descarrilar activamente toda adopción de GNU/Linux (normalmente a través de servidores proxy). La compañía también patrocina eventos que promueven las patentes de software (que son la antítesis de la libertad del software), como hemos demostrado en varias ocasiones en lo que va de este mes y que continúa demandando (o amenaza con demandar a) los fabricantes de equipos Android a menos que le entregan dinero en efectivo, o en algunos casos como parte del ´arreglo´ installen un montón de Microsoft sofware spyware en Android.
La compañía también patrocina eventos que promueven las patentes de software (que son la antítesis de la libertad del software), como hemos demostrado en varias ocasiones en lo que va de este mes …
Recuerden que Microsoft no tiene que atacar a Linux / FOSS/Android abiertamente con el fin de conseguir su objetivo. Una gran cantidad de gente de Microsoft han creado en los últimos años compañías spin-off que se son más servidores proxy de Microsoft, siendo leales a Microsoft, pero periféricos al mismo. Recuerde, por ejemplo, que financió Xamarin antes de que pase a formar parte de Microsoft (lo que era de esperarse). También recuerden que se trata de una unidad llamada Microsoft Licensing (esencialmente un troll de patentes) que pretende ser ‘dueño de’ Android y otros basados en Linux, entonces sistemáticamente toca las puertas de los OEM y exigiendo dinero para su uso/distribución de Linux.

Tim Greene de IDG señala que SourceClear y Black Duck de practicar FOSS FUD; se trata de dos empresas que vinieron de Microsoft con el fin de manchar el software libre y ganar dinero en el proceso. El titular dice “código fuente abierto es frecuente potencialmente peligroso, en aplicaciones empresariales” (Ballmer todavía diríá es un “cáncer”, como si se trata de una enfermedad mortal y Microsoft lo llama “infestaciones de Linux” como si fuera una cucaracha que debe ser aplastado).
También recuerden que se trata de una unidad llamada Microsoft Licensing (esencialmente un troll de patentes) que pretende ser ‘dueño de’ Android y otros basados en Linux, entonces sistemáticamente toca las puertas de los OEM y exigiendo dinero para su uso/distribución de Linux.

No sólo detectamos ésto ayer; incluso los lectores nos hablaron de ello hoy; ellos también se están dando cuenta cada vez más que los artículos anti-FOSS todavía están siendo ofrecidos por esos parásitos que están conectados por Microsoft. El colega de Greene, Korolov, hizo esto hace poco más de quince días. Hay que recordar que ambos son empresas conectadas a Microsoft, como hemos señalado aquí antes, y hacia el final hay una mención de White Fuente, quiennoesamigo de FOSS.

Esos llamados ‘periodistas’ sólo sigue hablando a las empresas que se benefician de este FUD y no son software libre en absoluto. Es como un artículo sobre el calentamiento global que invita para las cotizaciones (más completa del mundo) varios ‘expertos’ de las compañías petroleras. El último ejemplo no habla de los muchos problemas de software equivalentes (o peor) proprietarios, en lugar de hablar de la “martes de parches” de Microsoft, lo que deja las puertas traseras para uso de la NSA. Eso es periodismo irresponsable; es más como el cabildeo (por omisión). Y recuerda cuánto dinero fluye de Microsoft para IDG …

Eso es periodismo irresponsable; es más como el cabildeo (por omisión).
Microsoft piensa de alguna manera que asociando su software proprietario con “Linux” será lo suficiente para promover la percepción de que es “open” y por lo tanto elegible pare uso gubernamental a nivel mundial (candado proprietario).- Recuérden quién saboteó las centrales núcleares Iraníes – Al mismo tiempo constantemente sigue atacandoa a Linux.
Predique en algun momento coexistencia pacífica con Windows. Pueden reírse a costa de mí.Lo merezco.”

Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée

04.12.16

FUD Against Free Software Adoption in the Government and in Businesses Comes From Firms Connected to Microsoft

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 10:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘new’ Microsoft does not attack Free software directly, or not as visibly as before

Many arms

Summary: Free software (FOSS) is still under constant attacks from Microsoft, even if these attacks are shrewdly masqueraded so as to not jeopardise the “Microsoft loves Linux” fantasy

THE E.E.E. strategy of Microsoft (destroying Linux from the inside) is progressing while Microsoft is still trying to actively derail GNU/Linux adoption (usually via proxies). The company also sponsors events that promote software patents (which are antithetical to software freedom), as we showed several times so far this month and it sues (or threatens to sue) Android OEMs unless they hand over crates of cash, or in some cases agree to preload Android with lots of Microsoft spyware.

“The company also sponsors events that promote software patents (which are antithetical to software freedom), as we showed several times so far this month…”Remember that Microsoft does not need to attack Linux/FOSS/Android directly in order to get its way. A lot of people from Microsoft have over the years created spinoffs that are more like Microsoft proxies, still loyal to Microsoft but peripheral to it. Remember, for instance, who bankrolled Xamarin before it got rolled into Microsoft (as expected). Also remember that it’s a unit called Microsoft Licensing (essentially a patent troll) that claims to ‘own’ Android and other Linux-based systems, then systematically goes knocking on OEMs’ doors and demanding money for the use/distribution of Linux.

Tim Greene at IDG props up SourceClear and Black Duck for FOSS FUD; these are two firms that came from Microsoft in order to smear FOSS and make money in the process. The headline says “Open source code is common, potentially dangerous, in enterprise apps” (Ballmer would still say “cancer” as if it’s a fatal disease and Microsoft calls it “Linux infestations" as if it’s a cockroach that must be squashed).

“Also remember that it’s a unit called Microsoft Licensing (essentially a patent troll) that claims to ‘own’ Android and other Linux-based systems, then systematically goes knocking on OEMs’ doors and demanding money for the use/distribution of Linux.”Not only did we spot this one some time yesterday; even readers told us about it today; they too are increasingly noticing that anti-FOSS articles are still featuring those parasites that are Microsoft-connected. Greene’s colleague, Korolov, did this just over a fortnight ago. Remember that both are Microsoft-connected firms, as we noted here before, and towards the end there’s a mention of White Source, which is no friend of FOSS.

Those so-called ‘reporters’ just keep speaking to firms which profit from this FUD and aren’t FOSS at all. It’s like an article about global warming which invites for quotes (expert advice) various ‘experts’ from oil companies. The latest example doesn’t speak about the many equivalent (or worse) proprietary software issues, instead speaking of the “Patch Tuesday” of Microsoft, which leaves back doors in tact for the NSA. That’s irresponsible journalism; it’s more like lobbying (by omission). And remember how much money flows from Microsoft to IDG…

“That’s irresponsible journalism; it’s more like lobbying.”Microsoft thinks that somehow associating its proprietary software with “Linux” will be enough to promote the perception that it’s “open” and thus eligible for government use worldwide (proprietary lock-in). At the same time Microsoft keeps attacking Linux.

“I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense — I deserve it.”

Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée

03.25.16

Microsoft Esta Pretendiéndo Ser una Compañíá FOSS Para Asegurárse Contratos con el Gobierno Con Software Proprietarior en Ropaje ‘Abierto’

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 10:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en Decepción, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 9:07 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft esta ahora pretendiendo que su proprietario SQL Server on GNU/Linux is “abierto” (a quién quieren engañar con esas mamadas) y según los informes lo vende al gobierno como tal

SQL Server loves PRISM

Sumario: Microsoft esta implementando una estrategia del cameleon al pretender que sus stacks de software proprietario son “abiertos” y por lo tantos elegibles para integración en servicios públicos

PONIÉNDO de lado los asuntos de la EPO y ls patentes por un momento, deseamos señalar algunos de los últimos subversivos movimientos de Microsoft. No podemos simplemente ignorar a Microsoft cuando Microsoft no nos está ignorando, y ESTA CONSTANTEMENTE ATACANDONOS (FOSS) CON PATENTES.

“Es una buena manera de distraer al público y suprimir la crítica con algunas imágenes cursis de corazonsitos rojos.”Para aquellos que se la perdiéron, Microsoft está tratándo de EEE GNU/Linux servers en medio de despidos en Microsoft; egoístas intereses de ganancias, como fué notado por varios escritores [1, 2] esta mañana, de nínguna manera nada tiene que ver con FOSS (no hay aspecto de FOSS en ello de ningúna manera!) que estén guíando esos movimientos. Es sólo acerca de encadenárlos en un software proprietario que no será available por otro año de todas maneras. Es una buena manera de distraer al público y suprimir la crítica con algunas imágenes cursis de corazonsitos rojos.

La bocona de Mary Branscombe, una ayayera de Microsoft por largo tiempo quién ocasionalmente ataca a FOSS (vean sus insultos "free puppy" por ejemplo), has reciéntemente publicado un artículo con un cargado titular, “ Las razones detrás del impulso de Microsoft para el código abierto” [3] (no hay tal impulso, así que ¿porqué explorar las “razones”?). Esta cargado de tonteríás, comenzando por el sumario: “Encontrando el equilibrio entre el open source y los negocios comerciales” (Branscombe de nuevo nos muestra una falsa dicotonomíá, donde FOSS es antithetico a los “negocios comerciales” — cualquier cosa que sea – probablemente es simplemente software proprietario)

“El problema con el artículo de Wallen es que está basado en una falsa suposición de que a Microsoft le importa FOSS.”Las últimas ganancias de Red Hat [4,5,6,7] ayudan a desaprobar todas las mamadas de Branscombe, pero no es sólo Brascombe la que está haciéndo eso. Hace dias literalmente encontramos docenas de piezas de hojaldre que disfrazan de abierto a Microsoft. Todas ellas provienen de la India, donde Microsoft esta cabildeando/corrompiendo al gobierno en contra de FOSS (recuérden el enyucamiento de EDGI de hace una década). Microsoft ahora esta planeando un ´evento´ FOSS en India (vean dos diarias links resumiéndo bajo ¨Openwashing¨ in [1, 2] y esta claro que Microsoft trata de engatusar/engañar al gobierno de la India a la noción de que Microsoft es una compañía FOSS, por lo tanto elegible para cualquier contrato con el gobierno (adquisición lucrativa). Necesitámos batallar esta propaganda o simplemente seremos infiltrados por el enemigo, que nos esta atacando a la manera EEE, no simplemente con patentes, sino con todo lo que tienen a disposición.

“Esto es proteccionismo mediante el engaño de Microsoft y los que can en el juego de su campaña (o presión) están haciendo un daño al genuino/legítimo FOSS.”Un nuevo artículo de Jack Wallen [8] nota que las “gananias de licensamiento al consumidor de Microsoft ha declinado un 34 por ciento” y sigue con el titular: “Es tiempo para Microsoft de abrir el código fuente de Windows” (algunos lectores nos lo enviáron despues de que lo encontramos). El problema con el artículo de Wallen es que está basado en una falsa suposición de que a Microsoft le importa FOSS. Aparte de ello, no trabajaría. Ellos convirtieron Windows en SPYWARE (vean en lo que Vista 10 se convirtió). El licensiamiento FOSS removería toda esa porquería. Si es FOSS, a la gente le gustaría remover esos mecanismos indeseables y redistribuirlos sin ellows (FOSS verdadero/genuino significa exactamente eso). Microsoft no se puede dar el lujo de permitirse eso.

En sumario, rechazen la idea que Microsoft es de alguna manera “abierto” ahora. La Unión Europea, el gobierno Indio e incluso la Casa Blanca ahora se arriman a FOSS, así que Microsoft está pretendiendo ser FOSS. Esto es proteccionismo mediante el engaño de Microsoft y los que can en el juego de su campaña (o presión) están haciendo un daño al genuino/legítimo FOSS.

Contenido relacinado/contextual de las noticias:

  1. ¿Ama Microsoft a Linux tanto como Odia las Databases SQL de Oracle?

    Dada la larga espera, el apoyo a Linux del SQL Server 2016 parece reflejar una táctica de negocios más que un movimiento de amor de Microsoft hacia la comunidad de open source

  2. Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) Emitirá SQL Server 2016 para Linux En 2017

    Es creído ampliamente que el SQL Server en Linux creación del CEO Satya Nadella, cuando la compañía quiere enfocarse en proveer servicio de clase superior. Más aún, algunos han ido más lejos al decir que la estrategia de la compañía acerca de SQL en Linux revela el ejemplo más fino de ir donde está el dinero, si no viene a ti.

  3. Las razones detras del impulso de Microsoft hacia el open source

    En otras palabras, SQL Server vendrá a Linux, pero no será una versión libre, open source.

  4. Red Hat Es Ahora un Bebe $2 Billion Open-Source

    Red Hat, quien prometió hace unos pocos meses atras llegar a $2 billones en ganancias anuales, lo ha hecho y ahora dice ser la primera compañía de open source que alcanza este hito

  5. ​Red Hat Se Convierte en la Primera Compañíá Open Source de 2B

    Simplemente piensa: Alguna gente todavía no cree que no puedes hacer dinero de Linux y open-source software. Estúpidos! Red Hal se ha convertido en la primera compañía de open source de hacer 2 billones de dolares.

  6. Red Hat Alcanza $2 billones de Ganancias Anuales
  7. Red Hat Ganancias Anuales alcanzan US$2b por Primera Vez
  8. Es tiempo para Microsoft de open source Windows

    Imaginen un mundo en el que Windows fuese open source. Jack Wallen cree que ahora es tiempo para tal realidad.

IDG Publishes an ‘Ad’ For Black Duck, But it Looks Like an Article and It’s Inflammatory for Hits (Click Bait)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD at 4:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Still stabbing FOSS in the back

A stabbing

Summary: Black Duck, a company that came from a Microsoft guy, continues to generate negative publicity for Free/Open Source software (FOSS) in order to attract business

YESTERDAY afternoon I was sent this bizarre article with a rather bizarre headline. Upon closer inspection it was from IDG and I immediately suspected (based on the headline alone) that Black Duck had something to do with it. It turned out that I was right.

IDG’s Maria Korolov apparently got used by Black Duck for shameless self-promotion, weeks after all that ‘future’ of Open Source PR/publicity stunt [1, 2, 3] (all the articles about it were listed in our daily links without further comment) or the ‘rookies’ stunt [1, 2, 3]. We tried hard to ignore Black Duck, but Black Duck sure isn’t ignoring FOSS. It’s acting like a parasite feeding off FOSS news, in order to sell its proprietary software of course!

“IDG’s Maria Korolov apparently got used by Black Duck for shameless self-promotion…”As usual, Black Duck, a proprietary software company and false prophet for FOSS, interjected itself into articles about FOSS; this yielded FOSS-hostile headlines in IDG, for example “Public concerned about security flaws in government open source code.” (in CSO)

This article contains Black Duck talking points: “In addition, open source code poses two additional security problems, said Mike Pittenger, vice president of security strategy at Black Duck Software. “Open source projects are often ubiquitous, so if there’s a vulnerability it creates a target-rich environment for attackers,” he said.”

“They are trying to sell proprietary software by piggybacking FOSS.”There is also pure marketing there: “Black Duck is currently tracking more than 1.5 million different open source projects, he added.”

Remember the time Black Duck told the media that it can cost $25,000 to fix a bug in FOSS? That was just months ago. Why does the media keep entertaining these propagandists at all? They are trying to sell proprietary software by piggybacking FOSS.

03.23.16

Microsoft is Pretending to be a FOSS Company in Order to Secure Government Contracts With Proprietary Software in ‘Open’ Clothing

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 9:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft is now pretending that proprietary SQL Server on GNU/Linux is “open” and reportedly sells it to governments as such

SQL Server loves PRISM

Summary: Microsoft is pulling off a chameleon’s strategy by pretending that its proprietary software stacks are “open” and therefore eligible for integration in public services

PUTTING aside EPO affairs and patents for a moment, we wish to point out some of the latest subversive moves from Microsoft. We cannot just ignore Microsoft when Microsoft isn’t ignoring us, and is constantly attacking us (FOSS) with patents.

“It’s a good way to distract the public and suppress criticism with some corny images of red hearts.”For those who missed it, Microsoft is trying to EEE GNU/Linux servers amid Microsoft layoffs; selfish interests of profit, as noted by some writers [1,2] this morning, nothing whatsoever to do with FOSS (there’s no FOSS aspect to it at all!) are driving these moves. It’s about proprietary software lock-in that won’t be available for another year anyway. It’s a good way to distract the public and suppress criticism with some corny images of red hearts.

Mary Branscombe, a longtime Microsoft booster who occasionally attacks FOSS (see her "free puppy" insults for instance), has just published an article with a loaded headline, “The reasons behind Microsoft’s drive for open source” [3] (there is no such drive, so why explore the “reasons”?). It’s a full load of nonsense, starting with the summary: “Striking the balance between open source and commercial business” (Branscombe again shows us a false dichotomy, where FOSS is antithetical to “commercial business” — whatever that is — probably just proprietary software)

“The problem with Wallen’s article is that it’s based on a false supposition that Microsoft cares about FOSS.”The latest Red Hat profits [4,5,6,7] help disprove the nonsense from Branscombe, but it’s not just Branscombe that’s doing that. Days ago we found literally dozens of puff pieces that openwash Microsoft. These all came from India, where Microsoft is lobbying government against FOSS (remember the EDGI dumping about a decade ago). Microsoft is now planning an Indian FOSS event (see two daily links roundups under “Openwashing” in [1, 2]) and it’s clear that Microsoft tries to fool/lull the Indian government into the notion that Microsoft is a FOSS company, hence eligible for any government contract (lucrative procurement). We need to battle this propaganda or simply be infiltrated by the enemy, which is hurting us the EEE way, not just with patents.

“This is protectionism by deception from Microsoft and those who play along with the PR campaign (or lobbying) are hurting genuine/legitimate FOSS.”A new article from Jack Wallen [8] notes that Microsoft’s “consumer licensing revenue has declined by 34 percent” and goes with the headline “It’s time for Microsoft to open source Windows” (some readers sent it to us after we had found it). The problem with Wallen’s article is that it’s based on a false supposition that Microsoft cares about FOSS. Besides, it wouldn’t work. They turned Windows into spyware (see what Vista 10 became). FOSS licensing would remove all that. If it’s FOSS, people would remove these undesirable features and redistribute without them (true FOSS means they can do exactly that). Microsoft cannot afford to let this happen.

In summary, reject the idea that Microsoft is somehow “open” now. The European Union, the Indian government and even the White House now warm up to FOSS, so Microsoft is pretending to be FOSS. This is protectionism by deception from Microsoft and those who play along with the PR campaign (or lobbying) are hurting genuine/legitimate FOSS.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Does Microsoft Love Linux As Much As It Hates Oracle SQL Databases?

    Given the long wait, the SQL Server 2016 support for Linux servers seems to reflect a business tactic more than any actual love on Microsoft’s part for the open source community.

  2. Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) To Release SQL Server 2016 For Linux In 2017

    It is widely thought that SQL Server on Linux is CEO Satya Nadella’s brainchild, as the company focuses on providing top class service. Furthermore, some have even gone as far as to say that the company’s strategy regarding SQL on Linux exhibits the finest example of going where the money is, if it doesn’t come to you.

  3. The reasons behind Microsoft’s drive for open source

    In other words, SQL Server will come to Linux, but it’s not likely to be a free, open source version.

  4. Red Hat Is Now a $2 Billion Open-Source Baby

    Red Hat, which promised a few months ago to hit $2 billion in annual revenue, has done so and now claims to be the world’s first open-source company to reach that milestone. It crossed the $1 billion-a-year line four years ago.

  5. ​Red Hat becomes first $2b open-source company

    Just think: Some people still don’t believe that you can make money from Linux and open-source software. Fools! Red Hat just became the first open-source company to make a cool 2 billion bucks.

  6. Red Hat tops $2 billion in annual revenue
  7. Red Hat annual revenue crosses US$2b for the first time
  8. It’s time for Microsoft to open source Windows

    Imagine a world in which Windows was open source. Jack Wallen believes it is now time for such a reality.

03.22.16

The European Parliament Warmed up to Free/Open Source Software and the Media Missed the Story

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, Patents, RAND at 2:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Article by a reader of ours, who prefers to remain anonymous

Summary: The European Union Parliament has recommended Free and Open Source Software for several goals

A January 2016 resolution by the European Union Parliament, “European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act (2015/2147(INI))“, has points relevant to the adoption and promotion of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). Specifically, points #89, #110, and #125 mention FOSS by name. The first two mention it in the context of security and interoperability, respectively. The third, #125, calls for a general increase in its use. Here they are quoted below with emphasis in yellow added.

89. Considers that software providers should better promote the security advantages of open source software and security-related software upgrades to users; calls on the Commission to explore an EU-wide coordinated vulnerability disclosure programme, including the repair of known software vulnerabilities, as a remedy against the abuse of software vulnerabilities and security and personal data breaches;

110. Urges the Commission and the Council to increase the share of free and open source software and its reuse in and between public administrations as a solution to increase interoperability;

125. Calls on the Commission and Member States to renew their commitment to the EU 2020 strategy’s research and innovation targets as building blocks of a competitive Digital Single Market, economic growth and job creation, with a comprehensive approach to Open Science, Open innovation, Open data and knowledge transfer; considers that this should include a revised legal framework for text and data mining for scientific research purposes, the increased use of free and open source software, particularly in educational establishments and public administrations, and easier access for SMEs and start-ups to Horizon 2020 funding adapted to the short innovation cycles of the ICT sector; stresses in this respect the importance of all relevant initiatives, from public-private partnerships and innovation clusters to European technology and science parks, notably in less industrialised European regions, and accelerator programmes for start-ups and joint technology platforms, as well as the ability to license standard-essential patents effectively, within the restraints of EU competition law, under FRAND licensing terms, in order to preserve R&D and standardisation incentives and foster innovation;

It is interesting to note that #125 calls for the increased use of Free and Open Source Software to facilitate science, innovation, and knowledge transfer. The mention of “Open data and knowledge transfer” can be interpreted to mean Open Access, related to FOSS but in publishing. In regards to FOSS itself, a stumbling block is the explicit mention of FRAND-licensing for patents as included in standards, as it has traditionally been used as a means to block use of FOSS. But given the context of promoting FOSS elsewhere in the document and, especially in the same paragraph, that would include royalty-free licensing of standards as a pre-requisite for anything to be considered even remotely reasonable.

Another resolution is from this last autumn and is entitled, “Follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens

Item #47 states even more specifically that open source must be a mandatory criterion in procurement.

47. Welcomes the steps taken so far to strengthen Parliament’s IT security, as outlined in the action plan on EP ICT Security prepared by DG ITEC; asks for these efforts to be continued and the recommendations made in the resolution fully and swiftly carried out; calls for fresh thinking and, if necessary, legislative change in the field of procurement to enhance the IT security of the EU institutions; calls for the systematic replacement of proprietary software by auditable and verifiable open-source software in all the EU institutions, for the introduction of a mandatory ‘open-source’ selection criterion in all future ICT procurement procedures, and for efficient availability of encryption tools;

Going back even further, to 2001, there is a resolution warning of actions needed to be taken to protect e-mail privacy.

European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))

As the Snowden revelations have shown, these measures have proven to be sound and to work in regards to protecting the content of messages. Indeed, in that resolution, it is most clearly stated that only FOSS can fulfil security requirements at all.

29. Urges the Commission and Member States to devise appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture European encryption technology and software and above all to support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software;

30. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote software projects whose source text is made public (open-source software), as this is the only way of guaranteeing that no backdoors are built into programmes;

31. Calls on the Commission to lay down a standard for the level of security of e-mail software packages, placing those packages whose source code has not been made public in the “least reliable” category;

32. Calls on the European institutions and the public administrations of the Member States systematically to encrypt e-mails, so that ultimately encryption becomes the norm;

33. Calls on the Community institutions and the public administrations of the Member States to provide training for their staff and make their staff familiar with new encryption technologies and techniques by means of the necessary practical training and courses;

In summary, the European Union Parliament has recommended Free and Open Source Software for several goals. These goals are privacy, security, innovation, and interoperability.

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts