(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: Michael Tiemann dice que Florian Müller “procede a emitir insensateces” después de insultar a la Open Source Initiative (OSI), respecto a la defensa del Free/Open Source.

MICROSOFT esta lascivamente deseando las patentes de Novell y Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller] sigue lamiéndose los labios sobre la posibilidad de que Microsoft y otros obtengan algunos de las llamadas “patentes de FOSS Free Open Source Software” para amenazar con Linux. Es más transparente basado en lo que escribe, especialmente se regodea (e insulta) en su cuenta de Twitter. No es el único sin embargo.

Jon Brodkin de IDG, a quien conocemos por sus esfuerzos de blanqueo de Microsoft (de los que recientemente dio ejemplos [1[http://techrights.org/2011/03/21/wp7-dissed-by-mobile-industry/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/03/03/idg-microsoft-whitewash/], 3[http://techrights.org/2010/08/30/microsoft-foss-deception-again/]], y él también habla con Florian), dice que “EE.UU. Defensa de la Competencia revisará Microsoft/Novell venta de patentes por 30 días más[http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/72127]“. Florian mientras tanto difunde desinformación, tratando de apurar el juicio o inyectar un poco de desinformación mientras que Florian engaña a la gente (hay un informe CPTLN inexacta en ZDNet Reino Unido, tal vez como resultado de esto[http://techrights.org/2011/04/16/zdnet-uk-censorship-debate/]), cuando en realidad incluso su amigo en línea Maureen O ‘Gara se da cuenta de que no hay liquidación[http://www.sys-con.com/node/1795207]. Brodkin, un blogger de Microsoft, lo está girando como en defensa de Microsoft (“Escudo de las demandas …”) [1[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/224751/novell_patent_sale_to_shield_microsoft_apple_emc_and_oracle_from_lawsuits.html], 2[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/040811-novell-patents.html]], es sin duda este título[http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/novell-patent-sale-raises-concerns-but-still-likely-to-proceed] que lo convierte en un fan de la oferta, al igual que Florian. El acuerdo de patentes es atroz (FSF y OSI están de acuerdo e incluso trabajan en conjunto en contra de ella, de una manera sin precedentes), mientras que los boosters de Microsoft están anunciando o prediciendo su éxito incluso antes de que sea aprobado. ¿Están tratando de influir en la decisión mediante la generación de afirmaciones falaces? A decir verdad, hemos escrito sobre esto antes[http://techrights.org/2011/04/10/all-software-patents-are-bad/]. Dado que la multitud a favor de Microsoft está tan ansiosos por ver esas patentes caer en los brazos de Microsoft, sabemos con certeza que la FSF y OSI están en lo correcto y para citar una respuesta de “Barney”[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-11-001-41-PS-0000], destinado a apuntar a Brodkin de (título es “La Venta de Patentes de NOvell un Escudo de Microsoft, Apple, EMC y Oracle en contra de Demandas “):

Escudo? no querrá decir espada.

Yo realmente no veo Microsoft, Apple, ni Oracle sean pasivos en lo que respecta a la utilización de esas patentes y a mi modo de ver, se utilizarán para reducir la tecnología productos basados en código abierto (también conocido como Linux).

Sólo hay una respuesta[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-11-001-41-PS-0001] y una que no tiene en cuenta la actitud de las empresas ante a la competencia y cómo utilizan las patentes. Ellos son los agresores. Mientras tanto, la maquinaria de propaganda de Microsoft Florian se pone en marcha otra vez y responde el jefe de la OSI[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0000]:

Florian Mueller acusa que la OSI esta soltando tonterías, y luego procede a emitirlas él mismo. Le estoy llamando la atención por ello.
La FCO ha manifestado claramente las condiciones en las que pueden y cuando el acuerdo debe ser bloqueada, que es cuando cuando la transacción CPTLN crearía o “reforzaría una posición dominante de uno o varios inversores CPTLN-en los mercados en que actúan.” Florian piensa que es una barrera imposiblemente alta, porque según él, no hay realmente ninguna manera que los reguladores puedan para hacer su trabajo. Rechazo esa conclusión cínica. Y me siento satisfecho de que los reguladores en los EE.UU. y la UE están leyendo cuidadosamente tanto los requisitos legales y los hechos y la evidencia de la transacción. Ya hemos visto un gran cambio en la estructura de la transacción CPTLN, lo que indica que hubo claramente algunas cuestiones muy graves con la primera estructuración.
En el mundo del código abierto, un parche rechazado nunca es aceptado automáticamente por el mero hecho algunos cambios fueron hechos al azar y presentado de nuevo el parche. El parche debe abordar las cuestiones de fondo, y debe hacerlo de una manera que sea aceptada por la comunidad. Se acepta que el *mantenedor* dice que es bastante bueno, no cuando el presentador dice que es lo suficientemente bueno.
La transacción propuesta revisada CPTLN se refirió a una de las muchas preocupaciones planteadas por la OSI, pero deja a la mayoría de los problemas sin resolver. La FCO solicitó nuestro aporte-como miembros de nuestra comunidad y nos han dado respuesta. Debemos dejar que el FCO hacer su trabajo, y no más allá que su autoridad, su capacidad o su integridad.

Como el siguiente comentarista señaló[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0002]:

Ojalá este resumen, como la mayoría en Linux Hoy en día, había identificado al autor del artículo. Esta es una importante pieza de información que yo uso a la hora de decidir si deseo o no hacer clic para leer un artículo.

Y el siguiente después de él[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0003l]:

Gracias por ese post informativo, Michael. Cuando ví que el vínculo era con el “Software Libre de Patentes”, decidí evitar hacer clic.

Barnie pregunta[http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-04-08-011-41-OP-LL-0004]: “Florian – ¿Alimentas que las ofertas de patente de Microsoft están justificadas?

En los últimos años hemos visto que Microsoft ocupa (al parecer por amenazas de acciones legales) extrajo ofertas de patentes con empresas de la talla de HTC, TomTom y muchos otros.
¿Cree usted que alguna de estas ofertas están justificados y que creen que el sistema actual está funcionando?

Florian aparece un par de veces en este tema, sólo para insistir en el mismo giro y la distorsión de los hechos (su táctica principal, también en contra de mensajeros que no está de acuerdo con, por ejemplo, Groklaw y Techrights). Rainer Weikusat cierra la conversación con:

> 1) Si fuera por mí, las patentes de este tipo
> No se concederían en el primer lugar.
.
Pero no es “hasta que”, es decir, cualquier declaración sobre
esta de su lado es puramente hipotética: No
“Test de realidad” de su veracidad nunca ocurrirá
y en el contexto de la cuestión real, también es
completamente irrelevante.
.
> No creo que es razonable conceder
> Monopolios de 20 años en las ideas relacionadas con el software. Este
> es independiente de si estamos hablando de
> FAT de Microsoft multitouch, Apple, Oracle virtuales máquina
>, Amazon un solo clic o patente Google Doodle
> (Sí, patentado que uno y fue la patente
> Concedido recientemente, y en mi opinión es más
> Absurda en esta lista).
.
Es por lo menos sobre una invención original,
frente a alguien con tareas de diseño e implementación
una manera de agregar “nombres de archivo largos” a un directorio de DOS
de una manera que no moleste el software escrito para
uso de nombres 8.3 ‘(algo que cualquier programador decente
ser fácilmente capaz de) y, a continuación el resultado de las patentes
de este trabajo con el fin de obstaculizar independientes,
implementaciones interoperables.
.
> 2) Teniendo en cuenta que este tipo de patentes existen, sin embargo,
> Es el curso normal de los negocios de ese derecho
los titulares de> querer usarlos. Si la concesión de licencias en
> Condiciones razonables, que es infinitamente mejor que cualquier
> Uso estratégico de exclusión de las patentes
.
La pregunta interesante, sin embargo, es lo que precisamente
que constituye una “manera razonable”. Por ejemplo, legalmente,
Linux está prohibido de ser completamente interoperables
con sistemas de creación de sistemas de archivos a través del “nombre largo
método de adición “patentado por Microsoft, con la excepción
en la medida en propiedad de los módulos del kernel de dudosa legalidad
el estado se utilizan. Y en mi opinión, esto es “estratégica,
el uso excluyente de las patentes “: Si bien la licencia de uso
esta “invención” puede estar disponible para ‘empresas’ que
sólo se concede a condición de que dicho
las empresas no participiate en gran escala
de colaboración de desarrollo los esfuerzos de Microsoft considera
a ser potencialmente perjudicial para su negocio en marcha
éxito. Esto también convenientemente ignora el hecho de que
“Desarrollo” una gran cantidad de no se hace por «empresas»
producción de software, debido a “valor de venta” de su (y
por lo tanto, capaz de pagar derechos de autor).

La legitimidad de Microsoft Florian en los círculos del software libre del que pretende ser el campeón, está en su punto más bajo de todos los tiempos. Cualquier cosa que se puede atribuir a él en el pasado está siendo reemplazada por el engaño inaceptable y su hostilidad hacia la libertad del software, incluyendo su lenguaje y comportamiento grosero. Florian el autor no es Florian el lobbyist y él admite que nunca escribió FOSS.

La Vergonzosa Defensa de Ofertas de patente de Microsoft Florian se detalla aquí.

–Comentario por Twitter—

Preface

He incluido este comentario de Twitter por que explica detalladamente la actitud propagandista del empleado de Microsoft: Microsoft Florian, como siembra desinformación, ataca a los que lo desemascaran y a todo aquel que proteste por la manera como quiere justificar como Microsoft utiliza las patentes asi como las que quiere obtener de CPTLN para destruir Linux. No nos olvidemos, MS Florian es un empleado de Microsoft es lo que explica la manera que actúa.

Florian ha tenido éxito en jugar a Slashdot. Sus insultos a Groklaw y Techrights que siguierón de cerca el anuncio del retiro de PJ me molesto por lo que me decidí a ver lo que Florian Mueller ha estado diciendo a Slashdot[http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/263284]. Se las arregló para inyectar su opinión 16 veces en el último año, sobre todo FUD en contra de los competidores de Microsoft. Cada uno de los 16 artículos Slashdot representa muchas más publicaciones de prensa de Microsoft. Compare la calumnia prolífica en contra de Red Hat, Google, IBM, RMS, la Free Software Foundation y otros a su falta de preocupación por Microsoft. Buscando en su blog podemos encontrar:

No se hace mención de Intelectual Ventures[http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/263284]
No se hace mención de Nathan Myhrvold[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Afosspatents.blogspot.com++%22nathan+myhrvold%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=]
Menciona Microsoft Abogado de patentes 4 veces[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&ei=K0OqTaWGFeWR0QGeoKT5CA&ved=0CBYQvwUoAQ&q=site%3Afosspatents.blogspot.com+gutierrez&spell=1], sobre todo para llevar a la gente a leer la opinión de Microsoft.

Una vez le pregunté si leyó mi Línea de Tiempo de Microsoft Extorsión de Patentes[http://techrights.org/2010/11/14/msft-extorsion-es/]–un deber leerla para entender la real actitud de Microsoft uso de patentes-, y le pregunté por qué no persiguió a Microsoft y sus evidente ataques en contra de GNU/Linux y el Software Libre. Se quedó en silencio en aquel momento. Ahora veo que produjo esta pobre excusa[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/microsofts-use-of-patents.html] de “el enfoque cooperativo de Microsoft en cuanto a las patentes[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html].” En su defensa de Microsoft, rechaza las acusaciones de que él es un lobbyst de Microsoft en el que no se puede confiar. Entonces, nos dice[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/microsofts-use-of-patents.html],

Microsoft no utiliza sus patentes en una forma destructiva. No sólo se sientan en sus patentes sin hacer nada, pero son un soporte de cooperación de derechos que no los utilizan para eliminar a la competencia. … Los desarrolladores, sin embargo, en general, les gusta el software libre FOSS. Así que no puedo ver cómo Microsoft iría a la guerra en contra de la comunidad. … Hay una buena posibilidad de que la coexistencia pacífica de Microsoft con el software libre seguirá y cada vez más fructífera. … Microsoft no tiene ese tipo de problemas [de lavar sus acciones]. … Es más realista esperar un titular de una patente que hacer es la concesión de licencias en condiciones “equitativas”, “razonables” y “no discriminatorias” (FRAND[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#RAND]). … Las ofertas de licencia son generalmente una buena noticia … Microsoft sólo demandó a esas empresas porque no estaban absolutamente dispuestos a hacer un acuerdo de licencias. En cada uno de los casos, … La clave para mí es que todas esas demandas se podrían haber evitado fácilmente. Si Microsoft sigue usando sus patentes en la forma cooperativa, razonable que los ha utilizado hasta ahora, entonces no creo que haya una amenaza a los proyectos de software libre o las empresas.

Esta es una vergonzosa defensa de la estrategia de Microsoft contra el software libre. Según el correo electrónico de Microsoft expuestas en el Microsoft vs Comes caso antimonopolio, está claro que el objetivo de Microsoft era imponer costes externos, los “riesgos” y el miedo a los usuarios de GNU/Linux y las empresas. El ataque fue planeado en 2002, ejecutado en 2004 y continúa hasta nuestros días[http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/219107]. Microsoft se jacta de que han anotó docenas, si no cientos de contribuyentes de licencia, las empresas que utilizan software de Microsoft que no posee. Florian describe esta extorsión judicial como “cooperativa”, “justa”, “razonable” y “no discriminatoria”. Me pregunto si él sentiría lo mismo si yo tuviera que decirle que tengo una patente sobre FUD, pero yo no quiero que deje de escribir FUD, yo sólo quiero mi parte justa de compensación, el 25% es suficiente, de lo contrario lo voy a atar en el tribunal por la próxima década, embargo de sus escritos en los EE.UU. y la UE y crear una serie de redes para trabajar en su reputación a través de mi extensa red de publicaciones técnicas, empresas de relaciones públicas, abogados y lobbysts. Tan pronto como se tome la molestia de pagar, voy a establecer una media docena de servidores proxy después de él. Cuando eso es la realidad de otra persona, eso está bien con él.

Su reciente trabajo ha costado mucho a su reputación. La gente se percató de que era la fuente de la FUD de los derechos de autor de Android y pensarón mal de él. Los ataques en contra de “Groklie”, PJ, probablemente le costarón más. En la manera típica de matón de Microsoft, está culpando al golpe a su reputación a PJ y a otros que se han dado cuenta de lo que está haciendo. █

Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary: Michael Tiemann says that Florian Müller “proceeds to spout nonsense” after insulting the Open Source Initiative (OSI) regarding defence of Free/Open Source software

MICROSOFT is lusting for Novell’s patents and Microsoft Florian keeps licking his lips over the possibility that Microsoft et al. will get some so-called “FOSS patents” to threaten Linux with. It’s rather transparent based on what he writes, especially the reckless gloat (and insults) in his Twitter stream. He’s not alone though.

IDG’s Jon Brodkin, known to us for the Microsoft whitewashing efforts (we recently gave examples [1, 2, 3] and he too speaks to Florian), says that “U.S. Antitrust will review Microsoft/Novell patent sale for 30 more days”. Florian is meanwhile spreading disinformation; they try to rush the judgment or push this bit of disinformation while Florian deceives people (there is an inaccurate CPTN report in ZDNet UK, maybe as a result of this) when in fact even his online friend Maureen O’Gara realises that there is no clearance. Brodkin, a Microsoft blogger, is spinning it as defence for Microsoft (“Shield… From Lawsuits”) [1, 2]; it is arguably this headline which makes him a fan of the deal, just like Florian. The patent deal is atrocious (FSF and OSI agree and even work jointly against it, in an unprecedented fashion), whereas Microsoft boosters are predicting or heralding its success before it’s even cleared. Are they trying to influence the decision by generating fallacious claims? Truthfully, we wrote about this before. Since the pro-Microsoft crowd is so eager to see those patents falling into Microsoft’s arms, we know for sure that the FSF and OSI are correct and to quote a response from “barney”, aimed at Brodkin’s spin (headline is “Novell Patent Sale to Shield Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle From Lawsuits”):

Shield? don’t you mean sword

I really don’t see Microsoft, Apple, nor Oracle being passive with regards to using those patents and they way I see it, they will be used to cut down open source technology( aka Linux ) based products.

There is only one resoponse and one that does not take into account the companies’ prior attitude towards competition and how they use patents. They are aggressors. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine of Microsoft Florian kicks into gear again and the head of the OSI responds:

Florian Mueller accuses that the OSI is spouting nonsense, and then proceeds to spout nonsense. I’m calling him on it.
The FCO has clearly stated the conditions under which a deal can and must be blocked, which is when when the CPTN transaction would “create or strengthen a dominant position of one or several CPTN-investors on the markets on which they are active.” Florian thinks that is an impossibly high bar, because according to him, there’s really no way regulators can be expected to do their jobs. I reject such a cynical conclusion. And I am heartened that the regulators in both the US and EU are reading carefully both the legal requirements and the facts and evidence of the transaction. We have already seen a huge change to the structure of the CPTN transaction, indicating that there were clearly some very serious issues with the first structuring.
In the world of open source, a rejected patch is never automatically accepted merely because some random changes were made and the patch resubmitted. The patch must address the substantive issues, and must do so in a way that is accepted by the community. It is accepted when the *maintainer* says its good enough, not when the submitter claims it’s good enough.
The revised proposed CPTN transaction did address one of the many concerns raised by the OSI, but it leaves most of the concerns unaddressed. The FCO requested our input–as members of the community–and we have given our answer. We should let the FCO do their job, and not second-guess their authority, their ability, or their integrity.

As the next commenter pointed out:

I wish this summary, like most on Linux Today, had identified the author of the article. This is an important piece of information that I use when deciding whether or not to click through and read an article.

And the next one after that:

Thanks for that informative post, Michael. When is saw the link was to FOSS Patents, I decided to avoid clicking.

Barnie asks: “Florian – do you feed any of the Microsoft patent deals are justified?”

Over the last few years we have seen Microsoft make deals (it would seem by threat of legal action) extract patent deals from the likes of HTC, TomTom and many others.
Do you believe any of these deals are justified and do you believe the current system is working?

Florian appears a couple of times in this thread, only to insist on the same spin and distortion of facts (his main tactic, also against messengers he does not agree with, e.g. Groklaw and Techrights). Rainer Weikusat closes this conversation with:

> 1) If it were up to me, patents of that kind would
> not be granted in the first place.
.
But it isn’t ‘up to you’, meaning, any statement on
this from your side is entirely hypothetical: No
‘reality check’ of its truthfulness will ever occur
and in the context of the actual question, it is also
completely irrelevant.
.
> I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to grant
> 20-year monopolies on software-related ideas. This
> view is independent from whether we’re talking about
> a Microsoft FAT, Apple multitouch, Oracle virtual
> machine, Amazon one-click or Google Doodle patent
> (yes, they patented that one and the patent was
> granted recently, and in my view it’s the most
> abusrd one in this list).
.
It is at least about some original invention, as
opposed tasking someone with ‘design and implement
a way to add “long filenames” to a DOS-directory
in a way which will not disturb software written to
use 8.3 names’ (something any decent programmer should
be easily capable of) and then patenting the result
of this work in order to hamper independent,
interoperable implementations.
.
> 2) Given that such patents do exist nonetheless,
> it’s the normal course of business that right
> holders want to use them. If they grant licenses on
> reasonable terms, that’s infinitely better than any
> strategic exclusionary use of patents
.
The interesting question, however, is what precisely
constitutes ‘a reasonable term’. For instance, legally,
Linux is prohibited from being fully interoperable
with systems creating filesystems using the ‘long name
addition method’ patented by Microsoft, except
insofar proprietary kernel modules of legally dubious
status are used. And in my opinion, this is ‘strategic,
exclusionary use of patents’: While a license to use
this ‘invention’ may be available to ‘companies’ it
is only granted subject to the condition that said
companies to not participiate in large-scale
collaborative development efforts Microsoft considers
to be potentially detrimental to its ongoing business
success. This also conveniently ignores the fact that
a lot of ‘development’ is not done by ‘companies’
producing software because of its ‘sale value’ (and
thus, capable of paying royalties).

The legitimacy of Microsoft Florian in FOSS circles which he pretends to champion is at an all-time low. Anything which could be attributed to him in the past is being superseded by unacceptable deception and hostility towards software freedom, including crass behaviour and language. Florian the author is not Florian the lobbyist and he admits that he never wrote FOSS. █

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: La Iniciativa de Open Source OSI, intenta recuperar su legitimidad y también explica que Microsoft está muy lejos de ser un amigo de Open Source.

Los DIARIOS posts han contenido ya noticias sobre una reforma prevista en la OSI, que es la organización detrás de la marca de fábrica de Open Source. La OSI ha sido siempre renuente ser influenciada por Microsoft, que intentó manterla a corta distancia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm%27s_length_principle]. Hay un blogger en la OSI que se atreve de vez en cuando a decir la verdad sobre la relación de Microsoft con Open Source y aquí esta lo suyo sobre el amor de Microsoft hacia Open Source[http://www.opensource.org/blog/MicrosoftLovesOpenSource.html]:

Cuando hablo a la gente de Microsoft acerca de todo su mal comportamiento, es cierta otra parte de Microsoft que si la ignoramos eventualmente veremos la luz. Eso parece como una mala estrategia de nuestros “buenos amigos”. Si Microsoft ama sinceramente al Código Abierto, es hora de una estrategia corporativa. Hagamos esto simple:

* ¿Cómo sobre una promesa de la patente similar pero mejor que la promesa de patentes de Red Hat? Vaya un paso más al futuro y amplíelo a todas las licencias de código abierto.

* ¿Qué acerca de invitar a la OSI para que se una a la CPTN? Eso haría cada uno más cómodo creer que es un consorcio defensivo y no un esquema para destruir a el código abierto.

* ¿Qué acerca de un cambio del tono del mensaje de la comercialización a “desarrollo cooperativo”, en vez de el de la “interoperabilidad”?

Microsoft, quisiera ver este amor como algo más que un esquema de comercialización gaseoso. ¡Demuéstrenos el amor!

La fuente de este enteramente deshonesto “Microsoft Ama a Open Source” FUD de es el escritor de IDG – un troll de presión del Subnet de Microsoft que hace algunos días puso a Stallman y Stalin en el mismo título (entonces ligado a “Microsoft ama a Open Source” dentro de la misma entrevista con Stallman). Los que fingen ese Microsoft pueden ser campeón de chantajes y ética al mismo tiempo no están claramente interesados en la naturaleza verdadera; hacen Relaciones Públicas PR.

Notas de traducción:
Hoy Lunes 29 de Marzo, Microsoft demandó a Barnes & Noble y FoxConn por el uso de Adroide on su lector Nook[http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_4_0_t&usg=AFQjCNEzYOo4yhEtRoc2eXvXm9XtYSaTZQ&did=2bccaf5d3e51893e&cid=8797676060261&ei=HgSITeHKMIL8lQTn4Id3&rt=SECTION&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cultofmac.com%2Fmicrosoft-sues-barnes-noble-foxconn-over-nook-patent-infringement%2F87503]. Barnes & Noble tuvo el coraje de negarse a firmar un acuerdos sobre patentes que involucran a GNU/Linux como lo hicieron: Linspire, Xandros, TurboLinux, Acer, HTC, Amazon entre otros que ahora están pagando por GNU/Linux. Microsoft está imponiendo un GNU/Linux Tax que no le corresponde. Esperemos que Barnes & Noble no se doblegue ante este burdo chantaje y no pague por protección a estos modernos gangsters.

Este es el amor de Microsoft hacia Open Source. Los países Latino Americanos debemos cerrar filas en contra de Microsoft que sólo busca la entrega del futuro de las nuevas generaciones con el uso de sus supuestos “estándares” y tecnologías que sólo buscan sofocar las empresas latino americanas y del Tercer Mundo con su objetivo de Colonialismo Digital. Miremos a Brasil y la India para el bienestar de nuestras futuras generaciones.

Si, Microsoft no ha cambiado busca la destrucción del código abierto y de todo aquello que vaya en contra de sus intereses, eso esta es su ADN por tanto seamos precavidos y miremos todo lo que venga de ellos y su prensa comprada con escepticismo.

Eduardo Landaveri translates the latter new part into English as follows:

“I added to the end Notes of translation: Today Monday 29 of March, Microsoft demanded to Barnes & Noble and FoxConn for the use of Android on its Nook reader. Barnes & Noble had the courage to refuse to sign agreements on patents that involve GNU/Linux, like others did: Linspire, Xandros, TurboLinux, Acer, HTC, Amazon among others that now are paying for GNU/Linux. Microsoft is imposing a GNU/Linux Tax that does not correspond to them. Let us hope that Barnes & Noble will not give in to this coarse blackmail and won’t not pay for protection to these modern gangsters.

“This it is the love of Microsoft towards Open Source. The Latin American countries must close up against Microsoft that only looks for subjugating the future of the new generations with the use of its supposed “standards” and technologies that they only look for to choke the Latin Americana and Third World companies with its goal of Digital Colonialism. We must look upon Brazil and India for the well-being of our future generations.

“Yes, Microsoft has not changed. It only looks for the destruction of the open source and of everything what it goes against his interests, this is its DNA therefore we must be cautious every time we read everything what comes from them and its bribed press & treat it with skepticism.” █

Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary: The Open Source Initiative seeks to regain legitimacy and it also explains that Microsoft is far from a friend of Open Source

THE DAILY links have already contained news about a planned reform at the OSI, which is the organisation behind the Open Source brand. The OSI has always been reluctant to be intruded by Microsoft, which it tried to keep at arm’s length. There is one blogger at the OSI who occasionally dares to say the truth about Microsoft’s relationship with Open Source and here is his latest about “Microsoft Loves Open Source”:

When I speak to folks at Microsoft all bad behavior is “some other part of Microsoft” that if we just ignore will eventually see the light. That seems like a bad strategy from our “good friends”. If Microsoft sincerely loves open source, it is time for a corporate strategy. Let’s make this simple:

* How about a “Patent Promise” similar but better than Red Hat’s Patent Promise? Go one step further and extend it to all open source licenses.
* How about inviting the Open Invention Network to join CPTN? That would make everyone more comfortable that it is a defensive consortium and not a scheme to crush open source.
* How about changing the tone of the marketing message to “cooperative development” instead of “interoperability”?

Microsoft, I’d like to see this love as more than a cheesy marketing scheme. Show us the love!

The source of this wholly dishonest “Microsoft Loves Open Source” FUD is the Microsoft Subnet writer from IDG — a booster who some days ago put Stallman and Stalin in the same headline (then linked to “Microsoft Loves Open Source” within the same interview with Stallman). Those who pretend that Microsoft can be champion of racketeering and “ethics” at the same time are clearly not interested in the true nature; they do PR. █

–Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist

Summary: Vista Phony 7 forbids the use of Mono, based on what the terms simply say; in fact, Vista Phony 7 bans Microsoft’s own OSI-approved licences

THERE IS some laugh-worth news in Mono land. While Novell keeps increasing its influence inside the Linux Foundation it is also increasing Microsoft’s influence inside GNU/Linux with projects like Mono and Moonlight, which are partly Microsoft releases because of the code they contain and the manager of the project, a Microsoft MVP who raves about them [1, 2] even though they receive little attention. As we explained last year, Moonlight had lost a lot of momentum and so had Mono, to a lesser degree. The problem with both is that owing to the FSF sort of denouncing them, more people do realise they are the patent burden a lot of other people claim them to be. It is not just a patent issue but also an API issue and a copyright issue because Microsoft owns part of Mono (and Moonlight, which depends on Mono and uses codecs from Microsoft). There is MS-PL-licensed code right inside Mono and since Microsoft bans free code from Vista Phony 7, there too Mono may not be allowed. “Microsoft Bans Open Source From Windows Phone Marketplace” says this new article:

Jan Wildeboer points at clause ‘e’ which states, “The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License. ”

It is beyond comprehension how this clause will help Microsoft in getting more developers or great applications. What I can understand is Microsoft is trying to discourage developers from using open source model for application development. Is it a well calculated move by Microsoft to attack the free and open source community or yet another immitation of Apple’s App Store?

“Microsoft bans open source from the Marketplace” says also the British press:

Jan Wildeboer, open source evangelist and Red Hat employee, was one of the first to spot the restrictions in Microsoft’s licence this week. “One thing is extremely obvious,” Wildeboer claims in a post to his personal blog. “Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period.”

As evidence, Wildeboer points to Article 5 of the Application Requirements section of the Microsoft Application Provider Agreement, which states: “The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License.”

The reference to ‘Excluded License’ refers to an earlier section which explicitly names the GNU General Public License version 3 and its Lesser derivative – two of the most common open source licences around – along with ‘any equivalents.’

Our member gnufreex wrote a detailed analysis of it, which says:

First of all, application delivery mechanism for WP7 (or call it “App Store”) is completely incompatible with Free Software. User has no means of getting the source code, nor installing modified software. That makes all software received through this mechanism non-free, regardless whether previous license was BSD, GPL or any other FSF or OSI certified license. In case of copyleft license, this would be a violation, but that is besides the point. Acquired software is not Free in practical sense, in a way that user can’t help himself by examining the code, which one of basic Freedoms that Free Software gives.

[...]

Clause (ii) is more of the same, but clause (iii) I think might be FUD. No Free Software license requires redistributing at no charge, and license that would require that would never pass FSF and OSI certification process. So it is possible that this clause is there only so that Microsoft advocates can spray FUD on GPL, something they love to do. It is bad for Microsoft if people talk about clause(i), that Microsoft banned every copyleft license, but it is good for Microsoft if people talk about clause (iii) and misinterpret GPL as anti-capitalist license (which is not). If that makes one coder stay away from GPL, then that is good for MSFT.

[...]

WP7 would be nice chance for Microsoft to make a statement that they are never ever planing to force Mono underground with software patents. They could do that by allowing and encouraging GPLv3 apps in their app store. After all, only .NET developers can get those patent grants, since noting else runs on WP7. But sadly, Microsoft is doing just the opposite. Their double-ban of GPLv3 sends message to their devotees in Mono movement: they need to use permissive license without patent protection if they plan to have proprietary port to WP7. This shows that Microsoft wants to reserve right to sue against Mono ecosystem, as we already know by now. Will Mono app developers prefer GPL or Microsoft walled garden? Well, considering that Mono leader is “psyched” about developing for WP7 phones, my guess is that Mono devs will want to follow the leader and port their stuff to WP7. Profile of people who are endorsing Mono is such that they will probably do whatever Microsoft and De Icaza asks them to.

But wider FLOSS community needs to continue shunning Mono because Microsoft obviously didn’t change it’s mind. They are still making sure they don’t give patent grant to Mono users, and are not shy to double-ban licenses which would give them needed guarantees.

Simon Phipps says that “Microsoft Bans Its Own License” and this includes Mono ramifications:

But his critics aren’t accurate either. Most of the criticism I’ve seen tries to turn this into the old GPL vs BSD wars, claiming “it’s just Microsoft continuing to ban the GPL and who could blame them”. But Microsoft’s prohibition goes further than the GPL licenses it’s using as an example; it says “Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses”. So this makes it impossible to use, for example, the Eclipse Public License – ruling out anything from the whole, large Eclipse ecosystem – or the Mozilla Public License or any other “weak copyleft” license.

That includes, remarkably, Microsoft’s own OSI-approved Microsoft Reciprocal License and possibly even the Microsoft Public License, according to one legal expert. As a consequence, use of open source libraries under these licenses – which not even Apple’s byzantine regulations object to – is apparently prohibited.

That might plausibly include Mono, based on Microsoft’s own .NET but partly licensed under MS-PL. It also means that Microsoft’s new partner Nokia could have trouble using it’s Qt graphics environment on the platform as it’s under the GPL. Some legally-qualified commentators are even suggesting that, if the first use of “the software” in the definition of “Excluded License” means the open source software and not the application being submitted, then all open source licenses are barred. I hope that’s just bad drafting.

“Ooh, ooh,” wrote Phipps some hours ago, “Miguel still hates me”. Microsoft MVP de Icaza and his minions are currently attacking all the messengers by belittling their intelligence. It’s rather pathetic really, but that’s just the mentality of Mono bullies, who seem to inherit their aggression from ‘mother ship’ Microsoft.

Here is The H saying that “Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace” (we are quoting just headlines by the way, as they are quite consistent and pass the fact-checking phase).

The prohibition of free software licences appears to be Microsoft’s own response to the issues raised by the appearance and later removal of GPL applications such as VLC from the Apple iPhone App Store. Commercial application stores like Apple’s and Microsoft’s do not have mechanisms to make source code for applications directly available. They also have some form of DRM lock which prevents the binary being passed on to another user, on all applications, even ones available for no charge in the market. It is these restrictions that make the stores incompatible with licences such as the GPL.

In other words, Microsoft hardly tries to make Vista Phony 7 succeed.

In Wayne’s latest part of “Microsoft Death Watch” he looks at Microsoft’s own reports sceptically and reaches the conclusion that Microsoft loses a lot of money in phones (known fact for years, Microsoft hid it by merging divisions/operations).

1) Microsoft’s sales of Windows Phone 7 haven’t been all that good. It appears that WP7 is costing Microsoft more than it’s making in sales. Charlie over at Semi-Accurate has reported that Microsoft is giving WP7 away. If what Charlie says is true, it’s also likely to put downward pressure on the price of Windows for personal computers.

2) Check row 15. Microsoft Business, which includes Office, is Microsoft’s best profit center. The problem is that Microsoft Office only works on the personal computer version of Windows. Anything which impacts on the number of personal computer Windows licenses that are sold will hurt Office sales. There aren’t versions of Office for tablets or phones, which are the fastest growing segments of the personal computer market.

3) HP is planning to use WebOS in phones, tablets, and personal computers. WebOS is a Linux based operating system, somewhat similar to Android, another Linux based operating system, and Apple’s IOS, a BSD based operating system. Windows Mobile, the predecessor of WP7, which was supposed to take this market never did sell well.

So here we have a dying phone platform which even the NoWin deal [1, 2, 3, 4] cannot rescue. Microsoft is banning itself. Hilarious way to end the week. █

Summary: Novell’s patents and their destination at CPTN/Microsoft/AttachMSFT [sic] are coming under fire by the FSFE, OSI, and FSF (the latter two formally complain to the US Department of Justice)

“OSI and FSF jointly refer CPTN purchase of Novell patents to US Department of Justice,” Simon Phipps writes early in the morning. For some background see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

So the people behind “open source” and the FSF too (although Michael and Simon already have good relationships with the FSF) have this to say:

January 19, 2011 (update 2) – The Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice has acknowledged receipt of the following correspondence (with attachment):

I am writing to you this morning in my capacity as President of the Open Source Initiative, a US 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Last month the OSI filed a statement with the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) outlining our deep concerns about a proposed transaction whereby four companies, Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and EMC, would create a new non-practicing entity (NPE) to acquire and hold Novell’s entire portfolio of 882 patents. Since making that filing, we have been joined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and have updated that statement to represent that both our communities–the open source community and the free software community–are concerned that CPTN represents a potential broadside not against any particular product in the market today, but against one of the only viable sources of competition for these companies in software today: the free, libre, and open source software (FLOSS) communities.

Attached is our joint statement that reflects both our consensus thinking on the subject and our joint appeal that DOJ investigate the true purpose of CPTN.

If there is any other information you require from myself, any OSI board member, or the OSI as a whole, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Michael Tiemann
President, Open Source Initiative

Sadly, the US Department of Justice is worthless. It’s occupied by Microsoft cronies and right now it’s occupied with attacking Wikileaks, treating it as though it is a terrorist group.

Phipps later expanded in his IDG-run blog, noting that “OSI And FSF In Unprecedented Collaboration To Protect Software Freedom” (not just “Openness”, so well done, Simon Phipps):

Faced with a potentially large threat to free/libre and open source software from patent consortium CPTN, the two organisations have collaborated publicly for the first time.

“Novell folks seem to have vested interest in infecting Free Software with Microsoft patents,” gnufreex wrote some hours ago. “Maybe that was part of the deal” (OOXML, Mono, and Moonlight are obvious examples of it). Boycott Novell. █

Summary: Microsoft et al. head for the door just shortly after OSI files a complaint to the German Federal Cartel Office

TECHRIGHTS wishes to begin with the good news. Those patents which Novell was going to hand over to Microsoft? Well, that ain’t gonna happen on the face of it. And with AttachMSFT [sic] still looking for a loan with which to buy Novell (more on that in a later post), the whole Novell acquisition is now in jeopardy, shareholder lawsuits notwithstanding.

Here is just one article about the latest regarding CPTN:

A plan created by Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and EMC to create a consortium to acquire hundreds of Novell patents has been withdrawn after complaints from open source advocates, leaving the fate of the nearly half billion dollars’ worth of patents uncertain.

It was first revealed in mid December that the four companies had set up CPTN Holdings LLC to jointly acquire 882 Novell patents for $442 million.

The rest of Novell was to be sold to Attachmate for $2.2 billion, with that sale being “conditioned upon the closing of the proposed sale of certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings LLC.” according to the original Novell press release about the acquisiton.

There were precursors too. “This went almost unnoticed,” wrote Carlo Piana about a week ago, “Novell-Attachmate HSR filing withdrawn, to be refiled today”. To quote:

Regulatory Matters (page 73)

Under the HSR Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, certain transactions, including the merger, may not be consummated unless certain waiting period requirements have expired or been terminated. The HSR Act provides that each party must file a pre-merger notification with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). A transaction notifiable under the HSR Act may not be completed until the expiration of a 30-calendar-day waiting period following the parties’ filing of their respective HSR Act notification forms or the early termination of that waiting period.

The parties to the merger originally filed their respective notification and report forms pursuant to the HSR Act with the FTC and DOJ on December 1, 2010 and the initial 30-day waiting period would have expired on December 31, 2010. In order to provide the DOJ with additional time to review the information submitted by the parties, Attachmate is voluntarily withdrawing its HSR Act notification form, effective December 31, 2010 and intends to re-file for the same transaction on or about January 3, 2011. The effect of this re-filing will also be to extend the waiting period under the HSR Act to a date 30 days from the date of the re-filing, unless earlier terminated or extended by the DOJ requesting additional information from the parties.

The merger was also subject to review and approval by the FCO. Attachmate, with the consent of Novell, filed the appropriate notification in Germany, and the FCO granted clearance to the merger transaction on December 23, 2010 stating that it will not oppose the merger transaction.

Under the HSR Act, the patent sale also may not be completed until the expiration of a 30-calendar-day waiting period following the filing by the parties to that transaction of their respective HSR Act notification

For those to whom the whole thing is news, see the previous post about the complaint in Germany or about CPTN in general. It’s almost as though the FTC is too corrupted from the inside, so they need to go to Europe for help investigating this. Here is the original complaint [PDF].

“But why were the involved parties’ minds suddenly changed?”As O’Reilly Radar put it the other day, this could become another SCO-like trouble. To quote: “As someone who has 10 shares of SCO framed and displayed in his bathroom, 2010 looked to be a very good year. The Beast from Utah finally exhausted all of its legal options, and cratered into a messy bankruptcy, leaving Novell with clear ownership of the Unix intellectual property that Linux may or may not incorporate. We all rejoiced, assuming that Linux would enjoy a happy existence in the future, unworried by fears of corporate protection rackets trying to intimidate people into paying for the free OS.

“Then this fall, Novell announced that it was selling more than 800 of their patents to a consortium that includes Microsoft as a major player. Suddenly, all of the angst about IP attacks against Linux were back on the table, but now with known Linux-hater Microsoft appearing to hold the reins. Will further legal hijinks ensue? Only time will tell.”

Apparently not, assuming the latest news will stick and eventually become a confirmed reality. But why were the involved parties’ minds suddenly changed? Our reader Satipera noticed that a software patents’ crass booster, Patent WatchTroll, weighs in on the subject by writing that “The Meaning of “Open Source”: Patented by Microsoft”. Frankly, the headline alone is so inane that it seems automatically- or stochastically-generated and Satipera seems to agree. He simply calls this “Completely clueless.” To give just a flavour of this mind dropping:

Apparently, Novell was committed to open source and that makes it acceptable to the OSI that they owned patents, but the fact that patents might be used for a competitive advantage by a patent owner, and used to stop infringers from infringing is troubling. So troubling that they are urging the German government to investigate. See Open source campaigners urge investigation of Novell patent sale and Novell’s Microsoft patent sale referred to regulators. So it seems that the position of the OSI is that those who are anti-software patent and committed to open source are the only ones who can own patents without necessitating an investigation by the government. Breathtakingly self-serving if you ask me.

In any event, wouldn’t it be ironic if the movement developed at least in part to prevent monopolization of the software industry in Redmond wound up being responsible for handing Microsoft rights to every program ever created? Perhaps it is Microsoft that is behind the open source movement. Who knows, but several things seem abundantly clear, namely that nothing in life is every truly free, and the true meaning of the term “open source” may be “patented by Microsoft.”

On the contrary, Brian Proffitt came up with an accurate analysis which on January seventh scrutinised what Microsoft was doing:

For the record, I’m not terribly happy about the patent purchase agreement that’s running in parallel to the Novell-Attachmate acquisition deal. The thought of 882 Novell patents getting sold to CPTN Holdings, LLC (a holding consortium made up of Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle America) does not sit well with me.

Now, also for the record, a source inside one of these four companies told All Things Digital’s John Paczkowski “‘We get to buy in at a cheap price and get a license to a very valuable portfolio… It’s cheap defensive insurance.’”

I’m sure.

It is, like anything else in the world, possible that this is the reason behind the patent grab. If these are covering technologies that affect networking and cloud computing, areas that everyone and their sister are trying to get into, then a defensive stance makes sense.

But even if these patents have no direct correlation to open source, do you think the CPTN members will really miss a chance to spread some FUD if it suits them to? After all, in 2004, Steve Ballmer made the claim Linux violated 228 Microsoft patents, a claim that was revised upwards to 235 in 2007. Who will lay odds that in late 2011, if this patent purchase agreement goes through, that number will change to, say, 1117 patents?

Alex Handy argued that “Fall was a bad season for Linux” partly because of this news about CPTN:

The Novell deal sends 882 of its patents to CPTN Holdings in exchange for US$450 million. Microsoft expressed pleasure at bringing Novell technology in-house, but declined to comment further on its intentions for these patents.

Meanwhile, in October, Red Hat was back in US District Court, Eastern District of Texas with Acacia Research over litigation relating to Acacia’s patents on systems and methods for exchanging data and commands between an object-oriented system and a relational system. While such patents could be used to take down almost every database-backed applications ever created, Red Hat decided to settle with Acacia for an undisclosed sum.

On the face of it, people may just forget this whole thing ever happened, but Novell’s buyer too might walk away. Wouldn’t that be memorable? We choose to believe that there was maybe a conspiracy to hide — something malicious which had Microsoft retreat before further revelations could be made. Microsoft must not have expected formal (perhaps federal) complains to be made, later to unravel more participants in what had the word “cartel” come up. We wrote about this last month and so did many American news sites [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17], British news sites, and even former Novell employees like Zonker who argued: “According to the letter, “the proposed CPTN transaction represents a potentially new, and unprecedented threat against open source software.” I’d go farther than that, though. The CPTN transaction is a threat against competition in larger marketplace, period. Yes, open source is in danger — but pretty much any legitimate competition in the areas of operating systems, virtualization, cloud computing, middleware, etc. I’m sure Red Hat feels uneasy about this unholy alliance, but then again so do Google and Parallels. Of course, OSI is only responsible for speaking up for the open source community, not the entire computing industry.”

“On the face of it, people may just forget this whole thing ever happened, but Novell’s buyer too might walk away.”Despite being a former Novell employee, he wishes this will fail. Zonker can be commended for not being loyal to Novell to the point of self-imposed blindness. Further he says: “There’s still time before the deal closes, though. Here’s hoping that OSI’s voice is heard, and that it’s not alone. Many companies and communities stand to be affected. There’s no reason to stand by silently and let Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle increase their collective patent warchests without any scrutiny whatsoever.”

Zonker’s colleague wrote:

Indeed, the number and significance of Novell’s open source patents call for scrutiny of CPTN from regulators. Novell is nearly as old as the personal computer, and when CPTN’s newly acquired patents came to light, we, along with other open source observers, expressed concern about a Microsoft-led consortium inheriting hundreds of them.

Simon Phipps (OSI), who took part in this complaint, published a blog post about it and separately he wrote: “I’ve had a steady stream of investment analysts asking me for private advice on the Novell/CPTN deal. No others, just them. Not giving it.” From his blog post we have:

I’m a member of the OSI Board, who were all involved in the drafting process. This is a significant new step for OSI, who have not previously referred a matter to competition authorities. It reflects the changing emphasis for the organisation, shifting from a role focussed almost exclusively on approving licenses to a more general role representing the interests of the open source movement.

Taking positions on important issues internationally is a valuable counter-balance to the influence of computer industry trade associations, and I hope OSi will keep doing it. That’s one of the reasons we’re shifting to a representative governance – a process which just progressed to the next step in the volunteer Governance Commitee, and which I hope will be completed before mid-2011.

Phipps also appears in some comments on the original post announcing this complaint.

In relation to the CPTN announcement, Groklaw admits its mistake (where Techrights got it right). To quote some relevant parts of the article “OSI Asks German FCO to Look Into the Proposed Patent Deal & You Can Too”:

Remember when Novell won in SCO v. Novell before the jury in Utah in March of this year, and they put out the statement pledging their loyalty to Linux and how they would protect it?

Novell is very pleased with the jury’s decision confirming Novell’s ownership of the Unix copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux. Novell remains committed to promoting Linux, including by defending Linux on the intellectual property front.

This decision is good news for Novell, for Linux, and for the open source community.

Like a dope, I believed them. Maybe you did too. Maybe your business relied on that promise and decided to use Linux as a result. Now what? If you get sued for patent infringement over those 882 patents Novell wants to sell to the Microsoft consortium, would you have a cause of action against Novell as a result of what OSI calls a “major disruption to the competitive landscape.” Ask your lawyer. But if the German FCO is saying it welcomes comments from the public, why not tell them about it, particularly if you have a business that could be directly affected by this proposed patent deal, if this is how you feel?

In short, the good news is that the whole CPTN plot is self-nuking at this moment. The question which remains to be answered is, did the complaint from the OSI play a role in derailing this part of the Novell deal? If so, there was probably something rogue to hide. █

Update: it is now being reported that the CPTN arrangement ought to be still on, despite reports like this one.

Summary: Latest dangers to the identity of “Open Source”, which increasingly means all sorts of things that depart completely from software freedom (or from software as a whole)

UNLESS a brand, a trademark, or a name gets actively defended, it ceases to have a meaning. When the word “freedom” is used in sentences like “freedom to fight”, the label “terrorism” comes to mean anything someone disagrees with and Hoover just becomes synonymous with any vacuum cleaner, there is danger that the language we all use to communicate (i.e. transmit images, connotations, and feelings that accompany) will get warped beyond recognition.

“Open Source” as a term has been stress-tested for several years now. Several vendors constantly attempt to bend the term “open-source” (sometimes with a dash or minus) to better serve their marketing pitch, which also includes “cloud”, “2.0″, and other drop-in terms that are popular these days because they are associated with modernisation and advancement.

“”Open Source” as a term has been stress-tested for several years now.”The term “Free software” — not just “Open Source” — would get bent if it gained a lot of traction and became a sought-after trait — one that potentially makes the cut and appears in checklists as a requirement.

Watch this new pro-Microsoft (it seems like the firm is boosting Microsoft) release where Visual Studio is described as “Free platform”:

“There are literally thousands of open source projects across the net that graduates can sink their teeth into. Free platforms such as Microsoft’s Visual Studio Express series means that it costs very little to get involved, too.

“Free platforms,” eh? Microsoft has been openwashing Visual Studio for years and IDG’s fauxpen has just received a comment rebutting this.

It sometimes seems to us, as we explained earlier today, that IDG’s fauxpen source blog will happily grab the term “Open Source” and then ‘openwash’ almost everything that’s of value to the stakeholders (the blog is predominantly written by proprietary software folks). Right now they talk about open APIs as though it’s nearly the same as “Open Source” (Tim O’Reilly does the same thing).

How much should the term “Open Source” be interchanged and bent before it’s worth discarding for too broad a scope?

Another troubling pattern that we find is the illusion that Apple is “Open” or even “Open Source”; this is sometimes put forth quite sincerely by fans of this this large company (which does not lack marketing people, either).

“Welcome Apple, seriously,” says the headline of this new post which is crediting Apple with the MPEG4 push — the same one that actively threatens GNU/Linux and Free software at large. Just amazing.

Apple has been very careless and reckless when it comes to “Open Source”, but many Apple customers prefer not to see it. Apple has a history of exploiting Free software and sometimes just harming it in the process.

“Apple has a history of exploiting Free software and sometimes just harming it in the process.”What are Dana Blankenhorn and OStatic doing then? As stated correctly in first comment, by Martin Owens: “Except WebKit is based on Konquorer’s khtml library. So it’s not like Apple had a lot of choice in releasing the code.”

“Apple for me have been the worst company for their ability to misunderstand and abuse free software. They see it as public domain and not commons, which is a shame.

“They are not my friend.”

If Apple was to qualify as “Open Source”, that would mean that “Open Source” as a term is dead and buried. Earlier today we contacted the OSI regarding these issues. █

Summary: How the emergence of SkySQL weakens Monty’s case against the company which bought (and continues to maintain) MySQL

“SugarCRM jumps the Open Source shark claiming closed is open and it’s the rest of us who are mistaken,” wrote Simon Phipps in Twitter. Phipps used to be the Open Source symbol of Sun Microsystems (now he is in OSI), whose employees that moved to Oracle might as well attempt to pass ‘open’ core as “Open Source” (hot subject at the moment [1, 2, 3]). Roberto Galoppini has published an opinion on ‘open’ core from Giuseppe Maxia (Oracle/MySQL), who calls it the “pragmatic freedom”. As Pamela Jones (Groklaw) put it earlier this month, “I don’t share his views, but I thought you’d like to hear from an open core defender, who also happens to work at Oracle on MySQL, as he presents what’s been jokingly called the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense (“I had to pay my mortgage, etc.”).”

“SugarCRM jumps the Open Source shark claiming closed is open and it’s the rest of us who are mistaken”
      –Simon PhippsJones also points out that Michael “Monty” Widenius from MySQL (and from Microsoft’s CodePlex Foundation) had personal financial interests while lobbying against Oracle’s takeover of MySQL (he helped create SkySQL). “Another happy coincidence?”

That is what she asks anyway. “Consider the timing of the appeal of the Oracle-Sun deal by Monty before you answer,” she adds. This is an especially hard subject for us to address because Techrights uses a MySQL database. So does Groklaw for that matter. As for Phipps, his Web site uses MySQL and he refuses to talk about MySQL under Oracle (at least in FLOSS Weekly). We are grateful to Widenius for MySQL, but this project is no longer his. He sold it and made millions. █

Summary: With people like Simon Phipps in its house, the OSI regains credibility

• Rotten to the (Open) Core?

  Open core, Open core, more Open core… the debate goes on and on, with Monty the latest to weigh in.

  When you get down to it this is a fight over branding – which is why the issue is so important to the OSI folks (who are all about the brand). I don’t actually care that much how SugarCRM, Jahia, Alfresco et al make the software they sell to their customers. As a customer I’m asking a whole different set of questions to “is this product open source?” I want to know how good the service and support is, how good the product is, and above all, does it solve the problem I have at a price point I’m comfortable with. The license doesn’t enter into consideration.

  So if that’s the case (and I believe it is), why the fighting? Because of the Open Source brand, and all the warm-and-fuzzies that procures. “Open solutions” are the flavour of the decade, and as a small ISV building a global brand, being known as Open Source is a positive marketing attribute. The only problem is that the warm-and-fuzzies implied by Open source – freedom to change supplier or improve the software, freedom to try the software before purchasing, the existence of a diverse community of people with knowledge, skills and willingness to help a user in difficulty – don’s exist in the Open Core world. The problem is that for the most part, the Open Core which you can obtain under the OSI-approved license is not that useful.

  Yesterday on Twitter, I said “Open Core is annoying because the “open core” bit is pretty much useless. It doesn’t do exactly what it says on the tin.”

• A simple declaration about “Open Core”

  Recently, there has been debate in the press about “Open Core”. I don’t care to debate the minor points but make a simple declaration:

  * “Open Core” has NOTHING to do with “Open Source”. Nearly all proprietary software, at this point, has various degrees of open source-licensed source code in its core.
  * “Open Core” has none of the advantages of open source to the user and is merely a proprietary software company.
  * “Open Core” puts the software user at a disadvantage in the same way that all proprietary software puts the user at a disadvantage.

• ☞ Open Core Case Study

  While their marketing guy may claim “that overall, Sugar 6 is an open source product from an open source company”, it’s hard to see how they are anything other than a proprietary software company who share some code with a related open source project. Claiming to be “an open source company” seems an unacceptable use of the open source brand to me.

• Could You Adopt a Hacking Business Model?

  Once more there is a lot of heated discussion about what constitutes a “real” open source business model – that is, one that remains true to the spirit of open source, and doesn’t just use it as a trendy badge to attract customers. But such business models address only a tiny part of running a company – how it generates money. What about the many other aspects of a firm?

• Opening The Rackspace Cloud

  Imagine a world where code used by the biggest clouds is freely available to any developer, anywhere. A world where that code was a standard used to build private clouds as well as a variety of new service offers. In this world, workloads could be moved around these clouds easily – you could fire your cloud provider for bad service or lack of features, but not have to rewrite the software to do it. Imagine an open source cloud operating system that lifts IT to the next level of innovation, just as Linux drove the web to new heights.

• NASA drops Ubuntu’s Koala food for (real) open source

  Free whitepaper – 10 top tips for getting IT into your CMO’s good books

  NASA is dropping Eucalyptus from its Nebula infrastructure cloud not only because its engineers believe the open source platform can’t achieve the sort of scale they require, but also because it isn’t entirely open source.

  NASA chief technology officer Chris Kemp tells The Reg that as his engineers attempted to contribute additional Eucalyptus code to improve its ability to scale, they were unable to do so because some of the platform’s code is open and some isn’t. Their attempted contributions conflicted with code that was only available in a partially closed version of platform maintained by Eucalyptus Systems Inc., the commercial outfit run by the project’s founders.

• Yes, Just a Bit More On Ye Olde Open Core

  I was surprised to see that Larry Augustin had posted to his blog, since he does that pretty infrequently, so I assume all of the questioning about whether or not SugarCRM is open source is hitting close to home. Not as bad as a flawed cell phone antenna design, but I guess bad enough.

  While his post is very heartfelt, it is full of misdirection about the meaning of the term “open source”. He refers to the word “open” a lot, but “open” and “open source” are two different things. Heck, one of the most popular network management product suites of all time was called OpenView, but the “open” in the name had nothing to do with open source software.

• Two Problems with Free

  I’ve been staying out of the recent resurgence in the “open core” debate (check out the 451 Group for a summary). If these fauxpen source vendors would simply call their product “open core” versus “open source” there wouldn’t be anything to talk about, but they need to market themselves as “open source” as opposed to “just another commercial software company with a great API” to get any traction.

–Bill Gates, April 2008

Summary: The Open Source Initiative (OSI) needs to rethink its methods; Groklaw asks the OSI, “have you pruned out the Microsoft toadies/partners yet?”

Simon Phipps joined the OSI only some months ago and it is encouraging to hear him speak about bringing software Freedom ‘back’ to this organisation. When a company like Microsoft can join it while attacking “Open Source” and clearly describing it as a competitor, then something is obviously wrong. Over a Groklaw, Pamela Jones wrote about an OSI group: “I was part of that original group, and I quit in short order. My answer to his question would be this: have you pruned out the Microsoft toadies/partners yet? Got a plan at least? Until that happens, I won’t ask anyone to volunteer to help and I surely won’t either. I’d rather start from scratch.”

The OSI’s mistake of allowing Microsoft entryism is still costing it. By allowing proprietary software companies on board they diluted the impact of this organisation. We wrote about the subject in posts such as:

• Using OSI Endorsement and Linux Deals to Promote Lock-ins
• Not Everyone in the OSI Shows “Respect for Microsoft”
• The OSI Invasion Merely Follows the Linspire/Xandros/Novell/Turbolinux Invasion
• Novell Resentment: OSI, Others Begin to Wake Up
• OSI and Microsoft: Open Source ‘Divide and Conquer’? (Updated)
• Microsoft Brings IP FUD into OSI, Deters Adopters
• It all Comes Together Again: OSI, Port25, Novell, Patents…
• MSOSBC, the OSI and Microsoft’s Software Patents Demand
• Microsoft Lobbies Come Under Fire by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Linux Journal
• Microsoft Has Already Hijacked (to Kill) Open Source
• Support Bruce Perens’ Fight Against ‘Invasion of the Borgs’
• Microsoft’s Aggressive Push to Assimilate FOSS to Microsoft

Yesterday, one reader sent us this item of news which shows how organisations that describe themselves as “Open” (Open Cloud Community Initiative in this case) are not truly interested in openness or even freedom. It’s just a marketing tool to them.

Why does an open cloud standards proponent get the boot from an open cloud organisation for wanting more open standards?

It sounds like a bad riddle or some strange joke on the old Orwellian concept of “some things being more equal than others”. But it’s no joke for Sam Johnston, secretary of the Open Cloud Community Inititiative (OCCI) Working Group – or at least he was until yesterday when he was abruptly sacked by the working group’s chairs

The background to all of this has been over which open licence to use. Sam Johnston has been pushing for the Creative Commons licence, and arguing against the Open Grid’s own licence, which he sees as more restrictive.

Maybe it’s time to return to “software Freedom”. It’s less susceptible to misuse.

“The FSF is needed now – more than ever,” argues Sam Varghese in his response to Brockmeier's latest insult.

When would one expect an organisation like the Free Software Foundation to be really relevant to the world of computing at large – when there is a limited threat to freedom in computing or when the threat is increasing exponentially?

One would think that in the latter case, the need for an organisation like the FSF would be that much greater. But some people think differently. People like Joe “Zonker” Brockmeier, for example.

Last week, Brockmeier put forward his views – the FSF should not just say no to the use of non-free software, things like SaaS (software as a service) and devices like the iPad, it should provide alternatives, was his take.

The function of the FSF must be properly understood by potential critics. The FSF has actually stuck to its goals for 25 years; it didn’t let itself be shaped by its environment, which in the case of the OSI meant being co-opted. █

Summary: Why the next version of your Web browser, media player or GNU/Linux distribution will probably contain VP8/WebM code; Apple and MPEG-LA continue to be the main barriers to VP8/WebM adoption

OUR last post ended with a word of warning about Microsoft patents that prevent access to one’s own videos, assuming that they are encoded using Microsoft’s own formats. The lesson to be learned from all this is that software patents which cover video compression are unacceptable and dangerous to society. This is why Ogg Theora/Vorbis and VP8/WebM are so important. The latter is currently being implemented/deployed in GNU/Linux, which already supports Ogg in all its varieties.

All in all, the Linux community has made a lot of progress implementing support for WebM in two short weeks. Given that few content providers are supporting the codec yet (Google-owned YouTube being the major exception), free-software users are ahead of the curve on this issue. And that’s definitely the right side of the curve to be on.

More developers get access to the code and Chrome gets it too [1, 2]. That was fast!

The Open Source Programs Manager from Google writes to inform everyone about necessary changes to the WebM licence. In his own words:

You’ll see on the WebM license page and in our source code repositories that we’ve made a small change to our open source license. There were a couple of issues that popped up after we released WebM at Google I/O a couple weeks ago, specifically around how the patent clause was written.

There used to be the issue of patents and GPL incompatibility. This is resolved. It’s all rather lovely, “but still no patent indemnification,” claims Florian Müller. Brett Smith from the FSF is more satisfied than that. “Google just updated the WebM license to make it GPL compatible,” he writes. Being a key GPL person, Smith also published the official statement from the FSF:

A couple of weeks ago Google announced their WebM project, which provided a free software implementation of their VP8 video codec and a license to exercise the patents the company held on the software. (This after we appealed to them to do just that a couple of months prior.) The license they chose was unambiguously free: a three-clause BSD license combined with a patent license based on one found in the Apache License 2.0. Unfortunately, the interaction between the copyright license and the patent license made the result GPL-incompatible. Based on the concerns of developers writing GPL-covered software, Google publicly stated that they would take some time to review the WebM license and try to address the community’s concerns. Today, they released a revised license, and it is GPL-compatible.

Simon Phipps (OSI) had this to say:

Google has also eliminated the incompatibility with the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licences that existed in the original language, which means that it will be possible for WebM to be readily incorporated in the GNU environment and in GNU/Linux.

More here:

By removing that part of the custom licence, what is left is a “three clause” BSD licence which is an OSI approved form of open source licence. Simon Phipps, the OSI board member who pointed out the original problem, was “pleased to say that project is now fully open source” in his blog where he congratulated Google on the “timely and welcome” correction of its “licencing and community-relations error”.

“Google open codec wins OSI love after patent shield rethink,” reports The Register.

Google has rejiggered the license on its open-source VP8 video codec after complaints that it wasn’t really open source.

Ars Technica emphasises compatibility with the BSD licence.

Google is adopting the BSD license for WebM in order to address a licensing conflict. When Google opened up the VP8 codec and announced the launch of the WebM project during the Google I/O conference last month, the actual license under which the code was distributed was not an official open source software license. It was a custom license that had not yet been approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), the organization responsible for maintaining the open source definition and validating licenses.

Google’s custom license posed some problems because it included clauses that made it incompatible with GNU’s General Public License (GPL), the most widely-used open source software license. It was a minor technicality, but one that would have broadly precluded adoption of WebM in many popular open source software applications. Fortunately, Google has rectified the conflict and has found an acceptable way to harmonize its licensing terms with the GPL.

[...]

To avoid the resulting incompatibility with the GPL, Google decided to use a standard BSD license instead for the software copyright and draft a separate set of terms for the WebM patent grant.

“Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses, in this new iteration of the patent clause we’ve decoupled patents from copyright, thus preserving the pure BSD nature of the copyright license,” wrote DiBona. “This means we are no longer creating a new open source copyright license, and the patent grant can exist on its own.”

It’s all good news, until Apple comes in.

In a new post on the subject of HTML5, Christopher Blizzard from Mozilla complains about Apple's latest lies (also see [1, 2]). Here is another take on the subject:

There’s open as the rest of the world thinks of it and there’s Apple open, which is what Steve Jobs wants it to mean. Jobs is very keen to dismiss Flash as a proprietary product, which it is, although iPhones and iPads also run proprietary operating systems.

[...]

Google is going down a different path entirely. Last month, it released VP8, a genuinely open compression format designed to handle multimedia on the web and not be beholden to proprietary software. Unlike Apple, the company does have a genuine commitment to openness. Having said that, there is a debate as to whether VP8 is quite as open as it appears to be – and whether it differs much from H.264.

But the difference is that Google is, I believe, genuinely looking top open standards, while Apple is a law unto itself.

Separately, writes Florian Müller to us, “I’ve commented once again on WebM. As you can see in case you read this, I don’t take the same position as FSF/OSI. Their concern is to push for a “free” codec no matter what. My concern is whether early adopters of WebM would be exposed to too much of a risk and whether Google should do more to protect them. All of that is independent from the fact that I’d prefer to see software patents abolished, which would spell the end for MPEG LA and anyone pursuing a similar “business model”.” Here is the blog post which raises fair points.

Google’s WebM initiative is somewhere in the middle between a true act of generosity and an IBM-style scheme:

* There’s no reason to assume that Google wants to hurt the FOSS cause in any way with WebM, especially not in any IBM-like way. I don’t put it past Google to have that intention elsewhere: they might do anything, including the use of patents, to destroy an open source search technology that could adversely affect their core business. However, in this particular context of video codecs, I don’t think they intend to cause harm. I do believe them that they want more competition in this case.

* What Google does do — and what I believe the FOSS community must approach cautiously — is to shift most of the risk to others while keeping most of the benefits to itself. Businesses like to do that, but FOSS developers and users shouldn’t lose sight of the risks just out of excitement over the idea of getting a seemingly “unencumbered” codec.

Google will retain control over WebM despite open-sourcing program code and publishing specifications

A common misconception about open source and “free” specifications is that this would make something such as the WebM project independent from a single vendor or a group of vendors. Some think this puts “the community” in charge.

There are lessons to be learned from Android. Google has not yet done anything which substantially reduces trust. Control is not the main issue here; the main issue is probably patents. There’s an urgent need to get past them. █

–Jim Allchin, President of Platforms & Services Division at Microsoft

Bruce Perens at the launch event of GPLv3

Summary: Bruce Perens explains what he has seen Microsoft doing inside governments in order to marginalise Free software, mostly through hired guns like CompTIA and ACT

MICROSOFT IS A political problem, not just a technical problem. In previous posts we showed how Microsoft controls the United States government (along with other proprietary software companies), but it’s not just a problem in the United States.

For those who are not familiar with Bruce Perens, here are some of our posts that mention him:

• One-Year Anniversary ‘Celebrations’ — Bruce Perens on the Novell/Microsoft Deal
• Bruce Perens Calls Novell a “Highly Paid [Microsoft] Mouthpiece”
• Bruce Perens Audio Interview Re: Microvell
• Bruce Perens Open Letter to Novell
• Support Bruce Perens’ Fight Against ‘Invasion of the Borgs’
• Bruce Perens on Open Source Versus Free Software
• Bruce Perens on the Recent Attacks on Richard Stallman and GNU
• Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens Defamed by Troll

Perens has just published this post about government legislation where he writes:

Equal Representation, and Visibility of Lobbying

It’s been obvious, whenever I talk with government, that there’s a well-staffed Microsoft lobbying organization nearby, as well as intermediaries who act for them like CompTIA. Against them, there’s been a low or no-budget representation for Open Source, sometimes just me all alone. And of course the proprietary software companies can afford more advertising and they create lavish events to promote themselves.

To level out this situation, and many others, we need required public reporting of all lobbying, including the parties present, the time and duration of the meeting, and the topics discussed. The general public should be able to see that information on the internet with no more than a day’s delay, if they are to have a chance to offset the effect of the deep-pockets lobbyists.

In addition, there needs to be legislation protecting and promoting the access of the less-grandly-funded to those in government who have or will receive other lobbies, so that there can be balance of representation.

The only group he mentions by name is CompTIA, whose corruption of the political system and standards body we have documented in many past posts. Bruce Perens has already responded to ACT, which is another Microsoft front group (Perens knows that). Both groups happen to have lobbied intensively against ODF and for OOXML. Given Microsoft’s history of corruption when it comes to document formats, nobody should be surprised that Microsoft uses outside lobbying groups. From Italy we hear that this corruption never ends. Posted some days ago:

Microsoft, where did you get those data about OpenDocument?

[...]

I already explained in another article that open file formats are essential to save money in Public Administrations and make them more efficient and that the right choice for office document is the OpenDocument Format (ODF).

Since I regularly follow these themes, in September 2009 I received this request from outside Italy:

I have read in a report that: “According to Microsoft Italian regional authorities have examined ODF, but proposal for adopting ODF as the mandatory standard have been rejected” (translated by the sender of the message). This fact probably comes from this Microsoft paper. And we are trying to fact check it… can you help?

Back then I knew, just as I know today, that there is no law or regulation in Italy, not even at the city level, that mandates ODF as the only accepted format for office documents, regardless of the context. What I did come across in the last year, instead, were cases where nobody seemed to know about ODF or law proposals that, albeit unvoluntarily, may make the situation even worse. However, I did not remember ever reading about proposals of that kind.

Over in the UK, the story is similar but Microsoft’s lobbying groups are slightly different. Tim Anderson, a British Microsoft booster, gives lip service to a company which says that the UK government only gives lip service to F/OSS. Anderson writes about the claims from Ingres:

Ingres has a direct commercial interest in this, of course, so such statements are not surprising. Shine has a point though. It takes more than a few speeches to change the software culture of the myriad departments and other state-run entities that between them compose government IT.

Anderson is being an apologist here. It’s not just about Ingres getting a contract; it’s about a nation sticking to standards and to code that it actually owns and is allowed to modify and redistribute. It’s about the United Kingdom not being a hostage of some convicted monopoly abuser from the United States. There is no need for Microsoft apologists here, as they seem not to comprehend the very fundamental issues. The same goes for accomplices like BECTA, who take a similar approach of lip service. They try to silence opposition this way.

“It is crooked politicians like Luc Pierre Devigne and Pedro Velasco-Martins who allow this to happen.”Earlier today we posted videos from yesterday's event about ACTA, which Richard Stallman calls “Anti-Citizen Tyranny Agreement”. It shows how few super-wealthy corporations (mostly from the United States, but there is one Vivendi employee praising ACTA from the audience) take control of the law and actually run the governments against the people. It is crooked politicians like Luc Pierre Devigne and Pedro Velasco-Martins who allow this to happen. Given increased transparency, we can more effectively expose the conspirators involved in these unconstitutional steps that countries are taking to pass control to other counties (specifically to corporations in other countries). Here in the UK we have Mandelson with his Digital Economy Bill (DEB). █

“Business secretary Peter Mandelson is slimed by an environmental protestor outside the Royal Society on Carlton House Terrace, Pall Mall after allegations of ‘favours for friends’ over the Heathrow third runway decision” [Courtesy of "Plane Stupid", via Wikimedia]

Summary: Microsoft folks have decided on ‘our behalf’ who is important to Open Source and who is not

IS IT not just lovely when Microsoft people get to define who is a valid Open Source voice and who is not? This way they can marginalise key people like Stallman (the founder of the movement back when it was more widely known as "Free software") and promote apologists of Microsoft.

“This way they can marginalise key people like Stallman (the founder of the movement back when it was more widely known as “Free software”) and promote apologists of Microsoft.”We are talking about MindTouch, the former Microsoft employees who are also Mono boosters. They were sucking up to people like Matt Asay last year [1, 2]. He is the man who helped Microsoft enter OSI and OSBC [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] — a fact that many people either don’t know or don’t remember.

They also idolise one of Microsoft’s gate openers [1, 2, 3], Tim O’Reilly. He has financial interests with the company from Redmond, just like the following man whom they included in this year’s list:

Miguel de Icaza, founder, Mono and GNOME projects

It’s almost as though MindTouch wants to go around publishers and disseminate this list which says, “these are your friends! Follow them.”

Now ponder all those who are conspicuously missing. IDG says:

Torvalds was named the most influential blogger in open source, however, despite ranking behind O’Reilly in the overall metric, which includes various Twitter analysis tools and Google Trends.

This is just the latest example of Microsoft redefining the landscape of Free/open source software by wrapping itself up with Geeknet, CodePlex, etc. Matt Asay is on the board of advisors for Geeknet, which got filled with former Microsoft employees as well [1, 2]. Geeknet’s news site, Slashdot, also promoted (front page) MindTouch’s list that lauded Asay as an Open Source champion.

Watch the author of this latest press release which promotes a Microsoft lobby that Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza participated in until recently. It says “CodePlex Foundation”, but it’s really just Microsoft. They try to pretend it’s something separate that submits press releases independently.

Microsoft pretends to have embraced Free software (it called it “shared source” or “open source” and bends the meaning it conveys) while attacking Free software, illegally and legally at the same time (with legal means but with accompanying racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]). We gave two examples just hours ago [1, 2]. █

“If anybody thinks open-source alternatives are free, I guess as they say, you can see me after class. [...] I will tell you that in any comparison that you would do of Windows with Linux, which is an open-source alternative, we will prove to you that when it comes to total cost of ownership our stuff is more economical, whether it’s the other patent-licensing costs that you might have to pay to use open-source software, which is kind of a big unknown right now [...]“

–Steve Ballmer, National Retail Federation Annual Convention & EXPO

Summary: Microsoft is once again using the British Library to promote its own agenda and extend its grip over society’s assets

THE British Library is tied to a lot of Microsoft scandals [1, 2, 3, 4]. This post won’t discuss these older scandals, but readers can rest assured that the British Library, which is funded by taxpayers, played a role in the OOXML corruptions. It also promoted Microsoft products and DRM. It’s really that bad. The British Library sometimes seems like a victim of Microsoft infiltration into key positions (a bit like the BBC [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]), but we do not have the names of such people, except Adam Farquhar who has been pivotal to the Microsoft scandals at the British Library).

The British Library is now embarking on a project that not only brings Microsoft deeper into the heart of the public’s common property but also helps Microsoft pretend that it’s “open”. Here is an article on the subject:

The Research Information Centre (RIC) Framework v1.0 released this week has been designed to help international researchers collaborate more effectively. Hosted via Microsoft’s open source Codeplex project and based on Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 Platform, the “virtual research environment” allows researchers to create and share content and also work on specific issues such as funding proposals, the organisations claim.

As Dana Blankenhorn correctly points out:

OK, where’s the catch?

Built on top of Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) 2007, the RIC extends the core MOSS functionality to meet the needs to academic researchers engaged in collaborative research projects

Gee, doc, you’re not a Microsoft shop? Even if you can connect with these resources, you’re always going to be second-class in a group project that depends on them.

Which is sort of the point. To Microsoft open source is not an end in itself. It is a marketing tool. It is a way to gain lock-in with important customer sets.

Glyn Moody, a Brit, calls the British Library the “Betrayed Library”. It’s getting easier to see why. █

Direct link

Also see part 2 and part 3.

Bruce Perens at the launch event of GPLv3

Summary: Microsoft manages to grab seats in its competitor’s table; Explanation of why CodePlex it to “Open Source” what OOXML is to “open standards”

WE HAVE already shown ISO ODF being stuffed by Microsoft under everyone’s nose [1, 2]. The press did not cover this important issue, unlike last year's obvious indication that Microsoft had hijacked SC34.

In the following new post, figures are being shown to demonstrate the obvious — that ISO got cracked by Microsoft, which then pushed a proprietary format (controlled by Microsoft) down its throat using illegal means. From the conclusions:

I suppose this [OOXML] is “global” in a sense, in the same way one could stage an “International Food Festival” and then have McDonalds show up and contribute a Big Mac from the U.S., a Big Mac from Germany, a Big Mac from the Ivory Coast, a Big Mac from Finland and another Big Mac from Brazil and so on. Certainly, you could claim this was “international”, but you would be laughed right out of the festival if you did.

[...]

Evidently there is no one capable of fixing this. ISO says that domination by a single corporation is not their responsibility, because only NBs vote and each NB determines its own participation rules. But individual NBs also don’t see a problem, because any single one of them only has one Microsoft employee at the meeting. So the NB itself is not necessary stuffed (although that does happens occasionally as well). So by placing Microsoft employees in many NB delegations and putting the overflow into the Ecma delegation, Microsoft can still dominate the ISO committee and not trigger a rule violation in ISO or in any NB.

This is essentially how Microsoft hacked ISO. Now that the flaw has been demonstrated, any large international corporation with sufficient funds and interest can exploit it as well. So long as the rules remain as they are, ISO is vulnerable. ISO defends this criticism by pointing out what good work they’ve done in the past, and how they rarely have problems of this kind before. But this shows little appreciation for the nature of the problem which have been demonstrated. It is like arguing that a newly discovered (though long latent) security flaw in an operating system is insignificant because you’ve never had an attack before now. Of course, this misses the point entirely. Once the vulnerability is known and publicly exploited, you’re living on borrowed time until you can secure the system. Today ISO is living on borrowed time and is very close to becoming a Microsoft-infested zombie server.

The author, Rob Weir, is already being heckled by Microsoft employees and their MVPs, who try to change the topic of discussion because defending corruption is so much more difficult. Sadly, Weir is perhaps too shy to admit that he is not happy with the company that attacked ODF so viciously and now forks it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] sitting on the ODF table.

To repeat an old analogical expression, Microsoft wants to stick its finger in all the pies, including Linux and Free software (or “open source”) where it is doing the same type of routine.

Microsoft and its army of partners have their limits though. They did not manage to stuff OSI like they did stuff ISO, so they created their own separate entity [1, 2, 3, 4], akin to OOXML. Jason Brooks, writing on the subject in his latest column, thinks that this could lead to flames.

For its part, the FSF has spent the summer alternately blasting individuals and groups for and warning them against using or adopting technologies distributed or even invented by Microsoft. For instance, the FSF this summer launched a Website devoted to cataloging the “sins” of Windows 7 and has weighed in on multiple occasions as to why, despite what Microsoft promises, no open-source developer should code in Microsoft’s C#.

As Groklaw showed a few days ago, Novell is a big part of this problem [1, 2]. Groklaw received flak for saying so. The Mono-Nono Web site adds:

For one thing, PJ has a bit of experience dealing with such nastiness. The irony of course is that she gained it while investigating SCOs attacks on Linux, and will probably be using it for Team Mono and Friends attacks on Freedom now! There’s a certain symmetry to that, I think.

Another thing is that I’ve noticed that the pro-Mono attacks are looking a bit faded lately.

I guess that’s what happens when you keep attacking honest people truly interested in Freedom and your basic weapons are ad hominem and disinformation.

Matthew Aslett makes the following brow-raising statement:

Microsoft is no different from any other proprietary vendor in this regard. The like sof IBM and Oracle and SAP have all had to find their own ways of coexisting with FOSS.

This is not so accurate. Microsoft is unique for the reason shown below (which still applies). █

“Microsoft is unique among proprietary software companies: they are the only ones who have actively tried to kill Open Source and Free Software. It’s not often someone wants to be your friend after trying to kill you for ten years, but such change is cause for suspicion.”

–Bradley M. Kuhn (SFLC)

Summary: Is “Open Source” simply where Free software meets Microsoft’s software patents and other “compromises”? In some cases, it sure seems like a terminological fit

Recent attacks on Richard Stallman [1, 2, 3] are a direct outcome of remarks that he made about Mono and the person behind Mono, with whom there is this unofficial interview.

On the one hand, there is good output coming from Mono, but on the other hand there is obvious advantage to Microsoft if this route is taken. GreyGeek has responded to this issue of attacks on “Free software”, noting that:

Diluting the meaning of Open Source and HIDING the GPL in a forest of several dozen pseudo GPL licenses which do NOT offer the FOUR FREEDOMS of the GPL has been the total business of the OSI, of which Microsoft is now a member. The OSI’s “compromise” to “go mainstream” was to allow the corporate member to monitor THEIR OWN COMPLIANCE with the “Open Source” requirements defined by the OSI, as weak as the OSI requirements are. It is ALL about MONEY, and the OSI is handing out Tux Suits for cash to proprietary software houses as they try to decieve the consumer about the meaning of the GPL and the Four Freedoms.

Assuming that Moblin, for example, is encumbered by Microsoft patent tax [1, 2] (evidence does suggest so [1, 2]), then the following new analysis of “why Microsoft won’t fight moblin” makes a lot of sense. It only seems to be missing the point about software patents and it concludes with:

Moblin is the solution to the problem of Intel: providing a free, lightweight and powerful OS to sell cheaper netbooks and devices. This allows Microsoft to get out of the “bargain basement OS” market and to focus on a more expensive, higher end market with Windows 7. The differentiation between both OS is large enough to ensure that most people won’t buy a Moblin device to replace their computer but to complement it. It suits Microsoft better if consumer purchase a Windows 7 desktop AND a Moblin netbook than if their purchase only a cheap Windows XP netbook.

It is worth noting that Microsoft broke competition laws to exclude GNU/Linux from many sub-notebooks (elimination of choice) only to then complain that it was losing money by doing so. It is akin to a burglar breaking into shop, emptying the register, only to complain to the shopkeeper that there is not “enough” money at the shop and the refrigerator has no soda. █

Related posts:

• Russia’s Antimonopoly Service Targets ASUS, Toshiba, H-P, Samsung and Dell for Potentially Colluding with Microsoft
• ASUS Enters the Slog Business
• More Suspicious Moves from ASUS
• It’s Unofficial: Microsoft Pays ASUS (Kickbacks) to Block GNU/Linux. Will EU Commission Step in?
• ASUS: “Currently, We’re Closely Tied up With Microsoft”
• What is Going on with ASUS and GNU/Linux?
• ASUS Profits Fall 94% After Getting “Closely Tied Up with Microsoft” at the Expense of GNU/Linux
• Microsoft Embracing, Extending, and Extinguishing Sub-notebooks
• Does Microsoft Blackmail Sub-notebooks Vendors?
• What Microsoft’s Anti-Linux Taskforce in Wal-Mart Teaches Us About Sub-notebooks
• GNU/Linux is Killing Microsoft Financially in Sub-notebooks
• Intel Allegedly Colludes with Microsoft (Again) to Elevate Profit, Promote Windows
• Microsoft Watch on Microsoft vs Google and Microsoft vs Sub-notebooks

Summary: Opposition to Mono grows in some GNU/Linux distributions and run over in others

THIS is a quick update about the Mono situation. We’ll treat some of the key distributions in turn, at least where developments exist.

Red Hat/Fedora

In a timely new report, Fedora leader and Red Hat employee Paul Frields admits that the company is looking into possible legal issues relating to Mono.

That said, Frields also told me that in his view there are some problems with the language used in the legalese surrounding Mono and its redistribution.

“We do have some serious concerns about Mono and we’ll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part,” Frields said.

While Mono is part of Fedora, Mono is not part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and hasn’t been since 2006. It’s not clear if mono will stay or go for the final Fedora 12 release when it appears 6 months from now.

“We haven’t come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out,” Frields said. “Right now we’re in a status quo. Gnote is a relatively recent development and unfortunately was too late in the Fedora 11 development cycle to include by default.”

Response from proponents of Mono would be helpful. The very fact that Red Hat is looking into it suggests that there is uncertainty and quite likely a real problem. Fedora has already rejected Moonlight for legal reasons (Microsoft licences/covenants for starters).

Canonical/Ubuntu

One person believes that Mono does not belong in Ubuntu by default (printed on CDs, as opposed to patent-encumbered codecs for example). It is very important to make the distinction between inclusion by default and inclusion in the repositories. If Mono-based programs are as great as their proponents claim they are, then people will install them. It is very trivial to achieve in Ubuntu and those who wish to accept the risk of Mono will do so by personal choice, not a choice imposed by those with unquestioned affinity for Mono.

Now when I install Ubuntu and therefor Gnome, it does not pull in Wine at all. In fact, I’ve been running Ubuntu without wine for most of the past 5 years. So killing wine would only affect people still locked in to certain windows programs and not have any effect of the Free Desktop by itself.

In contrast, removing mono rips out F-Spot and Tomboy and even the Ubuntu-desktop meta-package. You see, Ubuntu uses a lot of mono-apps by default and even vanilla-Gnome includes Tomboy and as such, depends on mono. Yes, replacing Tomboy is easy, but what if Evolution also comes to depend on mono, or Nautilus or gnome-panel? Then ripping out mono means the end of the Gnome Desktop.

Another new perspective goes like this:

The Ubuntu/Mono debate continues…

[...]

My perspective on the Mono thing is from that of a user and not a developer. I really fail to see why anyone would want to build new applications on top of a framework that has so many unanswered questions and causes so much angst in the community as a whole. We have plenty of other solutions that are – if not 100% free from controversy – certainly far less likely to end up requiring the kind of backtracking or complete re-writing that Jo describes above.

Software patents are not the only issue at play. As Microsoft puts it [PDF], “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.” One reader of ours adds: “Maybe that is some of what Mono is about: porting security flaws, bad design and vulnerabilities to new platforms.”

But looking at patents in isolation, one person asks whether it is an issue only in a minority of countries.

Is mono a problem outside the US and other patent friendly countries?

[...]

As Canonical is based in the EU this should not give the Ubuntu community any issue by itself. So keep any patent related problem for United-States based distributions and leave Ubuntu alone. Or move to a country that enforces your freedom all-day-every-day!

The situation is unfortunately quite different. TomTom, for example, is based in Europe, but Microsoft brought software patents to a case against it. Microsoft got its way for reasons we explained before.

As a matter of fact, at this very moment we are seeing attempts by the Microsoft lobby to make software patent fully enforceable in Europe (and not just Europe, either). The other day we wrote about what the EPLA had been doing and Glyn Moody has more to say about the latest findings:

More whining from the anti-software patent lot? Well, not actually. These words were written by Alison Crofts, who:

provides specialist IP advice and expertise in both litigation and commercial matters. This includes advising on: the creation, protection and exploitation of IP rights, including trade secrets, confidentiality issues, technology transfer agreements and licensing; the enforcement and defence of IP rights, including the conduct of litigation and arbitration proceedings; and IP aspects of joint ventures, co-ownership and transactions. Alison has an engineering background and has particular experience in the semiconductor, oil and gas, hi-tech and telecoms engineering industries.

In other words, she’s likely to be for rather than against software patents.

The OSI too is openly protesting against software patents at the moment. Its president understands the importance of this.

I’ve heard a lot of arguments against software patents (SWPAT) since Richard Stallman first raised the flag at the League for Programming Freedom, and almost all of the arguments are variations on a theme. A valid theme, but a theme that, after 20 years, has become a bit monotonous. Herman Daly puts that theme in a new context that has me all excited. He says

Stop treating the scarce as if it were non-scarce, but also stop treating the non-scarce as if it were scarce. Enclose the remaining commons of rival natural capital (e.g. atmosphere, electromagnetic spectrum, public lands) in public trusts, and price it by a cap-auction-trade system, or by taxes, while freeing from private enclosure and prices the non-rival commonwealth of knowledge and information.

Until software patents are eliminated altogether — and there is a chance this might happen with sufficient public support — Mono will continue to be a weapon of FUD to Microsoft (and Novell). They’ll vilify — in a whisper campaign (behind-closed-doors) fashion — those who don’t offer "intellectual property peace of mind". Microsoft President Bob Muglia says that Mono is “being driven by Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to Novell customers.” What about Ubuntu users? OpenSUSE users? Fedora Users? Debian users?

Debian

Debian, unlike Fedora and Ubuntu, does not have a commercial entity behind it. Well, at least not in the sense that a company actually owns Debian. Some people have decided to treat this as an open door to a form of civil disobedience, so rather than claim that Mono has no legal issues, it is being added to Debian (by default) because legal issues can be disregarded.

For those who haven’t been following closely, the explanation behind Jo Shields’ recent post instructing us on the greatness of Mono and the Microsoft .NET approach to software development could be found in the fact that Josselin Mouette has decided that Mono must be part of the default desktop install for Debian Squeeze.

There are some interesting comments to be found in there and also cheap shots like the one we've been getting because Mono is “holy” or “sacred” (it cannot be criticised, it’s a taboo). It would be a lot more constructive to carry a technical discussion which also makes use of Red Hat’s assessment. Fedora already lists Moonlight under “forbidden” items for legal reasons and it is only now taking a closer look at Mono. So to simply toss Mono into Debian (by default) under the premise that “Mono doesn’t suck” and software patents are already void (i.e. made history prematurely ) is not the best way to proceed.

There are those who propose looking at Vala, so there is clearly acknowledgment that Mono presents/poses a dilemma. █

GLYN Moody and the OSI spoke about patents very recently. A context in which their arguments ought to be seen is this post from Carlo Piana. The short story is that the OSI needs to develop principles of strong resistance to software patents, or else it might accommodate open source licences that are poisonous and mutually hostile.

Fortunately, as other news is suggesting, patent filings decline.

The first chart below shows a time series for the percentage of continuation applications and RCE filings as compared to the total UPR filings (Utility, Plant, and Re-Issue applications). Remember here, that for most PTO statistics, RCE filings are counted as a utility application. According to this data, 27.6% of all of the UPR filings thus far in FY09 are RCEs – continuing a steady trend of of rising RCE filings. (Note – the RCE data also includes historical data for CPA and R129 filings).

[...]

In the title of this post, I link the economic downturn with the downturn in patent filings. Some may also link the drop in patent filings with other recent events that may drop the allure of a patent application – namely, KSR v. Teleflex; eBay v. MercExchange; Bilski; Seagate; the prospect of further patent reform; the Second Pair of Eyes review; 750,000 backlog of unexamined patents; and the 26 month average pendency before the first OA.

A decline in the acquisition of patents does not necessarily mean decline in litigation and patent trolls.

Even Microsoft may manage to escape the wrath of software patents in the Alcatel-Lucent case [1, 2, 3, 4], but it’s hardly hesitant to sue other companies using software patents (including Linux). Here is one new report.

Microsoft scored a win in its long-running patent dispute with Alcatel-Lucent on Monday, when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that Alcatel-Lucent’s claims on a disputed patent were invalid. A year ago, a jury awarded Alcatel-Lucent $358 million on the finding that Microsoft had infringed the patent, which deals with touch-screen form entry. Microsoft appealed.

Todd Bishop covered this as well. On a somewhat related note, as we showed before, the BSA has some personal roots (maybe genesis) in Bill Gates' dad, at least in part, in terms of connections. Watch this latest private outrage caused by the BSA, which is hostile towards Free software [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]:

[C]onsider this email with the subject line “BSA Launches Faces of Piracy Campaign” (BSA = Business Software Alliance), reproduced on this blog post:

We’ve all been following the events of the past week of the pirates off the Horn of Africa. Piracy takes many forms, some more violent than others. I wanted to let you know that the Business Software Alliance is launching a new campaign today “Faces of Internet Piracy” that shows the real-life impact of software piracy–from hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines to jail time.

This callous linking of life-threatening events off the coast of Africa, with digital copyright infringement, which doesn’t even involve the loss of material objects, since perfect copies can be produced without affecting the original, is cynical in the extreme. It shows to what depths the BSA has sunk if it is able to equate the two.

It was also covered by Mike Masnick.

SA Tries To Exploit Somali Piracy News In PR Campaign Against Software Sharing

[...]

We already wrote about how ridiculous it is to compare Somali high seas pirates with music, movie and software fans downloading an unauthorized copy of something off the internet — and even the press is starting to question the wisdom of calling unauthorized file sharing “piracy.” Yet, that hasn’t stopped the BSA, masters of misleading through questionable stats from ramping up a marketing campaign that purposely tries to compare software file sharers with Somali pirates.

This is said in reference to Somalia, but over in Kenya, Microsoft seems to be calling GNU/Linux "piracy". █