"Play by the rules or pick up those toys and go home"
Microsoft's understanding of open source consistently mirrors its own ambitions -- ones that define it to be
hybrid and vendor-dependent. Here is
the latest example.
It's official: Microsoft will not accept any external code contributions to its planned Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR), which will run Microsoft's new scripting languages for the web and Silverlight content on .NET
Microsoft will, though, continue to accept source-code contributions to its slowly emerging implementation of Ruby for .NET, IronRuby. Contributions are helping to build IronRuby and shepherd the language towards the first-full release.
[...]
The reason Microsoft decided to leave the DLR closed, despite taking contributions to the languages that will run inside it, is to protect itself from unwanted licenses and IP claims.
If you look more closely you'll find that what Microsoft wants is free labour -- moreover labour that results in developers and end-user getting dependent on proprietary and pricey programs.
"Give us code, lots of code, more code..."
"But it's ours. We control it."
That's not open source (Free software aside). The
story behind Microsoft's grab of Ruby with .NET is noteworthy also, particularly in light of those
Silverlight-bound 'extensions'. It's
mainly about control. Remember what Microsoft
said just days ago and this quick interpretation also: "So could you ask, what is this collaborative development, this new syntagm [Microsoft's] Mr. Matusow is using all over the place? Well, buried deep towards the very end of his post,"
Sadly enough, Nokia too seems far from committed. It is adamant about enforcing software patents, DRM and other consumer-hostile mechanisms. Bruce Pernes
has just responded to that latest lecture from Ari Jaaksi.
...perhaps the community has some education for Jaaksi and Nokia. Jaaksi hosted me at a Nokia dinner in 2000, he's a nice guy and has been interested in Linux for a long time. But Nokia's barking up the wrong tree this time, because Nokia can do everything it wants with DRM, IPR, and SIM locks without bothering the Linux developers about it - and both Nokia and the Linux developers will like it better that way. It's surprising that Nokia doesn't understand that at this late date.
Here is what Pamela Jones said about this: "Do what you like, but if you wish to use the code, you obey the license. If not, please write your own. Personally, I won't use DRM'd products. I can wait. I understand Hollywood is a problem for you, but until they wake up and realize they are destroying their old business model by scrupulously avoiding any new ones, instead trying to graft the old one onto a new age, I'll just avoid their offerings. I can live without Hollywood, I find, when it's something this vital. I understand that puts Nokia in a tough spot, because they want to do deals with Hollywood. Go ahead and do deals, but leave me out. And please don't use FOSS code until you are ready to play by the rules. I just won't buy or use any Nokia phones if you break the rules. I think that's fair."
Why can't these 2 companies simply abide by the rules and spirit of the licences/establishments they embrace (OSI in the former case and GPL in the latter)? Novell is no exception. Novell too happens to be among those sinners. It uses GNU/Linux to sell proprietary software ("mixed source") and it signs software patent deals.
⬆
Comments
Bob
2008-06-13 13:42:22
Lyle Howard Seave
2008-06-13 14:11:42
The freedom you refer too is the Four Freedoms of the GPL, not of this thing you call 'open source' which has become a bastardized word that even Microsoft uses.
If you use GPLed code, you have to respect the four freedoms. If you dont, you can use BSD or Microsoft licenses. Same thing with MS and Nokia, they can participate and use the fruits of the community work but MUST abide by all the tenets (read the MS 'open source' license to see the subtle differences which make it incompatible with the GPL) of the license.
Roy is right, Microsoft wants free labour and to get to control the code. They get to pick and choose and call it open source.
Ajay
2008-06-14 03:28:00
Victor Soliz
2008-06-14 03:44:47
You are aware that you are incredibly wrong/misinformed? That statement is so wrong that the only logical explanation is that you are some sort of drone from MS, if you are not, please get informed:
Please memorize this: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
My favs:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
However, Just open source is not enough, the ideal is something that fulfills both open source and free software:
More things to memorize: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Roy Schestowitz
2008-06-14 04:30:49
Gates: No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed.
FOCUS: Oh, my God. I always get mad at my computer if MS Word swallows the page numbers of a document which I printed a couple of times with page numbers. If I complain to anybody they say "Well, upgrade from version 5.11 to 6.0".
Gates: No! If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug. Maybe you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that?
FOCUS: Yeah, I did..."
--Bill Gates, FOCUS Magazine, 1995