Microsoft Admits Novell is Its GPL Proxy

Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2009-01-30 14:23:55 UTC
Modified: 2009-01-30 14:23:55 UTC

THIS was said by journalists before, but there's nothing better than hearing it from Microsoft itself:

"While Microsoft can support GPL-based code through its partners, as it does with Novell, the company can’t contribute directly to projects due to the GPL’s license terms and requirements, he [Ramji] explained."

--David Worthington, last night

As Microsoft's Jim Allchin put it, "GPL is the licensing model. We think it’s very bad for — on an education, telling the world why we think it’s bad. We don’t think it’s the same as public domain. Somebody wants to put in a free DSB, we don’t have a problem with that, at least on licensing. But GPL, we think it’s very bad basically for the world, but especially for the United States."

“Why does Microsoft vehemently hate Freedom?”This was not the only time that Allchin described the GPL as anti-American. It's just so much easier to combat basic freedoms by describing them as demons, calling them a "threat" and -- in Allchin's case -- inciting US " policymakers" against this "threat" (GPL), to use his own words.

Why does Microsoft vehemently hate Freedom? Enough to fight it even? As we've demonstrated before, thanks to antitrust evidence, Microsoft employees are trained (indoctrinated) to believe that "[they're] the Good Guys!" The same techniques are routinely used to maintain war atmosphere (as in "evangelism is WAR!" or "Jihad" [1, 2, 3]) and instill aggression in troops' minds.

Meanwhile, Novell and friends are poisoning GNU/Linux with Microsoft technologies. They use "GPL" as a moral disguise that Microsoft won't intervene with. ⬆

Darth Vader Microsoft
Picture by SubSonica

Related posts:

Comments

Victor Soliz

2009-01-30 14:37:33

“GPL is the licensing model. We think it’s very bad for — on an education, telling the world why we think it’s bad. We don’t think it’s the same as public domain. Somebody wants to put in a free BSD, we don’t have a problem with that, at least on licensing. But GPL, we think it’s very bad basically for the world, but especially for the United States.”

This is the same old "Open source is good as long as it means free code for us, the corporations", the problem with the GPL is that it ensures that the code will remain free, and it is so much more focused on the user than on companies getting free code, that MS and also Novell (Ask Miguel de Icaza) and other companies despise it.
Victor Soliz

2009-01-30 14:59:00

Wow read the rest of the article about how that MS employee thinks the GPL aims towards exclusivity...
Roy Schestowitz

2009-01-30 15:16:26

He doesn't understand F/OSS. Before Microsoft hired him, he had been doing just SaaS.

It's a straw man.

The less they understand, the easier it becomes for them to defend their ignorance and disinformation.

That, for example, is why Microsoft sent lawyers/managers to technical discussions about OOXML.
Roy Bixler

2009-01-30 16:18:48

The remark about "aims toward exclusivity" is a case of projection. Some (most?) Softies truly believe that it's completely natural and right to "compete" viciously and illegally as they do and to aim for their "rightful" marketshare, which is 100%. As the saying goes, it's difficult to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.
Roy Schestowitz

2009-01-30 16:26:43

isn't Microsoft pro-Windows exclusivity, even for F/OSS?

I don't 'get' it.

It seems hypocritical to call GPL "aim[ing] toward exclusivity."

I reckon that Ramji will quit his job soon, just like his predecessors Hilf and Taylor.

Microsoft uses them all as punch bags that 'gently' and 'innocently' vilify the competition, which happens to be Freedom, not a company. These people, in turn, choose to just 'take orders' and do a great disservice to society.

Sonner or later the coin falls.

Roy, et al.,

You’re right. Some of the evangelism practices that I taught and executed at Microsoft in the 1990’s were unethical. I didn’t think so at the time — I thought that they were just hyper-competitive — but I agree now.

I am trying to change the error of my ways. I trust that you will agree that even the most hardened sinner can be redeemed.

--James Plamondon, Microsoft
Andre

2009-01-30 19:11:20

What if he is right on the substance. Indeed, the GPL model may kill parts of the traditional software market of the company. The open question is if that is beneficial. Microsoft is one of the companies which still relies on a profitable software as a product business model.

Wikipedia made the Britannica model obsolete. I don't know if that is bad but I guess the users made their own decisions. And now the Britannica follows the wiki model.

My father used to work in a typewriter company. Was Wordpefect and MS Word bad for them? In fact it was the total overkill for my region and no, there were no jobs in word processor development created. So maybe open source alternatives would have the same devastating effects on Seattle. The fact is that if our governments put the money they spent on US license fees on domestic open source communities instead we would live with a far better and more competitive software environment.

Additionally a software company from the US would leave our public institutions alone. And Roy S. would target another enemy figure. For instance the Financial markets!? How about this? But as we all know they are behind him (and everything) because they all run their computers with Linux. You are probably not aware of the Deutsche Bank - Richard Stallman software patent connection... Roy won't tell you. Why does Roy vehemently keep quiet on that matter? ...

Anti-American? Not really, but why not try for fun, that could get the idea even more selling points. The call for domestic software is getting ground. Russia develops its national operating system. France, where art thou? A Grand Nation powered by mi-cro-soft, in my French action ought to be taken... Just kiddin'
Roy Schestowitz

2009-01-30 19:43:25

What if he is right on the substance. Indeed, the GPL model may kill parts of the traditional software market of the company. The open question is if that is beneficial. Microsoft is one of the companies which still relies on a profitable software as a product business model.

Remember not to consider just acquisition costs. Apple, for example, makes a lot of money selling hardware, which it complements with software. This exploits almost the equivalent of Tivoisation, with h/w and s/w reversing roles.

Microsoft made several unsuccessful attempt to enter the hardware market.

Wikipedia made the Britannica model obsolete. I don’t know if that is bad but I guess the users made their own decisions. And now the Britannica follows the wiki model.

I noticed that some days ago. Britannica was forced to evolve. It must respond and adjust to digital transmission and cost of paper.

That's a positive thing to the environment and to interaction on knowledge (consensus).
sammy

2009-02-01 04:24:57

I reckon that Ramji will quit his job soon, just like his predecessors Hilf and Taylor.

It's funny that you think Hilf left. You might want to look again. And if you really want freedom, you should favor the Apache license.
Roy Schestowitz

2009-02-01 05:59:45

He departed from his position.

I know he didn't leave the company.

He was receiving a lot of hate mail and such stuff (people subscribed him to 'stuff').. We wrote about this at the time.

Microsoft Admits Novell is Its GPL Proxy

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts