Microsoft wants to talk about it over some booze (c/f schmoozing)
“Not just beer,” called it one of our readers, who made interesting observations about Microsoft's intrinsic behaviour.
“My beer reference was a bit on the free-as-in-speech v free-as-in-beer theme, but also left the possibility to comment that maybe Samuel Adams, the beer, is more well known nowadays than its namesake the political philosopher.”
--Anonymous"If you think about how much communication is electronic, then control of that communication becomes control of the population. A lot of freedoms that generations fought, killed and died for, especially during the 1700's, have been taken for granted and subsequently abridged under the disguise of 'technology'. The threat the Microsoft movement poses for all computer-using businesses is obvious enough, bottlenecks and gatekeepers are barriers. However, the same bottlenecks and gatekeepers are also equally or moreso a threat to basic democracy.
"Just look at how ineffective e-mail has become during the last 5 years because of Microsoft Exchange's failure rate combined with 90% of mail traffic being spam churned out by insecurable Windows machines."
Looking around at ways by which Microsoft controls means of communication using proprietary document formats, we find that Microsoft keeps busy trying to destroy the new standard, ODF. Dennis E. Hamilton is now speaking to the Microsoft promoter Jesper Lund Stocholm, telling him that "It is not possible to change IPR Mode without shutting down the ODF TC and chartering a new one. Not practical."
Why is Microsoft even bringing up such a subject? Because it holds software patents that can harm ODF [1, 2, 3, 4] and OASIS takes preventive measures?
Other Microsoft figures who defend Microsoft's attack on ODF interoperability [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] are being discussed in the comments here. One comment reads (regarding remarks from Alex Brown):
So in others words, I get from this guy the following;
Microsoft can expend a great deal of energy bastardizing existing standards from any area, such as ISO, or defacto ones, like oh I don't know, kerberos. Thus making such standards that;
a. works only with their stuff. b. works partially with the existing standards everyone else uses.
or
c. works with existing standards only if you jump through who knows how many hoops.
Yet, they, Microsoft cannot after expending all the effort on the above, finds it impossible writing to a standard or adhering to its spirit?
Hmm, it surely must be my imagination because there does seem to be an awful lot of ODF bashing lately.
And you say Microsoft doesn't lie?
Read the article and see the evidence for yourself.
Anyone that thinks that Microsoft is a friend of FOSS should pay very careful attention to what they are doing with ODF.
The new Microsoft is a worse version of the old Microsoft.
Le Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:58:17 +0200, "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@laposte.net> a écrit :
> > > > > > Hello Michael, > > > > > > Le Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:11:57 +0200, > > Per Eriksson <pereriksson@openoffice.org> a écrit : > > >> > > >> > > Hi Michael, >> > > >> > > Michael Meeks skrev: >>> > > > Not at all. All our OO.o changes are available under the >>> > > > terms of the LGPLv3, and we would be more than pleased for Sun to >>> > > > accept them under the terms of the project license. >>> > > > >>> > > > Sadly they refuse to do so, without Sun owning the code. >>> > > > We're eager for a truly independent & representative foundation to >>> > > > own the code, but not Sun - cf. flamewars ad nauseum on this >>> > > > topic :- >> > > >> > > Thanks for the reply. It wasn't meant to be rude. > > > > > > That's awesome news, Michael; does this mean that the custom filter > > for OOXML developed by Novell and Microsoft will be under LGPL v3? > > Did you put the mono stack and Silverlight under LGPL v3?
Comments
aeshna23
2009-06-12 18:26:19
NotZed
2009-06-12 15:21:38
(from http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing)
Why does Novell require a copyright assignment?
When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms.
This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code.
Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release those changes back. "