Groklaw Responds to Latest FUD from Florian Müller
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2010-08-06 19:43:59 UTC
- Modified: 2010-08-06 19:43:59 UTC
Scraping the bottom of the barrel to fuel smears against Groklaw
Summary: Setting the record straight on SCO allegation which Müller is now (re)using in order to belittle his opposition in a fight that overlaps Microsoft's agenda
Florian Müller continues to show his true colours this week, defending Microsoft and bashing Munich's migration to GNU/Linux just a day or two apart. A few days ago he started reciting lies from SCO boosters, too. "He's jumped the shark now," Pamela Jones told us. "I'm not at all worried about Florian. He's self-destructing. You can't attack FSF, Groklaw, and the Linux Foundation while relying on Dan Lyons and Maureen O'Gara and expect the community to believe one word. He seems to have lost his touch."
Regarding Müller's allegation that IBM pays Groklaw (Müller links to the SCO crowd when he says this), Jones told us: "SCO started this, of course, and
I answered it here.
"Ask him to answer the question: does he get paid by Microsoft? Has he ever, directly or indirectly? It's certainly the case that he is channeling SCO's talking points. It's impossible to believe that is sincere, so why is he doing so?"
⬆
Comments
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 08:45:33
The European Commission is not only independent from Microsoft but one of its vice-presidents, Neelie Kroes, has a history of fighting very hard against Microsoft.
So in a way it's an honor to be tagged with Microsoft by you.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:03:31
Microsoft's particularly high relevance is to do with its active and persistent attacks on software freedom (we hardly see that from GE).
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:20:59
My perspective on Versata's antitrust complaint against SAP is mixed for the time being (until I find out more) because of Versata's history of patent-trolling against SAP on the one hand and the legitimacy of requests for interoperability on the other hand. It's interesting that when I appear to agree with Microsoft or presumed Microsoft allies, you and occasionally Groklaw (such as on MPEG and OIN) pay attention and point people to it, but I have 56 articles up on my blog including so many where I don't agree with Microsoft or presumed Microsoft allies like SAP.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:25:01
Let's get back to the original point and not discuss tags (or post slugs).
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:36:11
I think it's fine if Microsoft focuses on its platform as long as FOSS has a lot of opportunity there, and it undoubtedly does, and as long as there's effective competition between GNU/Linux and Windows.
*Any* of the companies I mentioned will in some way "attack" software freedom if its core business is concerned. IBM is the perfect example.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:39:38
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:49:47
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:52:01
IBM did not threaten legal action.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:55:32
If someone told you that he has a right that your website infringes, and makes it clear that he views this unfavorably, that's enough of a threat.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:01:04
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:05:35
The chronology is this: TH sent it first letter to IBM in July 2009. IBM replied after four months with the allegation of IP (=patent, without saying so) infringement. That same month, November 2009, TH asked IBM to specify. IBM replied in March 2010. That month TH also filed its antitrust complaint - and they took IBM's long silence (four months!) as an indication that IBM didn't even want to specify. Well, the letter arrived just after they filed the antitrust complaint, but had an earlier date.
In terms of anti-IBM lobby, the problem for TH was that IBM refused after the July letter to work out a solution for the z/OS licensing issue and reiterated that refusal (after another four months) after the second letter. So they determined that they needed help from the European Commission.
I don't know when TH joined CCIA, but since Google and Oracle (two fierce and aggressive Microsoft competitors) and even Red Hat are members of CCIA, I don't think that membership in such a diverse group can be held against anyone.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:09:55
Can you give me a direct link to the full letter? I want to see exactly what it said.
I was referring to OpenMainframe.org actually.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:15:19
Concerning openmainframe.org, as long as they support a FOSS program that's available for GNU/Linux *as well as* Windows, that's free and open enough for my taste. I've read information about mainframe matters from various sources in recent months, and openmainframe.org provides some useful stuff. I didn't find anything there that was like an encouragement to migrate to Windows.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:24:26
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:32:32
However, IBM not only refused to grant a license to z/OS for use in emulation but also claimed that emulation of its CPU instruction set is generally an IP infringement. That would, if there indeed was one, also apply to the execution of z/Linux in emulation. The patents IBM later listed were not z/OS-related. Should (which hasn't been proven thus far) Hercules infringe any of those, it would infringe them regardless of whether z/OS or z/Linux runs in a Hercules emulation.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:43:19
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:56:13
Anyway, on the issue here: The question of whether IBM licenses its proprietary z/OS is an antitrust matter. Those are different markets, and IBM has a mainframe monopoly. Even without the antitrust aspect (which apparently is serious enough for the EC to launch two formal probes in parallel), I think TH didn't offend or attack or "lobby against" IBM by asking whether a license deal could be worked out.
IBM then, however, not only refused that license but also claimed that emulation of the mainframe CPU constitutes an IP (=patent) infringement. That, again, is independent from what operating system you run on the emulated (virtual) CPU. And TH didn't ask IBM for permission to emulate: IBM raised that issue to TH's surprise (given that IBM had been aware of Hercules for a long time, even mentioned it in one of its RedBooks in 2002 or so).
So the two kinds of IP issues here are different ones. z/OS licensing is one thing, threatening against emulation with patents is another and is operating system-independent.
Let's assume a situation in which maybe some other CPU manufacturer comes up with something vastly superior over Intel's products and someone then writes an emulator to run software written for Intel on that new machine. If Intel then used some of its patents against that, we'd have a situation similar to the patent part of the IBM/TH issue.
We're now close to 100 comments and this can't go on forever. I've tried to be constructive and forthcoming, but no matter how much more time I spend here, I can't prevent you from drawing unreasonable conclusions. I can, however, express my expectation that you'll be fair enough to recognize that I did give a generic, timeless answer and that I'd have given the same one if instead of Microsoft you had asked about, say, Oracle.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:59:06
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 08:39:16
Didn't check which other company besides those bogeymen Microsoft and Novell is the most frequently tagged one here, but those numbers seem to be around 10% of Microsoft's number of taggings (Google).
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 08:57:27
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:16:22
Believe it or not, I do believe that corporate watchdogs are needed and can contribute to keeping companies and affiliated organizations honest. It's good that you look closely at whatever Microsoft does. What's not good is to make connections that are often unconvincing and to apply different standards. It makes you appear paranoid. I guess your site would have a whole lot more credibility with serious people if you didn't see Microsoft in everything and if you occasionally recognized where Microsoft does good stuff (even if maybe for bad reasons from your point of view). For an example, Eric Raymond has recognized that repeatedly, and his leaking of the Halloween documents was something that's very much along the lines of the TechRights approach to transparency.
You have no factual basis on which to link me to Microsoft and to expect me to depart from my generic, timeless answer. On the contrary, you know the issues and where Microsoft stands on them, and you know my blog and my LinuxTag slides etc. There are issues where they want something completely different; and there are issues where I may partially agree with what they want but then for very different reasons.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:19:17
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:24:07
I won't let anyone bully me (by means of drawing conclusions) into departing from that principle, which I upheld during my entire involvement with the Oracle/Sun merger control process as well.
I challenge you: What reason does anyone (including PJ, who said people should ask the question) have to even bring up the question, other than Microsoft paranoia?
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:26:21
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:38:46
I can't imagine that Microsoft is on a mission to destroy GNU/Linux.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:41:49
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:01:34
Looking at the impact of the EU decision on Microsoft's behavior, I have the impression that a couple of other major players in the industry need that kind of experience now, too.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:03:45
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:12:31
The European Commission is impartial. If it takes a decision anyone wants to appeal, there's still the EU's General Court, and above that one, the Court of Justice. I have tremendous faith in that system.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:16:17
What has IBM done?
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:28:17
Should Microsoft engage in sabotage, bribes, intimidation of individuals etc., then they should be pursued. That's what the rule of law is for. But that must also apply to everyone else.
As for what IBM has done, they've got a really bad history of doing literally anything to preserve a monopoly. I encourage you to read comments from some highly credible people on http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/comments.php
But on the current subject, the mainframe, they abuse their monopoly in various ways. I'll quote from the European Commission's press release, which points out that the investigation will now have to prove whether that's true but the EC has spent a great deal of time looking into this already:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1006&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
(quote) IBM is alleged to have engaged in illegal tying of its mainframe hardware products to its dominant mainframe operating system. The complaints contend that the tying shuts out providers of emulation technology which could enable the users to run critical applications on non-IBM hardware. In addition, the Commission has concerns that IBM may have engaged in anti-competitive practices with a view to foreclosing the market for maintenance services (i.e. keeping potential competitors out of the market), in particular by restricting or delaying access to spare parts for which IBM is the only source. (end quote)
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:34:55
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:41:27
I didn't say "equally evil". Frankly, I don't think Microsoft has anything in its history that's even remotely comparable to IBM's strategic alliance with the Third Reich. Then, IBM is also a much older company.
And again, I don't defend Microsoft. I defend my positions on some issues, particularly the IBM antitrust case. And on that one, I quoted what the European Commission is concerned about in terms of anticompetitive behavior by a monopolist.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:47:06
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:59:43
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 11:06:33
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 08:35:47
Even if your tagging was right in my case, you still wouldn't have addressed any of my factual statements on the IBM antitrust case or on the way major players use patents.
You do, however, show quite a reluctance to play your corporate watchdog role with respect to Groklaw.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 08:59:58
This post is not about that (unless you're referring to other posts).
I like Groklaw and I trust its editor. I have not had reasons to feel differently, except the recent defenses of Apple (an opposition to which I expressed openly).
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:09:07
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:15:07
I am still asking, are you funded by Microsoft in any way?
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:47:48
I don't expect you to speak for Groklaw, just to apply the same corporate watchdog standard to everyone. If you did, Groklaw, SFLC and others would have some important questions to answer.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:51:08
For the record, I did not "claim that she was paid by IBM".
You can scour this site, Slashdot, Reddit, my site, and you won't find any such claim anywhere.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 06:54:09
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:59:39
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:04:45
I remember when Microsoft staff (confirmed) used some anonymous comment to compare me to Unabomber.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 07:10:41
By pointing you to a statement from 2004, PJ didn't answer Dan Lyons's question either because he brought it up years later with reference to something that might have happened in 2007.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 07:15:42
Even though I take the same positions as I always have (which included a lot of confrontation with Microsoft at different points), I'm expected to comment on a link to Microsoft. There's neither a document nor a source nor a high-profile journalist referring to a source he considers reliable; there isn't any claim of a point in time and a given amount; it's just out of the blue (or Blue) that the link is made, while in PJ's case there's a lot more smoke and, potentially, fire.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:20:03
There is no such refusal.
You're trying to divert attention rather than answer the question.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 07:24:33
I'm not diverting attention. I've answered the question generically; I've explained two or three times why I only answer it generically. So I don't have to divert from it. This here is a discussion under an article that's about Groklaw. The URL contains the keywords "record straight on groklaw ibm" as you can see at the top of your browser window...
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:26:53
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 07:30:50
I believe I've made a lot of effort to discuss the issues. Interestingly, under an article that's about "record straight on groklaw ibm" according to the URL, you don't seem to care too much if someone highlights that PJ referred to a statement from 2004 (!) when Dan Lyons's story is about 2007. You don't seem to care too much about PJ never having said who her past employers were and current employer may be, that she never appears at industry events to present her views and engage in discussions, etc. You don't seem to care too much about the difference between her consistently siding with IBM and defending IBM's actions without any exception as opposed to me taking differentiated views on all players in the industry.
I recommend that you do care more about those issues and would like to leave this discussion here now after all the effort I made to explain.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:36:15
Your failure to answer the question tells me that it's likely Microsoft pays ("compensates") you in some way. You can deny this, but you haven't yet touched this subject by answering the simple question.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:28:30
@Roy and twitter and to whomever else it may concern: I don't have to answer questions concerning individual companies because the EU has transparency rules and I would never do anything requiring disclosure under them without disclosing. During the Oracle/Sun merger control process I was asked about Microsoft (and SAP and some other name at some point also came up but don't even remember) and I consistently gave that answer. It may not be the answer you'd like to hear, but it is the only one you can reasonably expect.
The TurboHercules statement, as far as I recall, was about them being happy to work with many companies, not excluding Microsoft.
It's the only rational approach: focus on the issues. If something bad is done by a Microsoft competitor such as IBM, the answer isn't to consider it good just because IBM competes with Microsoft.
Microsoft's competitors are collectively much bigger than Microsoft and collectively (above all - but not only - IBM) do a whole lot of bad stuff. It's absolutely appropriate to call those companies out for their wrongdoings regardless of whether or not there's an issue-specific alignment of views or interests with Microsoft. As far as Oracle/Sun is concerned, Microsoft made completely different points from mine, by the way. Therefore, any questions about Microsoft and me in that context missed the point.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 06:35:39
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:42:28
Interestingly, you content yourself with PJ pointing to an answer that is 6 years old and doesn't cover all possible direct and indirect links between her and IBM.
Apply the same standard to everyone, please.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 06:46:30
No.
Jones was not asking for much. She did address your reused claim that she was paid by IBM. Now she asks a simple question, "does he [you] get paid by Microsoft? Has he ever, directly or indirectly?"
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:49:16
I've seen you, Roy, at least being critical of pretty much every major IT company at several points; and there's only one company about which I've never seen you say a positive thing but they wouldn't be able to always come down on the bad side even if they tried hard. Anyway, that's your choice. In terms of issue focus, you're hugely better than PJ, but the Microsoft bogeyman prevents you from taking a fully differentiated perspective on everything that's going on.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 06:55:00
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:58:17
I gave the reason before: once I depart from the principle of answering this generically and start to comment on an individual company, it won't end with one company name. And it's not just that questions can be brought up by all sorts of people about all sorts of companies, it's also that people can ask again every day or every hour whether this has changed. My answer is better. I say that if I ever have anything to disclose under the EU's transparency rules, I will. So people don't have to ask again day in, day out.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:02:15
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:03:01
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 07:08:15
Roy, these are the kinds of situations where it becomes very hard to discuss the issues with you, even though I'd like to do so.
I explained twice -- without that preventing you from bring it up again and again -- that if I comment on any attempt to link me to company A, I'll have to answer questions concerning B, C, D, ... and people could always ask again and again whether it's changed.
Of course that question here is now about company A. You want me, however, to depart from a principle of answering it only generically. Even if you promised not to bring up other questions, others could. Even if you promised not to ask again in a week, month, year or decade, someone else could. That's why it's an important principle for me.
Concerning "a registered lobbyist", the EU expects "interest representatives" (including NGOs by the way) to register, which is a broader definition than "lobbyist". That transparency initiative is a good one. It doesn't make people bad that they may (or may not) at some point in the future fall under that rule.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:13:56
So what is it you're affiliated with? Not just an individual?
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 07:21:56
Those EU rules concern individuals as well as organizations. I can assure you that I'm not employed by any organization, so I didn't mean to deflect the question on that basis.
I used to have a limited liability company with which I charged for my work on software patents (2004-2006) and professional sports policy (2007). I had founded it in 1992 as a legal umbrella under which I provided consulting services (most important client: Blizzard Entertainment, 1995-1998) but I dissolved it right after the sports policy project because I wasn't going to do that kind of work too often. At the relevant time there were no transparency rules in the EU, and at this stage it's all about me as an individual.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:16:55
By the way, people wonder why you decided to close all comments in your blog after getting challenged.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:33:16
Concerning comments on my blog, it became too time-consuming. I've now written 56 blog postings in about four months. That's a lot less than what you do. PJ may not post much more frequently but her postings are extremely long. I simply don't spend that much time on my blog. I want my blog to stay focused, but I do participate in discussions in other places, including Slashdot, where a part of the die-hard Groklaw crowd behaved just as despicably as those "conservatives" on digg.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:38:27
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:44:39
Unlike Groklaw, you don't appear to censor. You're better than Groklaw in many respects but you have in common with Groklaw that you see Microsoft in everything. In Groklaw's case, you see how absurd the idea of Microsoft being behind Psystar and being for a weakening of IPRs (!) is (just the opposite of Microsoft's political agenda as the FFII could confirm to you if you ask them).
From a software freedom point of view (and GNU/Linux is not the only free software, though its key foundation at this stage), focusing overly on Microsoft makes it too easy for the others - and all major IT corporations have a closed core business - to get away with their wrongdoings. That's the sad part of the story.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:48:33
Why are you trying so hard to defend Microsoft?
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:59:07
Concerning your question, what I want to defend is my position on Microsoft. That's a different thing than defending Microsoft.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:02:54
With claims like this you only lose credibility.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:09:46
Yes and no.
The claim is factually accurate. Unbiased people can see that. Biased people may also see it, but it may take more time and more information to surface.
I'm fine with some people holding that kind of assessment against me. Further down the road, that approach will build real credibility.
Forget IBM's GNU/Linux strategy when mainframe *legacy* workloads are concerned. z/Linux can't run *legacy* stuff.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:14:01
I guess this boils down to a BSD vs GPL "freedom"-type debate. When I say freedom I refer to the code's licence; you seem to be confusing that with Microsoft's distorted notion of "choice".
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:38:09
Freedom of choice in this case includes a free software option, and that one means software freedom. I said Microsoft is in this case closer to software freedom than IBM (note: software freedom, and when I say that, I don't just mean choice).
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 10:45:01
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 11:06:08
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 11:08:13
War is peace.
Robotron
2010-08-07 15:53:08
Point is: this is Roy’s world. You cannot win here. It’s like fighting inside the Matrix except you aren’t Neo, no one can be. Roy’s beliefs are above any evidence, logical reasons, or suggestions you might bring to the table. I don’t share many of your beliefs or support the same things you do, but you seem to have some integrity. Roy doesn’t have integrity. Stick to your guns and rest assured that the only reason there aren’t more people coming to your defense is that they aren’t listen to the likes of the good doctor here.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 05:29:01
That's exactly the type of answer TurboHercules' manager gave when asked if Microsoft compensated him in some way (direct or indirect). Answer the question, not hypothetically.
verofakto
2010-08-07 06:01:56
- When did you stop working for Netscape? - What is your relationship with Rob Weir and other IBM employees? You deleted your Facebook page where you were seen schmoozing with quite a few of them. - What is your relationship with the person known as 'Mark Fink', who disrupted the GNOME project and went so far as to contact people's employers to ask that they be fired for "supporting Mono", a fiction that you invented to explain backlash directed at Stallman's sexists remarks. - What is your relationship with the person known as "AstralKnight" and "CyberPhoenix" (among others nyms), who led a massive spam operation that benefited _you_ on various social media sites. - Please confirm whether or not you acquiesced to allowing your collaborator "twitter" to nymshift as "your_friend" on your blog after he insulted the Ubuntu Community Manager on your IRC channel - all the while attacking _other_ people for using multiple identities. And attacking people who allegedly nymshifted here on your blog, like "Robotron" and "Sabayon User" among others. Also, please acknowledge whether or not you supported his shilling of your blog on Slashdot with more than 20 different identities. - Can you confirm that you have often claimed that you have a "source" about an allegation which has turned out to be nothing more than you making stuff up to spice up your daily grind. - Can you explain why exactly Shane Coyle (who founded Boycott Novell) left, and how you coerced him to turn over the domain name to you? - Can you explain why you style yourself as a "software engineer"? What exactly are your credentials in that area?
Just a few questions to get started.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 03:20:50
twitter
2010-08-07 05:32:48
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 05:53:28
"IBM also accuses TurboHercules of cooperating with Microsoft. Bearing in mind that Hercules works very well indeed on both Linux and Windows, not to mention the Macintosh, we are indeed quite happy to cooperate with Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Unisys, Dell, Intel, AMD or anyone else who wants to work with us."
Notice that he does not actually deny IBM's accusation.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:35:33
In the Groklaw, all of this always distracts from one thing: Roger Bowler founded an open source project 11 years ago (more than PJ can say) and he's been defending it all along. Similar thing with Monty Widenius of MySQL, actually. I founded the NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004, warned against IBM's hypocrisy in terms of open source and patents in 2005, and I'm still doing it and everything I say and do is consistent with it.
The only thing consistent about PJ is that she defends whatever IBM does. I've repeatedly challenged people to show me one example (documented with a URL) of PJ criticizing IBM. There isn't. And no matter what the reason for that may be (whether it's a conflict of interests or a kind of bias that's incomprehensible), there can never be a good reason for an irrational 100% allegiance like that.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 06:41:25
This was not the accusations though. Roger Bowler 'dressed it up' differently using words he could address more comfortably.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 06:41:47
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:55:36
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 07:01:03
IBM accuses TH of benefiting financially (in one way or another) from Microsoft.
Anyway, can you please answer the simple question? If you are somehow benefiting financially from Microsoft, then I do not expect you to answer.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 08:42:54
It's not just TH who benefits from this but all mainframe customers (which indirectly includes all of us, such as every time we use a bank account) and the 11-year-old Hercules open source project, whose maintainer created the ibmvshercules.com blog and is not involved with TH in any way but also wants to ensure that his project has a future.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:06:09
Calling Windows "open" is a stretch. We've been through this debate before. You're just playing the same game as Jeff Gould now.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:28:59
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:35:50
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 09:52:44
Then Microsoft also uses the Windows versions of Apache, MySQL etc. "to facilitate a proprietary software platform"?
Again, Hercules means choice between z/OS (current monopoly for mainframe legacy workloads), GNU/Linux, and Windows. So does TurboHercules. Customers should get the choice. Of course from a FOSS point of view they should choose GNU/Linux then. But without Hercules/TurboHercules, they'd have to stick with proprietary z/OS.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 09:58:38
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 10:22:57
It doesn't matter to me that Microsoft wants as many Hercules users as possible to run on Windows. They also want as many MySQL or Apache users as possible to run that stuff on Windows.
What matters is that customers are locked in to a proprietary operating system and hardware from only one vendor as far as *legacy* workloads are concerned. I don't think one can be against choice. Even if the choice were only between the lock-in and Hercules on Windows, it would be better than no choice, but here there's a free and open choice available in the form of Hercules on GNU/Linux.
If we always just care about Microsoft potentially getting a benefit out of something, we'll also have to oppose some good things.
I totally respect your position that everything on clients and on servers should run on GNU/Linux. But that's not a reason to support a z/OS lock-in.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 06:39:06
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-08-07 06:43:05
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 03:17:03
The question Dan Lyons raised about OSDL/LinuxFoundation was never answered by any of the parties -- and that was long after the link PJ provided.
Florian Mueller
2010-08-07 03:14:13
Concerning Microsoft, I absolutely adhere to the EU's transparency rules and if I ever had to announce anything, I would do so.
Hypothetically speaking, if Microsoft asked for my help to support a good cause, such as if they one day determined that software patents should be abolished, I would consider them a possible partner just like many other players, provided that I'd have all of the independence required to pursue such good cause (in other words, no muzzle of any kind).
By the way, people can meet me at industry events and discuss everything with me there, even including the question PJ said should be asked. That is not the case with PJ, raising questions about what she actually has to hide. Similarly, my entire professional track record is well-documented -- PJ's isn't, which again raises questions about what she actually has to hide.
twitter
2010-08-07 05:23:10
I am sure that you did not answer her question, so I'll ask it directly. Are you being paid by Microsoft or any Microsoft intermediaries for any current work?
twitter
2010-08-06 23:25:47
ZDNet's article is a classic example of "manufacturing consent". Real debate around an important issue, software patents, is replaced by a flame war parody and ridicule of participants. People who don't look into things will agree with the level headed moderator, Dana, who pushes the corporate agenda, preserving software patents. They might also mistake Dana as an industry representative when there is almost universal professional rejection of software patents and most of the world's governments do not recognize them. Public participation in the issue is suppressed by all the mud throwing and people get a negative impression of free software.
It is a good thing that Big Media is losing readership because of all the excellent, real community news sites and blogs. People deserve their software freedom and the community is ready and able to help everyone take it. Big Publishers had their chance to report fairly but perferred to serve their corporate sponsors over their readers. Sites like Techrights and Groklaw are better sources of information that deliver the community's actual message.
twitter
2010-08-07 19:26:14
It's only fair, at this point, to link in Groklaw coverage of the TH saga:
PJ's justification of the IBM suit against TH, TH is the aggressor. OpenMainframe is some kind of anti-IBM Microsoft partner and their site is like Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign. PJ links the SCO case, Psystar case, a MySQL dust up and the TH cases as all about "wanting to use someone else's code without having to abide by the license, the assertion that for one reason or another, the author of software code can't choose the terms under which he chooses to license it and that others who didn't write it get to use it the way they wish to, instead of having to write their own".
PJ's is a careful researcher and there's a lot of merit and documentation to back her assertions. She has her facts straight and delivers the news concisely. I commend her especially for connecting the dots between these seemingly unrelated cases against Microsoft competitors. Microsoft's would be secret funding of SCO is well documented and good reason to suspect the same in these other cases. Dissmissal by ridicule might work for school yard bullies but it does not work with adults considering the actions of a convicted felon like Microsoft.
Someone who's interested in hypocrisy should strongly object to these things. Microsoft expends a lot of effort in judicial harassment of competitors while flaunting the law themselves.