“I think mostly they’d like to dilute “Open Source” to mean any code with source code. This is important to them because it’s the rights connected to Open Source that scare Microsoft (and others). If you can call it Open Source when there isn’t even the right to compile the code, or to use the information you get from reading it, customers don’t have a reason to ask for it any longer.”

“Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.”

–Bruce Perens

Be careful whatever you read out there.

I’ve also just found out about Microsoft bribing Mac bloggers ($15,000) to sell out Apple:

Microsoft to Mac enterprise bloggers: How much to sell out Apple?

One of our customers has asked us write up a technical marketing case for
Windows Vista over Mac OSX in the enterprise. I’m contacting you to see if
you know anyone who would be interested and capable of writing this based on background materials we have.

The candidate should have a good understanding of client systems in the enterprise and the technologies behind issues that are important in the enterprise (deployment, manageability, work group and policy management, security, suitability of developer platforms for line of business applications, tech support, licensing, TCO).

We have some background materials that include a 75 page technical document called “Apple in the Enterprise” and other summaries of technical points, but it all needs to be put together to make the case.

“It’s not too hard to figure out who the customer is here. The price to sell out the Mac in the enterprise is $15,000. But my guess is that this fee may be negotiable upwards depending on the brand of the author in question.

“Can it be that the Mac and the iPhone are gaining enough traction in the enterprise to start ringing alarm bells in Redmond? It appears so.”

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=2415

Still the same corrupt Microsoft that buys shills then…. ho hum…

Since the time you submitted this (but before it posted on BN publicly), I wrote two comments that (in part) address this, but let me reply directly here with further and more specific thoughts.

As mentioned all over the place, the actual software matters. As long as Microsoft has the leverages that they do and the vast amount of closed source investments in “dotnet”, “OOXML”, etc, I do not want to help advance code that relates to technologies where they dominate. It doesn’t matter who leads/maintains the project or owns the code. It doesn’t matter if I got the code from an ice cream truck or from the President.

See http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/19/microfoss-and-oxymoron/#comment-28806 .

Regardless of the type of software, if Microsoft owns it, I doubt very much I would want to help that software grow in quality or in pervasiveness. If the software was simple and helpful on Linux (eg, if it did not bring over a lot of baggage that could help establish mental, code,… lock-in), I would accept it but *after a fork* (ie, if I wanted to help fix it or grow it, I would want it forked). Otherwise, I don’t think I would want it. [If the landscape changes drastically, I'd have to reconsider and maybe have to choose the lesser of two poisons.]

The actual license actually matters very much, especially within the context of copyleft. This license for the code would have to be compatible with other things I might want to use (GPLv2 GPLv3 and others if possible). Of course, everything I said here http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/19/microfoss-and-oxymoron/#comment-29260 against the MS-PL and other MS licenses applies.

So I don’t want their license (lack trust/ and there are brand issues/traps as well.. see prior link); I don’t want their technology (see link at top; nomono); I don’t want their open source software (I would be participating in growing or improving their assets; see top link); I don’t want their binary products (duh).

In short: I don’t do business with Microsoft. I don’t trust them. I won’t help them; I won’t sell the wider community short by trying to help myself by helping them. There are other and better ways to help yourself.

Does this sound like Soylent Green to anyone else?

Honestly, if you recognize the stench, you don’t have to see a carcass to know there’s a dead animal around. Microsoft’s “foray” into FOSS has all the historical markings of the same story, second verse – Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. MS apologists aside, there are far too many parallels in the moving and shaking MS is doing right now with previous similar encounters with other software companies (yes, FOSS is not a company, I know).

Another old cliche: a leopard cannot change its spots. It was just a couple of short years ago MS claimed FOSS was a virus, a cancer, something to be eradicated. Do you seriously believe they aren’t trying their best to do so? Don’t let a few MS-written open licenses fool you, they are still on the warpath against FOSS. Another cliche: can’t see the forest for the trees.

Think about this: they don’t mind if developers continue writing FOSS as long as they write it for the Windows platform (don’t have that link offhand, sorry). Umm, that isn’t TRUE FOSS, then, at least not in the spirit of FOSS. If software is going to be limited to a particular operating system to PURPOSELY decrease competition, that flies directly into the face of FOSS in spirit. You can roll out the MS “open” licenses all you want, the bigger picture isn’t all green. Do the major MS applications run on Linux? Nope. Do the major FOSS applications run on Windows and Linux and Mac? Yep. Hmm, which one is more interoperable again?

I doubt (a) will satisfy a judge if it turns out “everyone” was not exactly correct. If there are disagreements, Microsoft has more leverage in defining the nuances of what was meant in the terms.

I trust the FSF more with what I have in mind when I use the GPL than I do Microsoft were I to use one of their licenses. At this point in time, I also trust virtually every group (at least of the main existing licenses) more than I trust Microsoft.

Court procedures would be much simplified if there weren’t disagreements over the meaning of terms of contracts/licenses among rational beings.

The FSF cannot speak for Microsoft. The FSF does not track the multitude of conversations Microsoft has with their customers (“customers” includes developers and even of “freebies”).

>> …and b. how Microsoft change it in the future is irrelevant. If it becomes non-free, that does not affect software under that license.
>> The EULA and “tricks and confusion”:

It’s definitely relevant.

Microsoft has used bait and switch many times in the past. Microsoft has a huge “captured” audience. Our end users are unsophisticated in terms of knowledge and access to the law in many/most cases. We all know that most people do not keep perfect track of licenses, of what applies at any given point in time. This is a human condition “engineers” must factor into their decisions*. FOSS developers have it on their shoulders to release using a license, a brand, that users will be able to trust. If we don’t do this, “tricks and confusion” of all sorts (eg, the EULA and version examples given in earlier replies) can be leveraged by Microsoft towards all of these users much more easily.

Again, Microsoft has successfully used bait and switch to get around certifications and more with the code they have had shipped/installed for customers. Their advantage grows (with synergies) when they control all the components that could take part in any particular business scheme of theirs. I only gave a few examples, but these guys being paid to sit and think can surely amass a more creative arsenal over time.

Let me quote the FSF:
>> …It is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL…
>> Please do not use this license for anything you write; there are already well-known free software licenses that serve the same purpose, such as the Apache License version 2.0

[* Once English has been tamed to be completely unambiguous (yeah, right) and license management tools have been perfected, we might have to re-evaluate the scenario.]

I’ll check the moderation queue to see if the comment is there.

[my other post seems to be in moderation / eaten]

>> in various threats to which you

threat –> thread.

I wondered if this was a Freudian slip, but I think it’s because “threat” is on my mind.. many threats here there etc.

>> have a few qualms of reservations

I think you get the point though I imagine this is grammatically incorrect and may sound very odd.

>> > I’m not going to comment on the MS-PL, except to say that a. everyone considers it to be a free software license, and b. how Microsoft change it in the future is irrelevant. If it becomes non-free, that does not affect software under that license.
>> So you are deciding not to direct an answer to most of what I said on the topic. OK. Well, you did quote something. Let’s see.

This is not the intended response on my part. I’ll redo this later.

And my point is that these “questions” have been presented many times before in various threats to which you were an active participant at the time of posting.

>> The point I made was that you cannot contribute to free software and prevent Microsoft from making use of those contributions.

That’s a great point. Now, why don’t you address what I keep bringing up since I think your point has been beat to death already and no one has shown disagreements.

I’m not going to repeat myself. To keep things focused on code contributions, please read this and respond in as many parts as necessary at your earliest convenience: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/19/microfoss-and-oxymoron/#comment-28806

>> > In short, Alex has no qualms about providing significant and particular help to Microsoft

>> That’s not true.

Can you clarify this because the original quote sure does look very true to me. Do you mean how “that’s not true” because you actually have a few qualms of reservations as oppose to “no qualms”. Please elaborate. It may help to first discuss your views on the link just recently mentioned above since we’re going to have to dig in there I suspect over and over.

>> I don’t see any reason to avoid those projects just because of MS involvement.

Do you see how Linux+FOSS would benefit if Microsoft’s port code contributions were not accepted, where not hosted at the central site?

>> Perhaps you’re talking about projects that MS directly lead; but I think it’s more relevant to the more common case of projects where Microsoft “make use of” and/or “contribute to”

Not sure what you are referring to here. Clearly all three of these cases have been discussed. There are ways where Microsoft benefits to greater or lesser degrees depending on the context and on which of these three we are talking about. I’ve spoken about all three. In particular, consider finally reading and commenting on this link: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/19/microfoss-and-oxymoron/#comment-28806

>> I’m not going to comment on the MS-PL, except to say that a. everyone considers it to be a free software license, and b. how Microsoft change it in the future is irrelevant. If it becomes non-free, that does not affect software under that license.

So you are deciding not to direct an answer to most of what I said on the topic. OK. Well, you did quote something. Let’s see.

>> > The actual source code at stake matters. The various EULA matter. The potential tricks and confusions matter.
>> Actually, I argue that it doesn’t matter. The license is what governs your use of the software. It’s either free or not.

Clearly the code does matter, no matter the circumstance. The license is a license to code, so the code does matter.

If you will read the link repeated several times above, we might come to discussing mono and various bits of code in how they help Microsoft or not or to what extent.

The EULA and “tricks and confusion”:

I’ll handle this below.

>> I don’t see what possible tricks you think are in there.

Maybe you should read the comments I have been writing. Text/legalese is subject to interpretations by humans. These interpretations are not absolute or else court procedures would be much simplified and a neutral observer would know the result with absolute precision ahead of the official judgment pronouncement. [Additionally, see next part.]

>> Microsoft wants to destroy all its competitors. What’s to acknowledge?

Glad we agree. Can we also then agree that it thus becomes valuable not to support the use of MS-PL and other MS licenses, of CodePlex, and of MS projects [let's just look at these three for now] because it gives Microsoft particular leverage going into the future. How? OK, let’s discuss the tricks and EULAs now.

The EULA and “tricks and confusion” (continuation):

I’ll pick this theme up in a new upcoming reply, and cover some related items.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

What was the problem at CodePlex? They were using non-free licenses. That software was therefore non-free.

That situation says nothing about the software released under a free software license.

Let me put this to you in a different way: if they released the software under the GPLv3 instead of the MS-PL, would you then be happy? If not why not, and if so – what difference do you think it has made?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/03/codeplex_licenses/

“Microsoft is posting code to its much-trumpeted CodePlex open-source projects site using licenses and conditions that go against the principles of open source.

“The company has been posting projects under Microsoft licenses that stop you from running CodePlex projects on non-Windows platforms or restrict access to code. ”

Do you trust this company?