02.27.08
Posted in Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 9:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
…and it didn’t even ask anybody else for approval of the new definition
A reader has just asked us to re-emphasise a very important point that was alluded to before. Having entered the OSI back in October, Microsoft has been attempting to break the spirit not only of the GPL, but that of “Open Source” (as perceived by the OSI) as well, using their enormous marketing and publication power.
“It was not open source at all. Microsoft pitched to the press something altogether different.”The mainstream press proudly spoke about Microsoft “opening up to open source” (never mind the reality), but what is it that Microsoft called “open source” anyway? Guess what? It was not open source at all. Microsoft pitched to the press something altogether different.
Moments ago, the Office Open - OpenOffice confusion was discussed, following other recent posts that illustrate this self-serving confusion (serving Microsoft, of course). It was a good squeal to yesterday’s post about Microsoft’s redefinition of "cross platform" (not “multi-platform” or “dual-platform”), among many other things.
Our reader tells us that “Microsoft officially redefined OpenSource.” He point to this page and adds: “Predictable, but *DONE*.”
To quote the remainder of the followup message:
…You don’t stress the point that they [Microsoft] *ARE* redefining it.
We have merely jumped from reading between the lines to it getting written explicitly by Microsoft!
This point may escape many while reading your post. Actually, only a few comments reflected that.
Glyn Moody foresaw this. He pointed out early attempts to achieve this when Microsoft signed a horrible agreement with the EU, so it’s worth looking back at what we posted at the time [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNOME, Mono, Novell at 6:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It was a few months ago that Miguel de Icaza spoke abut the possibility of Mono extensions for Evolution. Consider the following an important update from him:
“Update: Jeff wrote an add-in for MonoDevelop to do Evolution plugins in C#.”
It seems like the gradual evolution of GNOME. The issue here is that it’s a route to dependency where a crucial application (already used by many) is involved. People become ‘hooked’ on plugins.
See this hours-old post for more information about our concern. Evolution is Free software. Let’s not turn into to Fee software. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Google, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenOffice, Windows at 5:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Office Open” is not open at all
Earlier on we mentioned Google's protest against OOXML. What is wrong with the following article however?
Open Office XML Booed By Google
Google hates OpenOffice?!?!?!?!?!
“Most people still think of Microsoft as the brain behind window-based interfaces (mind the quote at the bottom).”Of course not, but Microsoft vainly chose to confuse people by nicking the OpenOffice brand and putting its proprietary garbage in the same semantic territories, having already pressured OpenOffice to become OpenOffice.org.
The mistake is even repeated in the body of this new post, so it’s not just a slip or a typo. It’s confusion, misunderstanding even. And it’s not an isolated incident.
Remember that Microsoft not only sees itself as the owner of the literal “windows” (it tried to bully “x windows”), but it also attacked Lindows. Most people still think of Microsoft as the brain behind window-based interfaces (mind the quote at the bottom). We mentioned this only yesterday.
From now on, always goes by MOOX or OOXML. Don’t let Microsoft arrogantly ruin the good reputation of OpenOffice, which it insisted should be OpenOffice.org. █
“Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox’s store before I did and took the TV doesn’t mean I can’t go in later and steal the stereo.”
–Bill Gates (Microsoft’s CEO at the time)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents at 1:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Ripple Effect of Business Method Patents
There has been a lot of discussion recently due to the case which revolves around business methods. There is hope is that a responsible reform addressing the issue will knock down software patents as well. Have a look at this new article from BusinessWeek.
A case before an appeals court could make it harder to win legal protection for business methods
Forbes Magazine, as obedient as ever to its business roots and motives, presents the view which favours monetisation at the expense of innovation.
Successful free enterprise requires an effective system of property ownership rights. Economists like Hernando de Soto believe that such rights are the underpinning of capitalism and explain how for decades America’s strong patent system has fostered economic growth and innovation in the face of intensifying international competition. Although many factory jobs have moved overseas, knowledge workers have enjoyed improved living standards in the United States.
That picture will change for the worse if the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S.1145), now being considered by the Senate, is enacted in its present form. This bill, together with two recent patent-unfriendly Supreme Court rulings, represents one of the worst assaults on intellectual property protection in the 218-year history of our patent system.
[...]
Joe Kiani is the founder and CEO of Irvine, Calif.-based Masimo.
For another more visual perspective (a video), there is this recent one. The “knowledge worker” monopoly is spurring great debate. When it crosses over to software, this means that people in poorer nations are hardly allow to program (or distribute their programs). What’s next? Will people not be permitted to practice mathematics, turning it into a luxury of only the affluent?
The Fight for Cost of Products
There is this excellent new article from Wired Magazine, which analyses some of the effects of modernisation (and digitisation).
Thanks to Gillette, the idea that you can make money by giving something away is no longer radical. But until recently, practically everything “free” was really just the result of what economists would call a cross-subsidy: You’d get one thing free if you bought another, or you’d get a product free only if you paid for a service.
Over the past decade, however, a different sort of free has emerged. The new model is based not on cross-subsidies — the shifting of costs from one product to another — but on the fact that the cost of products themselves is falling fast.
When all else fails, litigate?
Acacia Carries on Trolling with Junk Patents
Acacia, with roots in Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], shows us that its trolling continues, uninterrupted. Watch this recent Acacia settlement (read: ripoff) [Kudos to Doug Mentohl for the links]
Acacia Research Corporation ACTG announced today that its Mobile Traffic Systems Corporation subsidiary has settled patent litigation against Cobra Electronics Corporation that was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The licensed technology generally relates to systems and methods for transmitting, receiving and displaying traffic information on portable handheld and mobile devices. This technology is used to identify traffic congestion and can be used with in-vehicle navigation displays and portable handheld units such as cell phones and PDAs.
The patent is here.
United States Patent 5,497,148
Oliva March 5, 1996
Traffic information warning system
Assignee: Cobra Electronics Corporation (Chicago, IL)
Appl. No.: 08/297,969
Filed: August 30, 1994
Docket here. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, OSI at 12:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Who ‘gets’ it?
There is a bunch of reports out there about Linus Torvalds cautiously welcoming Microsoft’s Taxoperability Program, but there is the possibility that he misses a broader picture. To repeat a response to Asay from yesterday, consider the following comment from Michael Tiemann, President of the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
In my opinion, anything that Microsoft does that falls short of the published open source minimums is…sub-minimal. Torvalds is happy because his standards are lower–he cares more about himself than his community. But other people have higher standards–we also care about the community at least as much as we care for ourselves.
The words here are a little strong and Tiemann, who is most notably behind “Open Source”, seems to be embracing a Richard Stallman-like (GNU/FSF) stance, caring to ensure that software remains free and secure from software patents.
Torvalds’ view was somewhat surprising because he does in fact worry about software patents. Might he be missing the conditions secretly embedded in the Taxoperability Program (put more bluntly here) which pertain to patents. Moreover, is the OSI beginning to realise what Microsoft intends to do to open source? Watch this new pick from Groklaw:
07:52PM February 02/26/08, 2008
[PJ: Microsoft has come up with its own proprietary definition, if I may call it that, of Open Source projects. Here it is, found on the new Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers page of its website:
"To benefit from this promise, You must be a natural or legal person participating in the creation of software code for an open source project. An "open source project" is a software development project the resulting source code of which is freely distributed, modified, or copied pursuant to an open source license and is not commercially distributed by its participants. If You engage in the commercial distribution or importation of software derived from an open source project or if You make or use such software outside the scope of creating such software code, You do not benefit from this promise for such distribution or for these other activities."
Blech.] – Microsoft
Gatchev.info adds some personal analysis, calling it a “Divide and Conquer” Promise. [via LinuxToday]
here is a lot of discussion around the new Microsoft premise to offer freely documentation about its protocols and interfaces, and to not sue developers who use it to create code for non-commercial goals, even if they violate Microsoft patents. Some people think that this is done to avoid further pressure from the European Commission. It could be so – but there could be also a different rationale for it.
[...]
I would. Fair is fair… If only it wasn’t for one small detail: this way, they destroy the FOSS essence. Every FOSS license gives you the right to use and distribute the software in any way you like, commercial or not. If you are limited to non-commercial distribution only, this is not freedom anymore. And this is going to damage the positions of FOSS not only among the freedom pundits, but also (and maybe even more) among the ordinary users. That is – to marginalize FOSS.
It is possible that Linus Torvalds has not learned the full extent of Microsoft’s latest announcement. His response to this might be damaging to perception. Neither Red Hat nor the EU cared for Microsoft's promise, so why should the Linux kernel? █
Image from Wikimedia
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.25.08
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Interoperability, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, Red Hat at 9:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
…But the organisers have not realised this yet
The other day, the following amusing comic [image] got published. Have a quick look. It will only take 5 seconds of your time.
“Microsoft will give talks about its own definition of open source and why every FOSS developer should cozy up to Microsoft.”On dozens of occasions before and upon the appearance of new events of this type we showed how Microsoft infiltrates and sometimes virtually “hijacks” (to use the wording of actual attendants) open source and Linux events (recent example here). The story is far from new and the strategies recur to the point where they become boring.
To give only the gist of it, a poor bunch of people (not necessarily poor, but it fits this storyline nicely) want to set up a FOSS-related event and Microsoft comes with a big pile of cash, offering to be a sponsor. This more or less comes with the condition that Microsoft can strut about and brag about its sponsorship (“look! Microsoft ‘loves’ open source”). It will also attend the event and even become part of its agenda. In the event, Microsoft will give talks about its own definition of open source and why every FOSS developer should cozy up to Microsoft.
OSBC is no exception. It’s the de facto open source business conference and despite the fact that Microsoft was rightly rejected by the Open Solutions Alliance, it is once again invited to OSBC. To make matters worse, its role seems to be greater. Watch this nugget of information:
With Red Hat opening the conference and Microsoft’s Brad Smith giving the evening keynote (with many IT executives in between), it promises to be a killer show.
That’s right! It is a keynote from one of “intellectual property’s best friends”, as well as the man who intimidates businesses that use Linux to the point where they pay 'protection money' and then keep it secret.
“Brad Smith and Steve Ballmer opine that for the use of APIs one must pay Microsoft some money, based on some fee Microsoft decided to charge.”“Killer” is the right word to use when Asay says “killer show”. They are killing the spirit of open source, one small step at a time. Remind yourself of what Brad Smith said only days ago. Go ahead and watch. Brad Smith and Steve Ballmer opine that for the use of APIs one must pay Microsoft some money, based on some fee Microsoft decided to charge. That’s just Microsoft’s hilarious idea of ‘openness’ and here it is delivering a keynote.
OSBC, count out the Free software folks. Last year when Novell and Microsoft stood there shoulder by shoulder doing their thing, reactions were telling. It seems to have gotten only worse since then.
Asay also explains his decision to advise Microsoft (we spoke about this yesterday). Watch the first comment from Andrew, whom I happen to know from some Web forums:
I have no doubts about your integrity or your intentions – but, unlike you, I don’t trust Miscrosoft (or, indeed, most large corporations), all of whom are much more (and much less) than the sum of the human beings who are involved.
Microsoft’s approach is basically dishonest – declaring love for interoperability, coupled with weasel words (“We won’t sue anyone who uses it for non-commercial purposes”).
Be careful, watch your back, and in the words of the average Trojan – “Beware Of Greeks Bearing Gifts” (no offense intended to modern Greeks!).
Meanwhile, the following article emerged which talks about Microsoft’s financial side-effects (hint: none) as a result of the availability of more APIs.
Speaking to reporters, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said the impact from the decision to forgo certain trade secret license fees, to foster interoperability between its products and competitors’ products, will be small in the scheme of the company’s overall revenue.
Here is a thought. It’s a case of taxing rivals instead of locking them out, making them all abide by Microsoft’s non-standards (for a fee). Who would possibly fall for the scam?
This happens to be a good place to return to our discussions about Mono (see the recent Monopendencies Monalysis of Fedora). Microsoft intends to charge money for use of its technologies. It even involves things like simple programming interfaces. Patents are not the main issue when there is a complete loss of independence and departure of the spirit, but that’s another story.
There is some more good analysis and summary of the Mono issue, in case you are interested in a second perspective. To quote a portion of interest:
As a final note, it would be nice if the new Fedora Project Leader would make a public statement on Mono. Heck, Max could too know whether Red Hat is not shipping Mono with RHEL because of patents, because it’s wrong to do it, because they don’t want to support it, or because they don’t support it yet.
All in all, the takeaway is that unless you remain what Microsoft and Novell consider ‘hobbyist’, then the use of Mono is not likely to remain free (as in free beer). That’s the ambition anyway. It’s rather repulsive that OBSC is now making room to the very same people who want to make it a reality, as though they give validity by an invitation to occupy a keynote slot. What were they thinking? It’s probably worth exploring to see if Microsoft is a major sponsor of the event.
OSBC, have fun with Microsoft. You hopefully have enough cash to pay for protocols. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in DRM, Finance, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, GPL, Kernel, Microsoft, Samba at 4:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
While Microsoft and its various proxies, including secretly-hired academics and lobbying arms (CompTIA, ACT, etc.), are on an aggressive crusade against GPLv3, the very same arguments which they try to use as a weapon against GPLv3 are actually a desirable trait. But it does not quite stop there. The GPLv3 is being characterised by Microsoft too strict, but then again Microsoft has always hated (read: feared) the GNU GPL, so it’s bound to find any excuse that suits it.
According to the father of Samba, the GPLv3 hasn’t a weakness which is being too strict. Quite the contrary in fact. Andrew “Tridge” Tridgell wants the GPL to become more restrictive and go harder against DRM — a sentiment that surely Linus Torvalds can subscribe to. In fact, a couple of weeks ago in Australia, Torvalds expressed on numerous occasions his disdain of DRM.
From the new article:
“Some people complain a lot about the anti-DRM provisions, and I would have liked to see those actually be even stronger than they are. Because currently they’ve got some limitations in there that limits some of the anti-DRM provisions of GPLv3 to only being applicable to consumer products. Which means it leaves out, for example, some Samba appliances.
“I’d like to see a future version of the GPL perhaps going a little bit stronger than that and applying it to the non-consumer/enterprise appliances as well” said Tridgell.
We received some mail from Palamida, which is probably one of GPLv3′s best friends in the sense that it ushers its increasing adoption and hands over an invaluable advocacy tool. Someone from the company asked us to address a particular topic:
“Sometime it’d be great to hear your recipe for open source coupled with capitalism, or whether you feel there IS a place for open source in a profit making business (because we’re finding that open source code makes up 50% of code in ALL apps).”
It’s probably important to distinguish between Open Source (in the OSI sense) and Free software (in the GPL sense). To address this question, if in capitalism your capita is physical (i.e. not something intangible like knowledge), then things are simple. They used to be simple.
“Consider Tim Berners-Lee’s motives for creating an open pool of information and ask yourself whether money is ever made on the Web.”Then, as we advanced, the man-made ambition was to (re)define ownership of information, of folklore, rather than to commoditise it. Open Source is a more reciprocal process that revolves around the assumption that information can be exchanged easily and bring benefit to everybody.
Consider Tim Berners-Lee’s motives for creating an open pool of information and ask yourself whether money is ever made on the Web. The problem may emerge when people refuse to give back, to make returns (patches, money, advice). And that’s completely separate from the issues of censorship and net neutrality (tiering and classes).
The transition in transportation means that physical containments of information (such as shrink-wrapped software) are no longer needed. This makes it an unnecessary barrier. It is really a philosophical question that hardly fits this Web site, but it seems to related to the issues that we find with software patents. In the case of Microsoft, not only does it insist on maintaining copyrights of code (which is perfectly acceptable), but it wishes to also own methods (never mind the actual implementation) and protocols, i.e. communication at the end points. That’s what last Thursday’s racketeering announcement was all about.
So, the short answer to that question is that open source is not incompatible with capitalism. That is just a Microsoft smear repeated over and over and over again (repetition does not make validity). Seeking to make profits by hindering communication, however, is a sin. The founding fathers of the United States saw the need to share ideas and something so organic simply must not be owned by an individual. If lobbyists that are paid to further promote greed actually achieve something in Congress, it does not mean they are correct. After all, these are man-made laws.
There is no such thing as an “intellectual property”. Let’s call it what it is: "intellectual monopoly". It’s a fence. Development (so-called innovation) and profit can be sustained and even thrive without intellectual monopolies. No monopoly has ever done any good to progress. Progress is not to be judged only by currencies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Antitrust, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Open XML at 3:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It has only been weeks since the last antitrust investigation was launched to study Microsoft's abuses. It was Microsoft’s abuses of ISO in Europe in particular that got the wrath of Vinje et al. He also studies Silverlight, which is seen as an offensive new technology that is scarcely understood. For more information, see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
As we indicated in recent digests of news, Yahoo has a proxy war going on against it. That is just how far Microsoft is willing to go and this war seems to have already begun based on the fact that Yahoo was sued by some shareholders. The news came from Associated Press over the weekend and it’s hardly surprising. [cre 2004 Lawsuits by proxy is one of Microsoft's proven masteries].
At the moment, Congresswoman Lofgren starts speaking about an antitrust to-be over Microsoft’s aggressive wooing (some would say “violent rape”) of Yahoo.
Signs that the deal would face scrutiny are already apparent. For example, Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of a Senate antitrust panel, has said that his subcommittee expects to hold hearings on implications of the deal should Yahoo accept Microsoft’s offer.
“To Microsoft, ownership of Yahoo would mean a great deal of ownership of Web space, assets and properties, through which is can spread Silverlight.”This article concentrates on privacy implications, but let’s not forget that Microsoft wants to render (X)HTML obsolete and replace all that openness with proprietary Microsoft software that goes by the pacifying name Silverlight. To Google, which relies on its ability to index information which is stored in open formats (notably HTML) this is more than just disturbing. Google’s co-founder called it "unnerving" the other day.
To Microsoft, ownership of Yahoo would mean a great deal of ownership of Web space, assets and properties, through which is can spread Silverlight. It is a response to LAMP and Ajax in particular, not just Adobe Flash which is bad also. Remember the recent dumping of lockinware. There is a strong push for Silverlight. With Yahoo, Microsoft can do a lot of damage. I wrote about it in this article which made the front page of Slashdot at the time.
Last night in Groklaw, a new interview was published. Tristan Nitot of Mozilla spoke about Silverlight, but only briefly.
Q: Now, tell me, is support for Microsoft Silverlight coming to Firefox anytime soon? Why or why not?
Tristan Nitot: [laughter] Oh, my God. Ah…. That’s a good one. (laughter) It’s very, very unlikely that Firefox will support Silverlight anytime soon. At least if I’m alive. [laughter]
This is not the first time that Tristan Nitot expresses concerns over Silverlight. We wrote more extensively about his views in the past.
Yesterday we mentioned an article from Brian, editor of LinuxToday. It makes it clearer that people begin to see the Big Stack and OOXML’s role within its context. it’s a big issue for FOSS. Huge issue even, but let it not incite panic because regulators both the United States and Europe took notice of Silverlight’s dark plans, among other things.
Come to consider other accompanying and inter-integrated components like SharePoint, Exchange Server, XPS, HD, OOXML, and XAML (Silverlight). Call it Lockin 2.0. The open fabric of the Web is at risk due to the recent Silverlight deal with the Library of Congress, which isn’t quite far from what you already find in the British Library. The dishonest BBC seems to have considered it too at one stage. Speak out now. Intercept Silverlight before it’s widespread. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA