Summary: Analysis of the ways in which Microsoft rules out Free software, hoping that by means of illusion it will simply go away

WE were not pleased with the European Commission's decision regarding Microsoft. It is all being done in a rush, and thus it's done poorly. It's very typical. Glyn Moody, who is familiar with these matters, has gotten around to looking at the details and he comments on the fact that Microsoft had the Commission approve discrimination of Free software.

Now, the phrase “compatible with Open Source Licenses” is pretty vague. Does that include the GNU GPL, for instance? If it doesn't, it's a weak undertaking, but if it does, it could be significant. Similarly, what exactly “nominal upfront fee” means, and whether it is per project and truly negligible, are questions that will need to be answered before that undertaking can be judged.

As Groklaw correctly pointed out, what are these payments for anyway? Software patents are illegal in Europe. The Commission is being bamboozled here, again.

Moody also points out that Microsoft is lying about the growing market share of Free software.

Er, what, like the browser sector, where Firefox now has nearly 24% market share worldwide, and Microsoft's share is decreasing? Or Apache's 54% in the Web server world, where Microsoft's share is decreasing? Or GNU/Linux's 88% market share of the top 500 supercomputers in the world, where Microsoft's share is static?

It is typical for Microsoft to do this. By belittling the impact of Free software, Microsoft hopes that it will convince developers, manufacturers and shops to steer away from supporting GNU/Linux, for example. In the case of the Commission, if Microsoft can convince regulators that Free software is a negligible factor, then a settlement can rule out any degree of season. ⬆

"It’s nice for you to admit your guys are running scared [of Free software]. They should be."

--The sum of Microsoft’s fears