Microsoft assisted the Russian authorities when they started suppressing dissent and when people found out about it, Microsoft Russia NGO spin started to flood the press. It was all PR [1, 2, 3] and a classic case of damage control. CNET's Microsoft spin blog adds to it with a report which paints Microsoft positively after the bad thing it did and it also neglects to say that gratis is not libre (dumping is not freedom, it's a suppressor of freedom, which is why Microsoft tolerates and sometimes encourages counterfeiting). From CNET:
A Russian court has dropped piracy charges against environmental group Baikal Wave due to drastic changes made to Microsoft's licensing program for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) back in October, according to The New York Times.
The question is: is MS interested in an OSS business model? The answer: we already give out things for free. Well, we can probably thank Richard Stallman for his insistence in the use of the word “free”, but the answer miss the mark substantially. OSS is not about having something for free, and it never was (at least, from the point of view of the researcher). OSS is about collaborative development; as evidenced in a recent post by Henrik Ingo, “The state of MySQL forks: co-operating without co-operating”, being open source allowed the creation of an ecosystem of companies that cooperate (while being more or less competitors) and not only this fact increases the viability of a product even as its main developer (in this case, Oracle) changes its plans, but allows for the integration of features that are coming from outside the company – as Henrik wrote, “HandlerSocket is in my opinion the greatest MySQL innovation since the addition of InnoDB – both developed outside of MySQL”.
Microsoft still uses the idea of “free” as a purely economic competition, while I see OSS as a way to allow for far faster development and improvement of a product. And, at least, I have some academic results that point out that, actually, a live and active project do improve faster than comparable proprietary projects. That’s the difference: not price, that may be lower or not, as RedHat demonstrates; it is competition on value and speed of change.
Microsoft’s (news, site) made an interesting offer this week that promises organizations currently using Salesforce.com CRM or Oracle's Seibel (CRM) US$ 200 per license to make the jump to Dynamics CRM Online. The question is, is $200 enough?
Comments
twitter
2010-12-08 18:13:07
Adrian Malacoda
2010-12-10 09:59:37
He seems like one of those Asay-type "open source business" guys, so of course he'd pinpoint the problem straight on wording like "free." The problem is that "open source" logically means something different than what OSI wanted it to; it gives the impression of "you can look at the code" (RMS said that in his essay about the phrase, and I've had to put up with people who try to label proprietary as open source using that definition). Microsoft's been having their way with that phrase too, by the way.
The wording does matter. Unfortunately, in this case, Daffara does have sort of a point - we traditionally consider that "things" are free-of-charge and that people are free-as-in-freedom, so it's difficult for "Joe Average" to wrap his head around the idea that software (which is a "thing") can possess "freedom." Which, of course, isn't really true. The software itself doesn't have freedom, the software grants the user that freedom. So "free software" is sort of a misnomer (although, given that we haven't come up with an alternative in 27 years, it's probably the best we'll be able to do in the English language. "Open source" doesn't count). Benjamin Mako Hill explains this in http://www.fsf.org/appeal/2009/mako/.
I put the blame squarely on whoever decided to introduce the word "liberty" into the English language without taking "libre"/"liber" along with it.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-12-10 11:40:36
Fortunately (in a tongue-in-cheek way), Apple and Microsoft help explain freedom to a lot people by showing to them what happens when freedom is taken away (DRM and kill switches for example). It's just that freedom is one of those things you can only define or demonstrate in its absence. Freedom is the lack of something (barriers), so explaining 'it' -- being an absence -- is like trying to provide proof to a theist that something does not exist.
twitter
2010-12-11 07:10:31
The only point that the "open source" movement has is that people are often afraid to talk about freedom and "politics". Businesses that are hierarchical and overbearing especially are not convinced by talk of freedom. For these kinds of people, the associated benefits of freedom are more appropriate to talk about. Peer review, efficiency, competition and all that are more convincing and useful to them. RMS described the problem with that:
He also says that the answer is to say "free software" more rather than less.
There is also a practical arguments against non free bait, such as Adobe Trash, on a free system - that any amount of non free software fundamentally compromises your privacy, security and freedom. By it's nature, it immediately restricts the user in the task it is designed to perform. It also opens the user up to keylogging and other problems the same way malware does. A computer with even a single piece of non free software is basically rooted.
The term "free software" was deliberately chosen to echo cold war rhetoric about the "free world" and the "non-free world". This was a point everyone at the time could identify with and understand. Non free software is centrally planned and controlled and puts restrictions on users that are in the best interest of the owner alone. Richard Stallman also compared software owners to Soviet officials who put a guard at every copy machine.