Microsft claims Linux is 'anti-commercial'

Feast your eyes on this:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39238443,00.htm

and weep for the poor, hard-done-by, would-be monopolist that sees these
awful people that don't think making more money for big corporations is
the most important thing in their lives and are raining on the Microsoft
parade.

Now watch as Microsoft tries to manipulate lawmakers to regulate open
source software out of contest for public use - see how they've behaved
in Massachusetts over the state's decision to use Open Document format
for the public archive.

They'll be at it here soon, if past experience is anything to go by.
After all, why should a government use a public, open and free format
for documents that leaves open the choice of software product for
reading and writing software, when they could commit to a regular
programme of costly annual licensing for a proprietary product that
deliberately differs in one tiny but awfully important detail from
everything else - and that detail has been patented and is a Great Big
Secret.

And how long before they latch on to some demented Orrin Hatch of a US
Congressman to try to get Open Source outlawed as a threat to the
American way of life?

And how long before a future NZ government, pursuing the bubble of a
free trade agreement with the USA, agrees to change our patent and
copyright laws to be closer to the dreadful American model - just like
the Australians have done?

Linux isn't actually 'anti-commercial' but it is part of a different
approach to provision of software product that liberates users from
dependence on a single supplier.

Microsoft has built its business model first on ubiquity - the original
IBM PC deal meant a Microsoft OS was what came with the box - and second
on trying to own the protocols by talking public but acting private.
Look at the mess that is Internet Explorer, look at Active-X, look at
Windows Media - all of them closed, proprietary and patented and
designed to lock out any competition.

Look at the horrors of Windows Vista and the built-in DRM that will stop
you enjoying content you've legally bought and paid for if you commit
the heinous crime of buying it in the wrong country - and may well
refuse to show it anyway on your choice of screen that you've legally
bought.

How much ownership should any one company be allowed to have?

Looks like time to defenestrate - as fast as we can.

Philip

 

Yeah,.....but in the US, if you're "anti-commercial", you're a defacto
communist.

Worth bearing in mind should they begin passing laws effectively outlawing
things like the GPL.

 

Keep in perspective that the U.S. is one country, albeit a rich and
powerful one, and there is a lot of Europe and Asia out there.
IBM could put all of Microsoft's assets into it's cafeteria fund, and
they are not putting all their eggs into the proprietary basket.

cheers
BrianM

 

the GPL.

Just to clarify -- A service contract is proprietary in exactly the
same sense that a license is. For the life of that contract (or
license), no party has options. So, for instance, when IBM contracts
with Company X to develop and maintain some software, all other
developers are excluded from the project and Company X is obliged to
respect that. Any open-source code that's written will be freely
available, but it's just code. You're free to fiddle with it if you
want. But the real information you need to do anything useful --
knowledge of Company X's business processes and how those pieces of
open-source code fit together with all the proprietary code in the
system -- is locked up in the contract. You can't get it and Company X
can't give it out to you.

 

In the New Zealand context any such law could very badly backfire on
commercial interests. The law needs to state its purpose and the Courts
are obliged to interpret legislation "in the light of its purpose". It
could also backfire on authors, artists, composers etc, the principal
people whom copyright law is supposed to protect.

At face value, an anti GPL law would also most probably allow that British
security company to use a tattooed Maori person's face in its
advertisements.

 

It's only locked up if that's how the contract is written. There is no
requirement that service contracts or contracts to write code result in a
closed, inviolable system that neither party can open.
A growing number of companies that make their money from supporting OSS
have clauses in their contracts that force all code to be released under
the GPL or another "free" licence. Those requirements are in effect the
moment the code is written not just when copyright expires (which will
currently be never in the US) and the code passes into the public domain.

 

What required in any contract is a function of the business
relationship, and in part that depends on which party is stronger. So
yes, if Company X is the stronger partner, it could demand a very
open-ended contract in the which the developer carries most of the
risk. However, if IBM is the developer, then that sort of relationship
is very unlikely. IBM will almost certainly close every loophole in
order to ensure that it retains exclusive control of the
development/maintainence process. It might choose to out-source some
development work to others, but that too would be on terms most
favorable to IBM.

Releasing code under the GPL doesn't eliminate the issue of
proprietary ownership. Code is just code. You might read it and think,
"That's a clever idea I can use elsewhere", or "I can do this better",
or whatever. But as I said, what makes a service contract valuable is
not the code itself (most of which is probably stock-standard,
borrowed from someone else, and not very interesting at all) but
knowledge about the business process and all the proprietary and
non-proprietary software linkages involved. If this weren't the case,
there would be no future for any OSS developer.

My point is simply this -- whether you trade in service contracts or
software licenses, you are trading in proprietary rights. I fail to
see the distinction in terms of "fairness' that is sometimes attached
to one or the other.

 

I dont know how they can overturn the GPL, because in effect its
copyright....so having one piece of software un-copyrightable but
another copyrightable is plain silly...mind you that wont stop the beast
from trying.....US Senators have deep pockets and MS is prepared to fill
them, once passed in the US such laws have a habit of suffusing
abroad....Lets not forget that a "free trade" agreement with the USA
means they can rape us as much as they want but we still have to say
please....

I dont think the big battle will be the GPL but the "open standards" and
"open formats" MS is fighting this tooth and nail....

Good thing about the Internet is it is a pretty public fight, in PR
terms it is doing itself huge damage IMHO.

regards

Thing

 

I thought that the GPL was designed to prevent lock-in like you've
described above.

All software based on any other GPL'd software, must be released under the
same GPL, and the source code must be supplied and made available.


Undeniably Sluttish

 

What is proprietary about a service contract to clean/maintain toilets for
a client?

And how would that differ from a service contract to maintain software for
a client?

Surely, in both cases the client is the one calling the shots. If the
client wanted to take their business to another contractor, then they are
perfectly free and able to do so.

And surely the contractor would not be free to use any information given
by the client to the contractor, in order for the contractor to meet their
contracted obligations, for any other lawful or legitimate purpose.


Undeniably Sluttish

 

"must be supplied OR made available."

Fran

 

Odd choice for a comparison, but ok. The terms of the contract would
probably include the right of the cleaning company to choose its own
cleaners (subject maybe to a security clearance and/or drug screen)
and cleaning supplies (subject maybe to some health code), and the
right of the client to choose the cleaning schedule.

Depends on who the client is, who is contracting to do the service,
and the nature of the software project. There would be plenty of of
projects, I suppose, that aren't much more complicated than cleaning
toilets, in which case the client would have many potential vendors to
choose from and so would have most of the leverage. In other cases,
the specifications of the project are so demanding that a client is
going to have to select a vendor from a very short list. I assume that
IBM, for instance, doesn't get many calls to do toilet cleaning -- it
targets the high end of the market and so the prorpeitary rights it
can leverage are going to be much greater.

In the abstract, of course. But that assumes a market in which all
developers are equal -- the market for toilet-cleaning projects would
probably fit this model, but for anything more demanding that's
plainly not how things work. The specifications of the project limit
the range of vendors to those with the capacity to meet those
specifications. And within that framework, terms of cost and control
are all subject to negotiation. Clients and contractors alike are then
only "free" to do what they've agreed to do.

Surely not. But you miss the point. Developing and maintaining
software for a client first and foremost involves acquiring knowledge
of a company's business processes and its people. Coding can be farmed
out to anyone with the appropriate qualifications, but no client wants
to be going through the same costly process of developing a business
relationship with a developer every time they need something new.
That's the leverage that service-oriented companies like IBM have.
Their formal proprietary rights will vary from project to project,
depending on the the amount of non-GPL-related software, and all the
customized linkages, that are built into the project. This could be a
lot or a little. But in any case they certainly own the
client-specific knowledge they've acquired in the process, and that is
likely over time to become the most valuable asset they bring to
contract negotiations. Clients are not literally "locked in" to an IBM
service contract for all time, any more than they would be "locked in"
to a Microsoft license. If the service/product can't, or doesn't for
some reason, deliver the goods then the client will look elsewhere
once the contract/license has expired. But their is a very strong
incentive in either case to stick with the arrangement in which you
have already made a substantial investment. Microsoft knows this, IBM
knows this, and so do the clients if they're smart.

 

IIRC, you can grab the software for free, and add your own bits and then
pass it on, making your own bits a pay for product and not GPL. You can
therefore make available the source for the initial part you got for free
but your own stuff you can keep and not let go.

PAM.

 

IOW, there is no difference.

X company contracted to do work for Y company does so on terms mutually
agreed.

And if Y company wants to have their software released under the GPL then
they have every right to have that in the contract.

If Y company wants to own the copyright of the software then they have
every right to have that in the contract.

X company works to the terms of the contract, unless X company wants to
be sued for breech of contract.

The complexity of the task is irrelevant. The contract governing the work
done for the client *is* relevant.

The contractor has no relevant proprietary rights. The contract is the
only thing that is relevant. And if the client wants the software
developed and released under the GPL or LGPL, then the client has the
right to specify. Likewise, a developer has the right to negotiate what
sort of licence the software would be released under.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune."

Possibly at question are the proprietary rights of the organisation
contracting to have the software developed.


Undeniably Sluttish

 

All things are subject to negotiation if a developer wants the work.

This is what is called "competition in the marketplace."

Micro$oft is a different situation. Micro$oft does not compete on merit.
It bribes and cajoles and forces and lobbies and tilts the "playing field"
to make it impossible for others to play fair and win.


Undeniably Sluttish

 

Unless you're a state government seeking to use open and free standards
and formats, in which case your contractor will force you to take its
software - even if that software does not support your published
requirements; and then your contractor will bribe corrupt politicians and
change your circumstances so that you cannot ever again consider software
by any other contractor.


Undeniably Sluttish

 

"must be supplied AND made available."

To supply it is to make it available.

!!


Undeniably Sluttish

 

No. All software with any GPL'd code (even one line) must be released in
it's totality under the GPL, without exception.

The sort of licence that works similar to how you say is the BSD licence,
only you don't even have to release the source code - you can just take
BSD licenced code and use it how you wish, so long are the orignal
copyright atributions remain in the source code, and then release the
finished product under any licence you choose.


Undeniably Sluttish

 

Not true.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it."
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program."

<SNIP>

 

Sure. But whether Y company actually wants to do that depends on
whether they think the advantages in opening up the market for service
on a piece of software outweigh the disadvanatges in revealing to the
world aspects of how they conduct their business. In the real world,
this is not the cut-and-dry issue you make it out to be. Most "OSS"
projects end up being hybrids, with a mix of proprietary and
non-proprietary programs knitted together.

You forget the part where contracts are negotiated. At that stage,
complexity, competence, and all the issues concerning proprietary
rights are up for grabs.

Just what we need to clarify this discussion, cliches. You try calling
IBM to develop a piece of software for you, with all the sort of
requirements you've been referring to. Be sure to tell them you're the
piper. See how that works out.