One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

[Miles Lane]

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2777283,00.html

(an excerpt)

Linux and open source

ZDNet -- Can you clarify Microsoft's position on Linux and open source? There
has been a lot written about it in the last week. What's Microsoft's objection
to open source and Linux? 

BillG -- I don't want to dwell on this. Craig Mundie (Microsoft's senior vice
president of advanced strategies) is the expert. There is this whole history
that free software is developed often in the academic environment, where
basically government money funded that work. And then commercial work is done.
TCP/IP came out of the university environment. Now, 90 percent of the
implementations you buy are commercially tuned and supported. And then the
companies that do that commercial work pay taxes, create jobs, so the
government keeps funding more research, primarily in universities. So that
ecosystem where you have free software and commercial software, and customers
always get to decide which they use, that's a very important and healthy
ecosystem. 

ZDNet -- How does the GPL (GNU General Public License) factor in? 

BillG -- There is a part of open source called GPL that breaks that
cycle--that is, it makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of
that work or build on any of that work. So what you saw with TCP/IP or (e-mail
technology) Sendmail or the browser could never happen. We believe there
should be free software and commercial software; there should be a rich
ecosystem that works around that. There are people who believe that commercial
software should not exist at all--that there should be no jobs or taxes around
commercial software at all. And that's a small group, but the GPL was created
with that goal in mind. 

And so people should understand the GPL. When people say open source they
often mean the GPL. When someone asks a question, "So what about open source?"
do they mean open source or do they mean the GPL? We believe in that ecosystem
and having the mix of free and commercial software. 

ZDNet -- What's your position on publishing source code?

BillG -- We have no objection to people publishing source codes. We do that
ourselves under certain terms. Some of our source codes are out there and very
available, like Windows CE. Some generally require a license, like Windows
itself. We have no objection to free software, which has been around forever.
But we do think there are problems for commercial users relative to the GPL,
and we are just making sure people understand the GPL. 

Unfortunately, that has been misconstrued in many ways. It's a topic that you
can leap on and say, "Microsoft doesn't make free software." Hey, we have free
software; the world will always have free software. I mean, if you
characterize it that way, that's not right. But if you say to people, "Do you
understand the GPL?" And they'll say, "Huh?" And they're pretty stunned when
the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them. 

ZDNet -- Does Microsoft plan to make more of its source code available to
customers? You already do that with Windows; do you plan to expand that in any
way to the applications?

BillG -- We keep making it easier and easier, and anything people want source
code for, we'll figure out a way to get it to them. It's kind of a strange
thing in a way because most commercial customers don't want to recompile
kernels or things like that. But they want to be able to know that things can
be supported. 

We have some very cool tools now where we don't have to ship you the source.
You can debug online, through the Internet. So it means you don't have to get
a bunch of CDs. If you really want it for debugging and patching things, we
can do that through the Internet. That's a real breakthrough in terms of
simple source access. I don't know that anyone has ever asked for the source
code for Word. If they did, we would give it to them. But it's not a typical
request. 

Re: One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

[Brent D. Norris]

> simple source access. I don't know that anyone has ever asked for the source
> code for Word. If they did, we would give it to them. But it's not a typical
> request.

So who wants to go ask for the source code to word then?  I mean we have
Bill's word that they will give it to us.

Brent Norris

Executive Advisor -- WKU-Linux

Re: One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

[Ben Ford]

Miles Lane wrote:

>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2777283,00.html
>
[ . . . ]

>
>BillG -- We keep making it easier and easier, and anything people want source
>code for, we'll figure out a way to get it to them. It's kind of a strange
>thing in a way because most commercial customers don't want to recompile
>kernels or things like that. But they want to be able to know that things can
>be supported. 
>
>We have some very cool tools now where we don't have to ship you the source.
>You can debug online, through the Internet. So it means you don't have to get
>a bunch of CDs. If you really want it for debugging and patching things, we
>can do that through the Internet. That's a real breakthrough in terms of
>simple source access. I don't know that anyone has ever asked for the source
>code for Word. If they did, we would give it to them. But it's not a typical
>request. 
>-
>

Hey, Bill, here's my address, can you ship me the full source to Word?

;)

-- 
:    __o
:   -\<,
:   0/ 0
-----------

[OT]Re: One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

[Gerhard Mack]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Ben Ford wrote:

> Miles Lane wrote:
> 
> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2777283,00.html
> >
> [ . . . ]
> 
> >
> >BillG -- We keep making it easier and easier, and anything people want source
> >code for, we'll figure out a way to get it to them. It's kind of a strange
> >thing in a way because most commercial customers don't want to recompile
> >kernels or things like that. But they want to be able to know that things can
> >be supported. 
> >
> >We have some very cool tools now where we don't have to ship you the source.
> >You can debug online, through the Internet. So it means you don't have to get
> >a bunch of CDs. If you really want it for debugging and patching things, we
> >can do that through the Internet. That's a real breakthrough in terms of
> >simple source access. I don't know that anyone has ever asked for the source
> >code for Word. If they did, we would give it to them. But it's not a typical
> >request. 
> >-
> >
> 
> Hey, Bill, here's my address, can you ship me the full source to Word?

Funny but by giving it to you they could really screw you when it comes to
opensource work.  If you think the GPL is viral you havn't seen "shared
source".. at least the GPL only applies to derived works.

	Gerhard



--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Re: [OT]Re: One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

[Miles Lane]

On 22 Jun 2001 20:45:14 -0700, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
> 
> > Miles Lane wrote:
> > 
> > >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2777283,00.html
> > >
> > [ . . . ]
> > 
> > Hey, Bill, here's my address, can you ship me the full source to Word?
> 
> Funny but by giving it to you they could really screw you when it comes to
> opensource work.  If you think the GPL is viral you havn't seen "shared
> source".. at least the GPL only applies to derived works.

Here's the kicker.  I went to Microsoft's site and tried to find
a copy of their Shared Software License or some approximation
thereof.  All I found was a bunch of Craig Mundie's blathering
and some critiques of the GPL:

   http://www.microsoft.com/business/licensing/sharedsource.asp

How can we evaluate if there is any point in asking BillG for
the Word source code if they won't even show us the blighted
license?  What I suspect is that there IS no "Shared Source
License."  And, even if there were, Microsoft doesn't want
anyone to see it because that would allow a direct comparison
with the GPL, LGPL and so on.  Heaven forbid that apples should
be compared to apples!

What they appear to have is a hodgepodge of different ways
of "sharing" source code.  Here's an excerpt from:

http://www.microsoft.com/BUSINESS/licensing/sscommitment.asp
--------------------------------------------------
Some examples of Shared Source already being implemented at Microsoft:

Research source licensing. For nearly a decade, Microsoft Research has
licensed Microsoft Windows source code to more than 100 academic
institutions in 23 countries. For more information, see Microsoft 
Research University Programs.  

Enterprise licensing program. Source code for Windows 2000 and
subsequent releases of Windows is available for licensing at no charge
to more than 1,000 enterprise customers in the United States. We also
have a pilot program expanding the ESLP to 12 additional countries. 

ISV source licensing. We are developing a program for licensing Windows
source code to top tier ISVs (independent software vendors) for
development and support purposes.  

OEM source licensing. Windows source code has been licensed for years to
leading OEMs to assist in the development and support of their consumer
and server products.  

Windows CE source code access. We are licensing Windows CE source code
through Platform Builder 3.0 (generally available to all developers).
Microsoft will be broadening and adding to the community support
mechanisms through the Platform Builder Program. In the second half of
this year we will offer academic site licenses for Windows CE source
code. 

Expanded level of Windows CE source access. Additionally, we have
announced an expanded level of Windows CE source access to, (i) our
leading silicon vendor partners via the Windows Embedded Strategic
Silicon Alliance program, and (ii) our leading system integrator
partners via the Innovation Alliance Program.  

Sample code. Over the years Microsoft has made millions of lines of
source code freely available to developers through resources such as
SDKs, DDKs, and MSDN. Check out the MSDN Online Code Center. 

.NET Framework submitted to ECMA standards body. We have announced that
the specifications for the .NET Framework have been submitted to the
ECMA standards body, enabling others to implement and evolve this
technology in a platform-independent manner so that it is can be rapidly
and widely adopted on an industry-side basis. For more information, see
ECMA Standardization. 

These Shared Source programs will be joined in the coming months by
programs covering additional products and technologies. The realization
of our .NET vision will rely heavily on the Shared Source philosophy. We
also plan to introduce a Shared Source license crafted to the needs of
our customers and partners in governments around the world. This
government source license will be similar in nature to the license we
offer our large enterprise customers today. Still in the works are new
source sharing ideas for our ISV partners as well.
----------------------------------

My interpretation of this excerpt is that Microsoft figures out
what rights it wants to allow each of these categories of 
developers/users and then incredibly restricts the freedom of
anyone who sees their code to change, port or use the code in
any way at all.  My impression is that they are happy to have
grad students look at the NT code, because they want really
smart people to get used to using NT all the time and then
graduate and go become Microsoft borgs.

What I imagine happens is that if you ask for source code, they 
decide whether they want to show it to you, then they make you 
sign away your life (such as freedom to work on any code vaguely 
like the code they're going to show you) and then they sue you 
into bankruptcy or out-of-court settlement if you breathe in a 
way they don't like.

I'd be happy if Bill and his merry band proved me wrong,
but I really doubt that'll happen.

	Miles

Re: [OT]Re: One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

[Miles Lane]

It would be great to see the "Shared Source" licenses that Microsoft has 
made people sign.  It would be especially interesting to compare the
agreements that were given to the various classes of licensees:
University Research Departments, ISVs, Enterprises and so on.
Then we'd be able to have a somewhat more balanced public discussion
of that includes the problems with Microsoft's licenses.

Perhaps some of you work or study at institutions or companies
that have copies of some iterations of the Microsoft licenses.
If so, perhaps you could post them on the web and send the URLs.

	Miles

Re: [OT]Re: One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source.

[Alexander Viro]

On 22 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:

> It would be great to see the "Shared Source" licenses that Microsoft has 
> made people sign.  It would be especially interesting to compare the

It would be great to see you learning WTF "offtopic" means and taking the
advocacy crap to the places where it belongs.