Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating-system chief, Jim Allchin, says that freely distributed software code such as rival Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need to understand the threat.The result will be the demise of both intellectual property rights and the incentive to spend on research and development, he said yesterday, after the company previewed its latest version of Windows. Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while discussing protection of intellectual property rights.
Open-source software is becoming big business these days -- Microsoft's gibbering fear is clear evidence of that. But originally, free software grew out of individual passion. Richard Stallman, who worked on the GNU project, and Linus Torvalds and the thousands of other developers who created Linux, did it not to make a buck, but because they wanted to. They were pursuing their own happiness without regard to revenue generation or market share.What could be more American than that?
And shame on Microsoft, for asking the government to bail it out of a situation in which it suddenly seems unable to compete.
Microsoft representatives told eWEEK Tuesday that Allchin was primarily concerned about the impact of the GNU General Public License, the widely used statement of open-source terms and conditions introduced 10 years ago by the Free Software Foundation Inc.
Microsoft Corp. on Thursday declared war on Linux and other alternative software that expose their basic instruction codes to public view, saying the "free software" movement poses a fundamental threat to commercial software and corporate intellectual property.In an address heralded as a major position statement at New York University, Craig Mundie, senior vice president of the Redmond, Washington-based software giant, sharply contrasted the open product development approach of rivals with the careful "shared source" partnering approach favored by Microsoft.
Mundie laced his speech with unbridled criticism of the so-called "open source software" movement, using language more in the spirit of a trash-talking sports star than the typically ambiguous, jargon-filled phrasings of a software executive.
Mundie's speech, heralded as a major position statement, blasted the open source movement using more forceful language than the typically ambiguous, jargon-filled phrasings of software industry executives.He described the open software movement as "flimsy," "flawed," jeopardizing property rights and threatening to undermine the software industry, a key economic growth engine.
His claim seem to focus on the assertion that research and development is founded on the principles of "the importance of intellectual property rights". Which is entirely ignoring the fact that pretty much all of modern science and technology is founded on very similar ideals as open source.When Mundie wants you to think about all the work that companies have done in order to get patents, he also wants you to forget about all the work done by people like Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, Leonardo da Vinci and a lot of other people who have done a lot more for humanity than most companies have ever done.
Firstly most of the great leaps of the computer age have happened despite rather than because of IPR. In fact before the Internet the proprietary network protocols divided customers, locked them into providers and forced them to exchange much of their data by tape.Craig also talks about standards. Standards are something Microsoft talks about a lot. As people who have attempted to work with Microsoft 'standards' can tell you they are selective at best. In their Halloween memo Microsoft talked about 'Embrace and Extend'. They are hard at work on this.'.NET' is an attempt to build a proprietary service network on top of an open Internet: in effect to lock customers into higher layers of the OSI seven layer model. Exchange supports Internet protocols like SMTP and IMAP. However many of the advanced features are mysteriously only available with Microsoft clients.
For the last few days, I've been having a lively e-mail debate with Tony Stanco, who has appeared in my column before and whom I consider to be one of the open source movement's better pure philosophers; he's pretty good at the 10,000-foot view of things. His latest analysis thoughtfully details how Microsoft's battle is not just against programmers and companies, but against an entire social upheaval that threatens the company more than any conventional competitor...It's also extremely telling to see Microsoft standing alone in its corporate condemnation of open source. It wasn't too long ago that Microsoft would send its messages through corporate partners and through friends in analyst and media circles. Such surrogates are notably absent in this current debate.
A Microsoft effort to vilify Linux and other "open source" software appears to be backfiring, with the campaign drawing criticism from legal experts as well as unifying the movement's often-fractious group of leaders.The initiative has included speeches and statements in recent weeks by Microsoft officials, and reached a crescendo of sorts in a recent Chicago Sun-Times interview with Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, in which he called Linux "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual-property sense to everything it touches." ...
The Redmond, Wash., company appears to be fighting an uphill battle, since open-source code has become important for a growing number of companies...
Mundie said he didn't have any concrete examples of companies actually being harmed by open source. He conceded that some companies might indeed be able to use Linux and not risk their other intellectual property, but said doing so would require "an army of lawyers" because of the complexity of the GPL. He also said it was too early to conclude that using Linux was entirely safe for companies, since many of the issues haven't been tried in a courtroom.
Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
The license of the second beta version of Microsoft's Mobile Internet Toolkit--software used so programmers can create server software to connect with handheld computers over the Internet--prohibits customers from using the Microsoft software in conjunction with "potentially viral software." (Read an excerpt here)In describing this category of software, Microsoft includes the most common licenses used for publishing open-source software, such as the Linux operating system. Licenses specifically excluded by Microsoft include the General Public License, the Lesser General Public License, the Mozilla Public License and the Sun Industry Standards License.
Craig Mundie,One of our readers commented to me that you are not debating me - you don't respond directly to my posts at all. Please be aware that this is a debate, that both of us are members of the panel, and that you should at least make the attempt to refute my points.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
"Microsoft is trying to shore up its defenses as the tide is coming in," Adam Jollans, marketing manager for IBM Software for Linux in the European region. "They're trying to stop the tide, but the tide comes in whether you want it to or not."...
Andy Hoiles, IBM's Linux business manager for IBM's European Enterprise Systems Group, believes Microsoft's anti-open source, pro-.Net strategy is the arrogance of a company that has succeeded in conquering markets more often than it has failed. "We had that arrogance a few years ago," he said. "Then we nearly went out of business. You learn from that."
