Hitskin.com
by DISKUSION *MICROSOFT and LINUX*
Hi All...
Microsoft's
need added source code hyper-v [hyper-shag me in better running under a
virtual system in the Windows environment] for inclusion in the Linux
kernel. I will always be recalled that Microsoft fought with the
opensource community, GPL, GPLv2, and Linux as its competitors. It
looks like this times change but the discussion is what Microsoft doing
this is very much what do you think?
here is brief by linux team:
FREE SOFTWARE LEADERS STAND TOGETHER
The
Craig Mundie speech is old news by now, so hopefully this is the last
word. A number of the free software evangelists, in informal
discussion, felt that the proper response to Microsoft would be to
stand together. Mundie's speech shows that Microsoft's strategy is to
keep us divided and attack us one at a time, until all are gone. Thus,
their emphasis on the GPL this time. While we didn't try to represent
every group and project, many major voices of Open Source and Free
Software have signed this message. We took a while, because we're not
used to this, but we'll be better next time. So, please note the
signatures at the bottom of this message - we will stand together, and
defend each other.
Bruce Perens
We note a new
triumph for Open Source and Free Software: we have become so serious a
competitor to Microsoft that their executives publicly announce their
fear. However, the only threat that we present to Microsoft is the end
of monopoly practices. Microsoft is welcome to participate as an equal
partner, a role held today by entities ranging from individuals to
transnational corporations like IBM and HP. Equality, however, isn't
what Microsoft is looking for. Thus, they have announced Shared Source,
a system that could be summarized as Look but don't touch - and we
control everything.
Microsoft deceptively compares Open Source
to failed dot-com business models. Perhaps they misunderstand the term
Free Software. Remember that Free refers to liberty, not price. The
dot-coms gave away goods and services as loss-leaders, in unsuccessful
efforts to build their market share. In contrast, the business model of
Open Source is to reduce the cost of software development and
maintenance by distributing it among many collaborators.
The
success of the Open Source model arises from copyright holders relaxing
their control in exchange for more and better collaboration. Developers
allow their software to be freely redistributed and modified, asking
only for the same privileges in return.
There is much software
that is essential to a business, but which does not differentiate that
business from its competitors. Even companies that have not fully
embraced the Open Source model can justify collaboration on Free
Software projects for this non-differentiating software, because of the
money they will save. And such collaborations are often overwhelmingly
successful: for example, the project that produces the market-leading
Apache web server was started by a group of users who agreed to share
the work of maintaining a piece of software that each of their
businesses depended on.
The efficiency of this cooperation is in
the best interests of the user. But Free Software is also directly in
the user's interest, because it means that the users control the
software they use. When they do business with Open Source vendors, the
vendors do not dominate them.
With very little funding, the
GNU/Linux system has become a significant player in many major markets,
from Internet servers to embedded devices. Our GUI desktop projects
have astounded the software industry by going from zero to being
comparable with or superior to others in only 4 years. Workstation
manufacturers like Sun and HP have selected our desktops to replace
their own consortium projects, because our work was better. An entire
industry has been built around Free Software, and is growing rapidly
despite an unfavorable market. The success of software companies like
Red Hat, and the benefits to vendors such as Dell and IBM, demonstrate
that Free Software is not at all incompatible with business.
The
Free Software license singled out for abuse by Microsoft is the GNU
General Public License, or GNU GPL. This license is the computer
equivalent of share and share alike. But this does not mean, as
Microsoft claims, that a company using these programs is legally
obliged to make all its software and data free. We make all GPL
software available in source form for incorporation as a building block
in new programs. This is the secret of how we have been able to create
so much good software, so quickly.
If you do choose to
incorporate GPL code into a program, you will be required to make the
entire program Free Software. This is a fair exchange of our code for
yours, and one that will continue as you reap the benefit of
improvements contributed by the community. However, the legal
requirements of the GPL apply only to programs which incorporate some
of the GPL-covered code - not to other programs on the same system, and
not to the data files that the programs operate upon.
Although
Microsoft raises the issue of GPL violations, that is a classic red
herring. Many more people find themselves in violation of Microsoft
licenses, because Microsoft doesn't allow copying, modification, and
redistribution as the GPL does. Microsoft license violations have
resulted in civil suits and imprisonment. Accidental GPL violations are
easily remedied, and rarely get to court.
It's the share and
share alike feature of the GPL that intimidates Microsoft, because it
defeats their Embrace and Extend strategy. Microsoft tries to retain
control of the market by taking the result of open projects and
standards, and adding incompatible Microsoft-only features in
closed-source. Adding an incompatible feature to a server, for example,
then requires a similarly-incompatible client, which forces users to
"upgrade". Microsoft uses this deliberate-incompatibility strategy to
force its way through the marketplace. But if Microsoft were to attempt
to "embrace and extend" GPL software, they would be required to make
each incompatible "enhancement" public and available to its
competitors. Thus, the GPL threatens the strategy that Microsoft uses
to maintain its monopoly.
Microsoft claims that Free Software
fosters incompatible "code forking", but Microsoft is the real motor of
incompatibility: they deliberately make new versions incompatible with
old ones, to force users to purchase each upgrade. How many times have
users had to upgrade Office because the Word file format changed?
Microsoft claims that our software is insecure, but security experts
say you shouldn't trust anything but Free Software for critical
security functions. It is Microsoft's programs that are known for
snooping on users, vulnerability to viruses, and the possibility of
hidden "back doors".
Microsoft's Shared Source program
recognizes that there are many benefits to the openness, community
involvement, and innovation of the Open Source model. But the most
important component of that model, the one that makes all of the others
work, is freedom. By attacking the one license that is specifically
designed to fend off their customer and developer lock-in strategy,
they hope to get the benefits of Free Software without sharing those
benefits with those who participate in creating them.
We urge
Microsoft to go the rest of the way in embracing the Open Source
software development paradigm. Stop asking for one-way sharing, and
accept the responsibility to share and share alike that comes with the
benefits of Open Source. Acknowledge that it is compatible with
business.
Free Software is a great way to build a common
foundation of software that encourages innovation and fair competition.
Microsoft, it's time for you to join us.
Bruce Perens, Primary Author: The Open Source Definition
co-signers:
Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation.
Eric Raymond, Open Source Initiative.
Linus Torvalds, Creator of the Linux Kernel.
Miguel de Icaza, GNOME GUI Desktop Project.
Larry Wall, Creator of the Perl Language.
Guido van Rossum, Creator of the Python Language.
Tim O'Reilly, Publisher.
Bob Young, Co-Founder, Red Hat
Larry Augustin, CEO, VA Linux Systems
Hi All...
Microsoft's
need added source code hyper-v [hyper-shag me in better running under a
virtual system in the Windows environment] for inclusion in the Linux
kernel. I will always be recalled that Microsoft fought with the
opensource community, GPL, GPLv2, and Linux as its competitors. It
looks like this times change but the discussion is what Microsoft doing
this is very much what do you think?
here is brief by linux team:
FREE SOFTWARE LEADERS STAND TOGETHER
The
Craig Mundie speech is old news by now, so hopefully this is the last
word. A number of the free software evangelists, in informal
discussion, felt that the proper response to Microsoft would be to
stand together. Mundie's speech shows that Microsoft's strategy is to
keep us divided and attack us one at a time, until all are gone. Thus,
their emphasis on the GPL this time. While we didn't try to represent
every group and project, many major voices of Open Source and Free
Software have signed this message. We took a while, because we're not
used to this, but we'll be better next time. So, please note the
signatures at the bottom of this message - we will stand together, and
defend each other.
Bruce Perens
We note a new
triumph for Open Source and Free Software: we have become so serious a
competitor to Microsoft that their executives publicly announce their
fear. However, the only threat that we present to Microsoft is the end
of monopoly practices. Microsoft is welcome to participate as an equal
partner, a role held today by entities ranging from individuals to
transnational corporations like IBM and HP. Equality, however, isn't
what Microsoft is looking for. Thus, they have announced Shared Source,
a system that could be summarized as Look but don't touch - and we
control everything.
Microsoft deceptively compares Open Source
to failed dot-com business models. Perhaps they misunderstand the term
Free Software. Remember that Free refers to liberty, not price. The
dot-coms gave away goods and services as loss-leaders, in unsuccessful
efforts to build their market share. In contrast, the business model of
Open Source is to reduce the cost of software development and
maintenance by distributing it among many collaborators.
The
success of the Open Source model arises from copyright holders relaxing
their control in exchange for more and better collaboration. Developers
allow their software to be freely redistributed and modified, asking
only for the same privileges in return.
There is much software
that is essential to a business, but which does not differentiate that
business from its competitors. Even companies that have not fully
embraced the Open Source model can justify collaboration on Free
Software projects for this non-differentiating software, because of the
money they will save. And such collaborations are often overwhelmingly
successful: for example, the project that produces the market-leading
Apache web server was started by a group of users who agreed to share
the work of maintaining a piece of software that each of their
businesses depended on.
The efficiency of this cooperation is in
the best interests of the user. But Free Software is also directly in
the user's interest, because it means that the users control the
software they use. When they do business with Open Source vendors, the
vendors do not dominate them.
With very little funding, the
GNU/Linux system has become a significant player in many major markets,
from Internet servers to embedded devices. Our GUI desktop projects
have astounded the software industry by going from zero to being
comparable with or superior to others in only 4 years. Workstation
manufacturers like Sun and HP have selected our desktops to replace
their own consortium projects, because our work was better. An entire
industry has been built around Free Software, and is growing rapidly
despite an unfavorable market. The success of software companies like
Red Hat, and the benefits to vendors such as Dell and IBM, demonstrate
that Free Software is not at all incompatible with business.
The
Free Software license singled out for abuse by Microsoft is the GNU
General Public License, or GNU GPL. This license is the computer
equivalent of share and share alike. But this does not mean, as
Microsoft claims, that a company using these programs is legally
obliged to make all its software and data free. We make all GPL
software available in source form for incorporation as a building block
in new programs. This is the secret of how we have been able to create
so much good software, so quickly.
If you do choose to
incorporate GPL code into a program, you will be required to make the
entire program Free Software. This is a fair exchange of our code for
yours, and one that will continue as you reap the benefit of
improvements contributed by the community. However, the legal
requirements of the GPL apply only to programs which incorporate some
of the GPL-covered code - not to other programs on the same system, and
not to the data files that the programs operate upon.
Although
Microsoft raises the issue of GPL violations, that is a classic red
herring. Many more people find themselves in violation of Microsoft
licenses, because Microsoft doesn't allow copying, modification, and
redistribution as the GPL does. Microsoft license violations have
resulted in civil suits and imprisonment. Accidental GPL violations are
easily remedied, and rarely get to court.
It's the share and
share alike feature of the GPL that intimidates Microsoft, because it
defeats their Embrace and Extend strategy. Microsoft tries to retain
control of the market by taking the result of open projects and
standards, and adding incompatible Microsoft-only features in
closed-source. Adding an incompatible feature to a server, for example,
then requires a similarly-incompatible client, which forces users to
"upgrade". Microsoft uses this deliberate-incompatibility strategy to
force its way through the marketplace. But if Microsoft were to attempt
to "embrace and extend" GPL software, they would be required to make
each incompatible "enhancement" public and available to its
competitors. Thus, the GPL threatens the strategy that Microsoft uses
to maintain its monopoly.
Microsoft claims that Free Software
fosters incompatible "code forking", but Microsoft is the real motor of
incompatibility: they deliberately make new versions incompatible with
old ones, to force users to purchase each upgrade. How many times have
users had to upgrade Office because the Word file format changed?
Microsoft claims that our software is insecure, but security experts
say you shouldn't trust anything but Free Software for critical
security functions. It is Microsoft's programs that are known for
snooping on users, vulnerability to viruses, and the possibility of
hidden "back doors".
Microsoft's Shared Source program
recognizes that there are many benefits to the openness, community
involvement, and innovation of the Open Source model. But the most
important component of that model, the one that makes all of the others
work, is freedom. By attacking the one license that is specifically
designed to fend off their customer and developer lock-in strategy,
they hope to get the benefits of Free Software without sharing those
benefits with those who participate in creating them.
We urge
Microsoft to go the rest of the way in embracing the Open Source
software development paradigm. Stop asking for one-way sharing, and
accept the responsibility to share and share alike that comes with the
benefits of Open Source. Acknowledge that it is compatible with
business.
Free Software is a great way to build a common
foundation of software that encourages innovation and fair competition.
Microsoft, it's time for you to join us.
Bruce Perens, Primary Author: The Open Source Definition
co-signers:
Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation.
Eric Raymond, Open Source Initiative.
Linus Torvalds, Creator of the Linux Kernel.
Miguel de Icaza, GNOME GUI Desktop Project.
Larry Wall, Creator of the Perl Language.
Guido van Rossum, Creator of the Python Language.
Tim O'Reilly, Publisher.
Bob Young, Co-Founder, Red Hat
Larry Augustin, CEO, VA Linux Systems
