IP: Re: Microsoft Is Set to Be Top Foe of Free Code

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

I know I will get a bomb on this one djf

>Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 12:38:17 -0600
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
>
>
>At 07:43 AM 5/3/2001, you wrote:
>
> >Microsoft Is Set to Be Top Foe of Free Code
> >
> >By JOHN MARKOFF
> >
> >Microsoft is preparing a broad campaign countering the movement to give 
> away and share software code.
> >
> >Microsoft is preparing a broad campaign countering the movement to give 
> away and share software code, arguing that it potentially undermines the 
> intellectual property of countries and companies. At the same time, the 
> company is acknowledging that it is feeling pressure from the freely 
> shared alternatives to its commercial software.
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/03/technology/03SOFT.html
>
>After reading Mr. Markoff's commentary about Microsoft
>and open source, I have been left with the impression
>that he is condemning the ideas expressed by Microsoft
>because of -- no pun intended -- the source.
>
>Open source is clearly a public benefit. However, software
>licensed under the GNU General Public License, or GPL,
>is not truly open source. (The GPL violates the
>non-discrimination clause of the Open Software Definition --
>that's Clause 6 at
>
>http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html
>
>-- because it allows use of code by end users but not
>by programmers. In fact, it is intended, specifically, to
>prevent programmers from being rewarded for their labors.)
>
>Microsoft is not arguing against the sharing or giving
>away of code, but rather against the GPL, which is intended
>to turn shared code into a weapon against the interests of
>legitimate software businesses and even the programmers who
>wrote it.
>
>Those who have read my writings know that I seldom side with
>Microsoft on any issue, but in this case it happens to be
>correct. Programmers are duped, by the misleading
>rhetoric in the GPL and on the FSF's Web site, into destroying
>their own markets and hurting their own prospects of reaping
>a just reward for their efforts. And the GPL has, indeed, caused
>businesses with worthy ideas and good technology to fail. Many of
>these might well have posed threats to Microsoft's dominance.
>
>Both the "Free" Software Foundation (which actually promotes
>software that is heavily encumbered by a complex license and
>is NOT "free") and Microsoft appear to have grandiose dreams
>of world domination. As a result, these rivals are capable of
>serving as watchdogs when it comes to one another's actions!
>When one debunks the other, it may actually be telling the
>truth, even if it is in the habit of not doing so in other
>circumstances. That's what's happening in this case.
>
>For more, see:
>
>http://davenet.userland.com/2000/09/15/whatIsOpenSource
>
>http://www.usermode.org/docs/tangledweb.html
>
>http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3297/1/
>
>http://www.usermode.org/docs/wordstoavoid.html
>
>--Brett Glass
>
>
>At 07:43 AM 5/3/2001, you wrote:
>
> >Microsoft Is Set to Be Top Foe of Free Code
> >
> >By JOHN MARKOFF
> >
> >Microsoft is preparing a broad campaign countering the movement to give 
> away and share software code.
> >
> >
> >Microsoft is preparing a broad campaign countering the movement to give 
> away and share software code, arguing that it potentially undermines the 
> intellectual property of countries and companies. At the same time, the 
> company is acknowledging that it is feeling pressure from the freely 
> shared alternatives to its commercial software.
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/03/technology/03SOFT.html
> >
> >
> >
> >For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/