Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: MSFUD

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
  • To: InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: MSFUD
  • Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:31:33 -0400


on Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Paul Jones wrote:
> speech itself
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp

"Contrast this recent experience with the two decades of economic
success that preceded it. The global economy grew in an unprecedented
way in no small measure because of a generation of new companies, of
which Microsoft was fortunate to be one. Many or even most of these
companies invested heavily in research and development and sold their
principal products at prices that covered their costs and generated
profits that they reinvested in further research and development.

"This research and development model, in turn, was almost always
based on the importance of intellectual property rights. Whether
copyrights, patents or trade secrets, it was this foundation in law
that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks,
focus on the long term, and create sustainable business models."

Mundie has a hell of a nerve writing about the importance of R&D given
that his company stole their GUI from Apple who stole it from Xerox
PARC, and given that they bought their first OS rather than developing
their own.

What's /really/ funny is that he represents a company that, despite
producing some of the most bloated software on the planet, still can't
produce anything so bloated that people will want to upgrade to a CPU
they don't really need, which means that the industry with which they
are trapped in a symbiotic embrace is taking it on the chin.

The answer to the recent downturn, according to Mundie? Everyone
needs to buy more than one piece of hardware (oh, gee, can anyone
say "Xbox"?) because the ones they already own are too powerful as
it is, but aren't portable enough, or tied closely enough into the
Microsoft API stranglehold for MS to survive.

"Can the personal information technology continue to drive broad
economic growth?

The answer is "yes." The computing industry needs to move to a model
of multiple computing devices that more effectively empower people to
unleash the computing power of the Internet and move their ideas and
their content with them from machine to machine."

Never mind that the Internet they seek to own was developed as the
result of the open exchange of ideas. Or that their .NET initiative
is founded on XML, one of the products of said open exchange of ideas.
Or that one of the core protocols (SOAP) was developed by numerous
non-Microsoft people as an open protocol. Or that XML itself was
derived from SGML, an open standard. Or that the Web was developed
as the result of multinational cooperation and given over into the
public domain by CERN, a European research lab. Or that their Passport
service is trying to fundamentally destroy the possibility of privacy
on the Internet.

He goes on to say:

"The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy
"forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple
incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product
instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan
for the future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can
force intellectual property into the public domain."

In essence, open source is evil because it discourages security through
obscurity and encourages the adaptation of working code to new uses,
uses that large corporations are unable to provide solutions to, or
fail to recognize due to a lack of "important customers".

Mundie, too, ignores the LGPL completely.

He misstates the GPL:

"The GPL asserts that any product derived from source code licensed
under it becomes subject to the GPL itself."

This is true, but he doesn't mention that the GPL says:

"If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more
useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If
this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public
License instead of this License."

Mundie goes on to say:

"When the resulting software product is distributed, the creator must
make all of the source code available, at no additional charge."

The GPL says no such thing. In fact, it says quite clearly:

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
fee."

Nowhere in the GPL does it say that you must provide source (or even
the program compiled from source) for free. It merely says that you
may not charge to /license/ the software.

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."

I'm so sick of these idiotic lies.

--
"Euphoria is not a business strategy" -- Louis Rossetto



  • MSFUD, Steven Champeon, 05/03/2001
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: MSFUD, Paul Jones, 05/03/2001
    • Re: MSFUD, Steven Champeon, 05/03/2001
    • RE: MSFUD, Paula Paul, 05/03/2001
    • RE: MSFUD, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve, 05/04/2001
    • Re: MSFUD, Michael S Czeiszperger, 05/04/2001
    • Re: MSFUD, Beth Ellison, 05/04/2001
    • Re: MSFUD, Beth Ellison, 05/04/2001
    • Re: MSFUD, Jim Campbell, 05/05/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page