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

["Josep L. Guallar-Esteve" <jlguallar AT maduixa.net>]

Paula Paul wrote:

> > Looks like Microsoft has jumped on the "loudly misunderstand open
> > source" bandwagon.
 
> ... well, (you probably can guess my stance on this one) I would think
> that Microsoft has had hordes of lawyers examine the GPL and LGPL, so
> I'm guessing they probably understand the realities of the GPL and LGPL
> even better than we do.  Although the press may try to skewer 
> Microsoft as the open source anti-christ, Eric Raymond points out what 
> Microsoft is really after here:
 
> "It's very clever of them," said Eric Raymond, president of the Open
> Source Initiative. "Instead of attacking the entire open-source 
> movement they've singled out the one license that is in a sense 
> politically controversial."

Actualy, Microsoft is the Open-Source anti-christ. OpenSource is
threatening Microsoft business model. Also, economic slowdow meaning
lack of new-PC purchases. And lack of new purchases, means lack of
Microsoft bundled software purchases. Add to this the lack of a critical
mass of upgrades to Windows+Office 2000 (in any flavour). 

Yes, Microsoft is not doing so good. And, instead of addressing their
problem, they choose to attack a competitor. 

The problem: existing applications (OS, office) are good enough, average
computers are way too powerfull and the advantage of upgrading versoins
is not that appealing.

The competitor: Linux (including *BSD), Samba, Apache an other
OpenSource products are growing, eating terrain to Windows file-n-print
servers, MS-IIS.

So they want to "distract" Wall Street while releasing all the FUD that
their layers are able to generate.
 
> It's not Microsoft's fault that the GPL is controversial, as Eric
> Raymond freely admits.  

It's cntroversial because is not widely accepted. Like Human RIghts
isues are controversial in China, for example.

> The GPL impacts Microsoft's business
> (possibility of even more lawsuits if somebody shows that GPL's code
> found its way into a product), and I expect it impacts their employees
> (they are probably restricted from working with GPL'd code, to avoid
> even more lawsuits), so they are doing something about it.  I can't
> fault them for that.

I only blame Microsoft for their own faults. Like overpriced software
because they hold a de-facto monopoly with no compettion.
 
> Whether we like it or not, the GPL is dividing the software community 
> - that alone can't be healthy.

Weather we like it or not, the GPL is providing the software comuunity
with an alternative to Microsoft OS+Ofice monopoly - that alone is
healthy.

> Personally, I'd like to live in a world where there was a kind of
> general software license that encouraged big software companies like
> Microsoft and Apple to use it, but as it stands today, neither 
> Microsoft nor Apple like the GPL.

Actualy, Apple is using L-GPL / BSD licensed software in their current
OS: MacOS X. And Microsoft has been using BSD tcp stack for a while now.

> "The year's Big Lie is the assertion that Apple has embraced open 
> source software....":

> http://cma.zdnet.com/texis/cma/cma/+Qh9ek_UcxzmwwwqqFqr+sW6s++mzmwwwwnzm
> wwwwpFqrp1xmwBnLFqnhw5B/display.html
 
> Just because people don't agree with something does not mean they 
> don't understand it ;-)

If you read the article you will see that even that Apple doesn't like
OpenSource is smart enough to see its value and use it. So, if it's good
for Apple, it shold e good enoughfor us all, isn't it?


> Paula


All the (Opensource) best.


Josep
-- 
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve

Payment Suite Support
internet e-mail : guallar AT us.ibm.com / jlguallar AT maduixa.net

http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/commerce/payment

TEL (919) 254-1509  
T/L 444-1509  
FAX (919) 254 - 5585
IBM - RTP
e-commerce division
Phone: (919)-25-415-09
IBM TieLine:  444-1509