Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Jun 2006 22:16 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source It's time for the Windows and Linux communities to drop the religious war and get together in a hurry to put the strengths of each operating system to best use, according to a nationally recognized authority on Windows Server. At the same time, Microsoft has been reaching out to the open-source community to try to find ways to overcome the incompatibilities between software distributed under the GNU General Public License and its own commercial software.
Thread beginning with comment 133298
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's not a one-way street
by Archangel on Wed 14th Jun 2006 08:02 UTC
Member since:

Interesting how the title mentions both sides learning to play nice, whereas the text is simply Microsoft bitching and moaning that they can't rip off GPLed code. Nowhere is there a mention of Microsoft playing nice - one could suggest an eye for an eye, if the open source community gave them something under the BSD license rather than GPL, they could give something back. But no, the article talks entirely about how Microsoft want to learn and take from open source.

It's quite possible that this is because there is nothing in particular that open source can take from Microsoft; they don't need any specific bits of code under dodgy licenses. Microsoft on the other hand don't seem to be capable of writing much compelling on their own any more, so I'm sure they'd be rapt at being able to use code that's under a BSD license rather than the GPL.

It also occurs to me that this is *exactly* the kind of situation that the GPL is in place to prevent. It's no accident that Microsoft are finding it unpalatable.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's not a one-way street
by siki_miki on Wed 14th Jun 2006 10:25 in reply to "It's not a one-way street"
siki_miki Member since:

First of all, why do they need to copy the code? They have enough manpower to redo it by the spec.

And even if they intend to copy, GPL code maybe is an obstacle, but they can publish modified code of LGPL (which is what usually linux libraries tend to be), and still keep the source of application linking upon it closed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: It's not a one-way street
by hal2k1 on Wed 14th Jun 2006 10:46 in reply to "RE: It's not a one-way street"
hal2k1 Member since:

//First of all, why do they need to copy the code? They have enough manpower to redo it by the spec. //

Perhaps what they want is to then be able to patent their version. Perhaps they want FOSS to be invalid when considering prior art in a patent application. After all, they have already put forward "first to file" in this context.

I'm thinking that they feel they would need patents to back up a "pay-per-use" software revenue model - like royalties.

Edited 2006-06-14 10:48

Reply Parent Score: 2