Microsoft broadens its intellectual property licensing, and adds new IP licensing programs, including one for its FAT file system.
Microsoft Shares a Bit More Source
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The FAT filesystem?
Gimme a break. FAT is almost perfectly duplicated to the point that it is actually used as the standard file system inside of some alternative OSs (skyos most notably). Sure, ClearType has some worth, but only minimally.
What is the motivation here?
Does the code share?
WinFS sits on top of NTFS
Which version of FAT? FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, or VFAT?
Not that it really matters since every single one of these specs have been reverse engineered by the open source community already. Heck, I’ve read an OS programming book that details the full specs of FAT12 and FAT16, and seen several articals on VFAT and FAT32.
Also, ClearText isn’t the most impressive font display technology out there. IMHO recent versions of Xft, such as those shipped by RedHat and Mandrake look better to my eyes.
I would guess their motives are to cut regulatory pressures off at the pass. Now they can say “see we told them about our filesystem AND our font display technology.”
Nothing to see here, move along.
The company that is licensing FAT is Lexar — they make CF cards for digital cameras. Some of the cards are 4GB in size.
Microsoft can screw the open source community (since they aren’t going to be able to pay for the licensing fees), and they can make some major licensing fees from their IP assets. 2 birds with 1 stone.
Ive been transfering files back and forth from my linux partition to my FAT32(win98) partition for the last 2 years.
Good try M$
m$ will need to release more source code to stay in
business because trusted computing requires it.
In what ways are they screwing up the Open Source community? There’s no need for license fees, as others have said FAT has been thoroughly reverse-engineered and is usable in virtually all OS environments!
You won’t kill be killing any birds with that stone…
People, all this is a press release to the non-geeks in the world. It makes it seem like MS isnt a monopoly.
“Yes we have shared a whole lot with the OSS/GPL community and see were not bad after all”
Its just a game. It makes people on the jury believe that MS isnt into the world domination thing.
Be wary of any post that claims that Microsoft can “screw” OSS.
To kill OSS, you have to get hundreds of thousands of people to stop using their computers. Microsoft can screw commercial competitors, but it can’t screw people willing to work for free. The worst it can do is prevent new users from “coming over.” At the rate of progress now, that wouldn’t even stop OSS.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1402439,00.asp
“Phelps added that there will also be an expansion of Microsoft’s efforts in areas where the IP it puts out is not priced. “The standards and academic worlds are both part of that scenario, and there will be other scenarios where sharing it is in the general good. But we are not going to give it all away for free—that is not the goal,” he said.”
All very well, but …
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/35659.htm
An Open-Source Challenge to Messrs. Gates & Ballmer
And of course,
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031108223401961
Two Essential National Security Criteria
– my personal contributions to the debate, discussion, general flame-fest – whatever….
The problem with the Microsoft Government Security program is that it fails the two criteria that I concluded – based partially on the British radar research effort during the 1930s-40s, and partially on the US DoD’s funding of the TCP/IP internetwork connection suite – would best fit national security requirements. These two criteria are as follows: the research topic must be maintained by defense staff when and where they are; and the nation must be capable of training its own people to do the relevant research – it must not be left to the gentle mercies of a convicted predatory monopoly.
And of course, Microsoft’s current policies are predicated on two theses – that Microsoft is going to be around for ever in its current form; and Microsoft’s customers are untrustworthy thieves.
Of course, if Microsoft maintains policies based on that second thesis about untrustworthy thieves, it is going to materially contradict that first thesis on staying around to collect the dosh, to the detriment of Microsoft’s faithful customers.
My challenge to Microsoft to release the (sanitized) source code to Win9x, and NT3.x and NT4.x, is an attempt to get Microsoft to change, to approach its more savy users as co-developers, to grow old (dis)gracefully, instead of imploding with a gib gnab.
I tried, and so far I’ve failed. Boo hoo hoo (hairless) hoo!!!
I didn’t post that this is all a setup for filing lawsuits against all the companies that DON’T license Microsoft’s IP.
If Apple were to license ClearType though, that would be nice. ClearType is miles ahead of OS X and Linux. And for Mac, it’s not like the license fee is going to make any real difference in final price…
No matter what Microsoft does good, you guys will never be happy. First off, FAT and ClearType are only examples of what they are licensing. What part of 100% of their IP portfolio dont you understand? Microsoft is doing a great thing. by licensing IP they will see to it that better applications will be more compatible with the Windows OS, this benefits everyone from the High End developers to the Open Source community, they are opening up their XML format that they use for Office so OpenOffice will definately benefit and Maybe KOffice will become a little better than WordPerfect 2. Second, FAT is still a widely used Filesystem, all those little Flash devices that you use are formatted with FAT Filesystems and yes there are many XP and 2000 users that format their drives with the FAT filesystem. Get over yourselves. Its attitudes like these that drive people away from open Source than to it.
We understand that some (many) of our drives are formatted with FAT. But we were able to use those drives before this move by Microsoft. What we don’t understand is why Microsoft stepping in now, after open source developers already achieved full FAT(16/32) support in open source operating systems. If they were willing to share the FAT source now, why weren’t they willing to share it when developers could use the help. And if IP rights over FAT means nothing (or at least little) to them now, why do they hold so tightly onto NTFS?
I think you can start to see the answers to these questions arising in your own mind: PR, monopoly control, monopoly control.
Even if you don’t think MS is a monopoly (though I assure you it is) then you can at least respect the fact that opening up NTFS to Linux developers is the “right thing” to do. After all, many Windows developers also have to support Linux systems, and integration can better be achieved by having data that are accessible everywhere. Linux filesystems are open. And there is no real IP threat: I assure you if Linux developers had the full NTFS spec tomorrow, and the day after a 100% working R/W NTFS module appeared, you wouldn’t have any (or at least not too many) Linux users reformatting their root partition as NTFS. Most of us simply like ext3/reiser/XFS better, and most accounts tend to show that they are faster.
The reason NTFS is not open is because Microsoft knows that Linux with full NTFS support is Linux that is more usable alongside Windows. As open source software becomes more plentiful and the Linux desktop becomes more viable, Windows might soon be the “vestige” of a dual-boot system, rather than the main OS. Microsoft likes having all sorts of ways of “locking you in” (i.e. the definition of a monopoly… sigh, I will never give up).
Oh, and I do like some of Microsoft’s stuff… most recently, it’s .NET development tools and framework. It has smart people working on it (http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html), and it is a good project. My opinion may change if Microsoft attempts to thwart the efforts of Mono, but I have faith in Microsoft not to do so.
And yes, 2000 is better than 98, and XP is better (though in a couple ways, worse) than 2000, and both 2000 and XP are pretty stable, even by Linux standards. I recognize the good in Microsoft, trust me. But just because I do so does not mean I should not recognize the bad.
“What part of 100% of their IP portfolio dont you understand?”
i think you missed the part that said 100% for academic institutions….
GIVE ME DIRECTX!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>Even if you don’t think MS is a monopoly (though I assure you it is) then you can at least respect the fact that opening up NTFS to Linux developers is the “right thing” to do…
Microsoft only said that they are not giving it to the open source community for free.
There is nothing preventing RedHat and SuSE to license Microsoft’s IP on NTFS and compile a binary module for RedHat’s Enterprise edition.
FWIW, I think you can already get a copy of the FAT driver source if you purchase a IFS (Installable File System) development kit.
A) Don’t confuse OSS with GPL… 2 Different things.
B) If someone does something good, it’s expected to give kudos for that despite other bad actions. GPL Zealots are the worst kind who thinks they own and everyone else suck… that’s worse than Microsoft really.
C) People should reconsider using research money curing HIV and perhaps cure the GPL Zealot disease instead….
D) All coins have 2 sides… I think MS did something good this time.
E) Do you become a geek by using Linux or do you have to be a geek to start using it?
A) True..
B) All zealots suck, they are blind for the flaws of there own operating system.
C) Give your money to aids research.
D) Im going to be silent here, I prefer to watch the events as they unfold.
E) Ive seen geeks using Windows, so Linux is not a requirement. I personally prefer using Linux, but I dont think that Im a geek. I use Linux not because its 1337, but because it represents choice. So my reasons are political…
Mind if I ask you why you misread my motives? I’m interested in seeing Microsoft survive the transition from being King of the Hill to Ordinary Software/Hardware company – largely for sentimental reason of course. MS Word wasthe all-round best wordprocessor on the Mac in the early nineties, hands-down, in spite of a few mishaps along the way. MacWrite couldn’t hold a candle to it.
The thing is it won’t survive without radical change, and it’s best if it grows into that, instead of being thrown into it.
They already released the code for C#, well the compiler. Take a look at their Shard Source Init over at MSDN. The compiler is included with the mscorlib. All open source.
You can tell this guy is a real troll.
This is why I don’t like the term Open Source… it can be convuluted to mean anything… where Free Software actually means something.
They already released the code for C#, well the compiler. Take a look at their Shard Source Init over at MSDN. The compiler is included with the mscorlib. All open source.
You can tell this guy is a real troll.
Yes, and it is licensed under the coined term, “Shared Source” which has a license more restrictive than the pure GPL; if that is actually humanly possible.
If Microsoft wanted to earth brownie points with the developer community, they would have licensed the whole thing using the BSD License and allowed it to be used in a commercial environment. Had they done it, we would have a complete Mono already working right now.
The problem is, that isn’t what Microsoft wants, that is the same reason why Microsoft never submitted their win32 to an industries standards body, or why they’ve created this license called “Shared Source” instead of taking a moral high ground and use the BSD License they praise so much.
If you look at what SUN has done, and compared it to the amount of IP Microsoft has submitted to standards body, SUN comes out on top every time. NFS, SBUS, SPARC, ABI, and numerous other standards. The fact remains that if Microsoft want to get their name as the flavour of the developer community, start establishing standards and committing to the maintainance of those standards.
For example, we have C# 2.0 being developed, is that going to be released to the ECMA? when is managed C++ going to be submitted? is Microsoft going to desolve their rights on the patents they have applied over the various technologies in .NET?
If Microsoft wanted to earth brownie points
Should be:
If Microsoft wanted to earn brownie points
Didn’t they release the full FAT12/16/32 specs a long time ago?
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/download/hardware/fatgen103.pdf
I also remember a few documents about FAT that precede that one by a couple of years.
With that in mind I don’t understand what they’re releasing here. Filesystems aren’t code, they’re just data structures. The MS FAT driver source is irrelevant, once they have the full filesystem specs I’d imagine writing a FAT driver is pretty trivial for a decent programmer.
“…they’ve created this license called “Shared Source” instead of taking a moral high ground and use the BSD License they praise so much.”
There is a reason why Microsoft likes the BSD license so much.. They never have to release anything under it and they never will.
“…they’ve created this license called “Shared Source” instead of taking a moral high ground and use the BSD License they praise so much.”
There is a reason why Microsoft likes the BSD license so much.. They never have to release anything under it and they never will.
So if the DOJ and EU really wanted to punish Microsoft, they should have ordered Microsoft to release the IP we’re talking about right now, under the BSD license.
> If Microsoft wanted to earth brownie points with the developer community, they would have licensed the whole thing using the BSD License and allowed it to be used in a commercial environment.
When you say developer community you mean OSS community. In addition, why should Microsoft release it under the BSD licence, they gave you the source code and you can use it commericially, it’s called the .Net SDK.
>The problem is, that isn’t what Microsoft wants, that is the same reason why Microsoft never submitted their win32 to an industries standards body.
First off I have to agrue why submit something to an organization that is just going to basterdise your and make it hard to change your OS. In addition, IMHO, if you have 90% of the market you already have the standard, so you are the standards body. And if you don’t beleive me just take a look at Wine, Samba, etc.
>If you look at what SUN has done, and compared it to the amount of IP Microsoft has submitted to standards body, SUN comes out on top every time.
What about Java, I mean if you are going to critize somebody you should critize Sun for keeping Java from being standardized for 10 years. In addition see the above comment, “Microsoft is the Standard for 90% of the development market”.
> For example, we have C# 2.0 being developed, is that going to be released to the ECMA? when is managed C++ going to be submitted? is Microsoft going to desolve their rights on the patents they have applied over the various technologies in .NET?
Maybe you should do your homework. They have already released the document for C# 1.2 and 2.0. Just because the ECMA is sitting on their hands and not doing anything with it, is not Microsofts fault. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/team/language/default.aspx) Look at that link both documents are there. I don’t know about VC++, but they have released documents that the compiler is 98% compatible with the standard. I think that even beats GCC. Why would they give up a patent. When is Sun going to give up the Java Patent?
—
Also a note to everybody that is going to bash Microsoft because of this response. Microsoft is a corporation and works on the pricipals of capitalism. Let me ask you this what is Microsofts Primary Responsibility? No it’s not the standards board, not the developer community either, not even the people that buy their software, it is their _STOCK HOLDERS_ the people that have invested in Microsoft and expect it to do well. Capitalism isn’t governed by whining developers it is governed by the simple principle of if you make a better/more availible/cheaper product people are going to buy it. So far Linux shuns the users that don’t understand the basics of an OS. I had to teach my grandmother how to use a mouse, what are her chances of being able to use Linux.
If you want a community based around a common sharing of resources (or software), great but don’t expect everybody to hold those views. They aren’t any better or any nobaler than Microsofts. In fact I sort of remember somebody writing a book around this idea, I think his name was Karl Marx?
“Capitalism isn’t governed by whining developers it is governed by the simple principle of if you make a better/more availible/cheaper product people are going to buy it.”
In in republic Capitalism is governed by the people. Otherwise you have Fascism.
Capitialism isn’t governed at all. The principals are governed, we live in a capitalist society, where capitalism is governed by a republic, which is elected by the people. Capitialism’s principals are governed by supply and demand.
These are the specifications submitted to ECMA for C# 2.0. Contray to popular beleif by ChocolateCheeseCake. http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/team/language/default.aspx There are also the C# 1.2 specifications there. I am just curious even if you didn’t know about this document how did you think Mono was creating their code for generics and the other things represented in this documentation.
“Capitialism isn’t governed at all. The principals are governed…”
What is Capitialism but it’s principals?
“…we live in a capitalist society, where capitalism is governed by a republic…”
There you go contradicting yourself.
That is what I am saying you cannot govern capitialism, because the principals are based on supply and demand. I don’t know why we are discussing Econ 101 here in OSnews.
“That is what I am saying you cannot govern capitialism, because the principals are based on supply and demand.” And
Capitalism is not a living entity. It exists because people adhere (supposedly) to it’s principals both at the personal level and a governmental level. Therefor, people govern where capitalism is willing to go. Supply and demand may be the idological basis, but it does not primarily govern any existing implementation of it. Including the one in which Microsoft mainly operates.
What you are talking about is not Capitalism. Capitialism is government free in its purest form. We live in a society that has a hi-bred of capitalism and a republic, that is what you are reffering to.
> Supply and demand may be the idological basis, but it does not primarily govern any existing implementation of it.
This may be true, but Microsofts model is built on supply and demand. Their customers want something and they give them that feature. This is one of the main problems with Linux, they work on the cool stuff, and leave the UI stuff behind because it is not that interesting. Microsoft and Apple have never done that, that is why any idiot with an IQ above a toaster can use their OS’s. Like it or not designing this kind of UI is much more difficult than creating a better operating kernel.
I also enjoy how everybody is shying away from this comment, because it rings so true. “If you want a community based around a common sharing of resources (or software), great but don’t expect everybody to hold those views. They aren’t any better or any nobaler than Microsofts. In fact I sort of remember somebody writing a book around this idea, I think his name was Karl Marx?”
“This is one of the main problems with Linux, they work on the cool stuff, and leave the UI stuff behind because it is not that interesting.”
GNOME is one project that is not doing that at all. Try reading thir HIG some time.
“In fact I sort of remember somebody writing a book around this idea, I think his name was Karl Marx”
Wow, the old “Open Source is communism” dead horse is being flogged yet again, eh? Check out http://fc-solve.berlios.de/oss-fs/docbook/oss-fs/c160.html for a nice overview of why the analogy just doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
“If Microsoft wanted to earth brownie points with the developer community, they would have licensed the whole thing using the BSD License and allowed it to be used in a commercial environment.”
When you say developer community you mean OSS community. In addition, why should Microsoft release it under the BSD licence, they gave you the source code and you can use it commericially, it’s called the .Net SDK.
They should release it under the BSD license because for a good 2-3 years they’ve been bashing the crap out of the GPL and FSF, and praising BSD as their “preferred opensource licensing method”, they they do a complete 180 and create a license even MORE restrictive than the GPL.
If you talk the talk, you better walk it. As for “community”, there are developers out there who WANT to see a competing implementation, they WANT to see .NET spread to other platforms. THESE developers are those who are commercial developers wanting to see the market for their products increase.
“The problem is, that isn’t what Microsoft wants, that is the same reason why Microsoft never submitted their win32 to an industries standards body.”
First off I have to agrue why submit something to an organization that is just going to basterdise your and make it hard to change your OS. In addition, IMHO, if you have 90% of the market you already have the standard, so you are the standards body. And if you don’t beleive me just take a look at Wine, Samba, etc.
Funny you complain about standardisation; btw, it has an ‘s’ not a ‘z’ in the word standardisation.
The fact remains that the UNIX specification HAS moved forward and within a committee formation, problems can be resolved and compatibility maintained. The problem with YOU is that YOU have no programming experience, grab your high horse and consider yourself the “fountain of all knowledge”.
“If you look at what SUN has done, and compared it to the amount of IP Microsoft has submitted to standards body, SUN comes out on top every time.”
What about Java, I mean if you are going to critize somebody you should critize Sun for keeping Java from being standardized for 10 years. In addition see the above comment, “Microsoft is the Standard for 90% of the development market”.
Funny, SUN was going to standardise Java, until Microsoft bastardised it. Look at Microsoft on the other hand, less than 30% of the framework has actually been standardised.
On the other hand, the specification and source code, IN FULL, is available for Java. Better still, unlike .NET, Java isn’t controlled by one company but by the many players who make up the Java industry.
For example, we have C# 2.0 being developed, is that going to be released to the ECMA? when is managed C++ going to be submitted? is Microsoft going to desolve their rights on the patents they have applied over the various technologies in .NET?
Maybe you should do your homework. They have already released the document for C# 1.2 and 2.0. Just because the ECMA is sitting on their hands and not doing anything with it, is not Microsofts fault. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/team/language/default.aspx) Look at that link both documents are there. I don’t know about VC++, but they have released documents that the compiler is 98% compatible with the standard. I think that even beats GCC. Why would they give up a patent. When is Sun going to give up the Java Patent?
They don’t have a Java patent. They have a Java TRADEMARK but the patents they *COULD* have on parts are not exercised due to the agreements they have with other vendors in the Java market.
If you want a community based around a common sharing of resources (or software), great but don’t expect everybody to hold those views. They aren’t any better or any nobaler than Microsofts. In fact I sort of remember somebody writing a book around this idea, I think his name was Karl Marx?
Another moronic American without a clue about communism. How about you allocate yourself 4 months, read “Wealth of Nations” and “The Communist Manafesto”, then come back and make such stupid comments.
Actually I’ve thought for a long time that Open Source (The Free software sect in particular) operates more along the lines of a cult.
Tie in the idea of donating code in return for intangible rewards, the “community” peer pressure to conform and the fairly naked “Only through our teachings can you find the light” rhetoric of the FSF/GNU and it starts to look more like a Waco reconstruction than computing.
So you work for Lockheed Martin, yet another chariety case witin the US defence industry which is protected via the paranoia of the US government. First Boeing is bailed out by the government, which I am sure as a good free marketer like you would be dead against, I can’t *WAIT* till I see the same thing done for Lockheed Martin.
If you are going to hold up the US government as the mecca of free market economics, you are more delusion than I thought.
You have obviously been reading your Noam Chomsky (-:
“Actually I’ve thought for a long time that Open Source (The Free software sect in particular) operates more along the lines of a cult.”
Careful, now. You’re tarring the Open Source and Free Software movements with the same brush. The Open Source movement split off from the FSF in the first place precisely because those involved felt very much as you do.
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html :
“The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one.”
That’s actually a fairly accurate summary of the situation, I think. Anyway, OSI (http://www.opensource.org) may be right up your alley, since they push Open Source on its practical merits (as they see them) and don’t speak out against the “evils” of those who don’t share their point of view.
“If Apple were to license ClearType though, that would be nice. ClearType is miles ahead of OS X and Linux. And for Mac, it’s not like the license fee is going to make any real difference in final price…”
This has to be one of the most convoluted statments I’ve ever read… According to this person, ClearType is owned by Apple but its miles ahead of OS X and Linux.
First, ClearType is a technology owned by Microsoft (not Apple). however, it has since been shown that the core technology behind Cleartype is a technology that Apple developed back in the Apple II days and Microsoft stole… only integrating it decades later.
Second, Cleartype can’t be “miles ahead of OS X and Linux” because Linux and OS X are operating systems. ClearType is a font rendering technology.
Third, assuming the author mean to suggest that ClearType technology is “miles ahead” of similar technologies in OS X and Linux… then he’d be wrong here too. I’m not familiar enough with Linu’x rendering technology) but OS X’s is state of the art. At worst, OS X’s tech is equal to ClearType at Best its ahead. More than likely… its somewhere in between.
This looks to me like IBM charging for ISA compatability when they released MCA. Everyone laughed, found a legally cloned ISA implementation and never looked back. IBM got roughtly $0 for their trouble.
Check out http://fc-solve.berlios.de/oss-fs/docbook/oss-fs/c160.html for a nice overview of why the analogy just doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
From that site:
While in a Capitalistic country, goods are generally sold and have to be paid for, people can voluntarily dedicate their time and money for any cause they wish, possibly altruistic. Communism in fact forces the sharing of all good, including physical ones that take time and money to manufacture each unit of.
This is an incorrect statement about communism, commonly made, especially by Americans (and yes, I am a naturally born citizen of the US), which makes arguments against the analogy easier. Communism is voluntary, and isn’t forced in the least. In a truly communist society, the sharing exists as the nature of the society, rather than as something forced on the society. When a government or other body forces the sharing of all goods, it is socialism. Then again, it could be implied that a communist society forces the sharing by it’s very nature, as there is no alternative except to leave the society.
Secondly, because manufacturing and distributing a unit of software costs practically nothing, it is not necessary that it will be sold. While the development cost can be very large, a developer of the software will not be encumbered by it being used by a million people instead of a thousand.
In other words, the entire development cost is shifted to either the developers themselves or the few that can afford to pay for it, while the masses reap the benefits for free. While I’m perfectly fine with the idea of developers being able to volunteer their time to write code, I’m not ok with the idea that because software distribution costs very little, it’s ok to take the smaller burden off the developer with no return on the larger burden (in other words, duplicate the software without helping to pay for the development). If developers volunteer their time, that’s not a problem, but if all software is done by volunteers, and all software is distributed for free, the only people that will get paid will be those that are willing to break the model to take money for development, and they will only gain money from the small minority willing to pay for that development. Instead of people paying $100-200 for an OS, because the development cost is distributed over millions of copies sold, you’ll have people paying $10,000 to get a better editor in their email software, because the developer has to recoup all of their costs on a single sale, while ‘millions’ will still be using the software. Of course, since the model supports fewer developers, the developers themselves will become a more scarce commodity, and eventually they’ll be able to gain the kind of wages that people saw during the Y2K scare if they could program in languages that were no longer taught in schools (which would, in turn, drive more people to want to develop software, but there would be fewer people around capable of teaching it (and willing to take a teacher’s salary), and so on).
Furthermore, by making a software open-source and keeping it so, it is possible to gain other economical and psychological advantages: you’ll make sure it is maintained, gain feedback and admiration of others, and may be able to eventually receive input and contributions from the outside.
The idea that the software is maintained assumes that other people can read and understand the source in the first place, and will actually take the time to maintain the software. This is an assumption, as no one is getting paid to do so. Gaining feedback and admiration, again, assumes that someone will actually take a look at it, rather than simply dismissing it or ignoring the developer(s). The majority of software users do not even understand the concept of software development, let alone know how to write software. Gaining commentary on the software is only useful if the users of the software have constructive commentary, which is somewhat short in supply in some areas (especially among the most vocal users, which usually have run into some especially annoying problem they can not easily understand or describe).
Distributing a software as a commercial proprietary package does not automatically yield good advantages and it takes a lot of time and money to make it usable as well. Such a vendor is actually risking that his software will work at all, and not be out-competed by something better.
Except that the vendor generally has allotted money to maintain the software, as well as QA and troubleshoot the software. The problem with the commercial model comes when the person holding the money either:
a) Decides that releasing another version (that costs money) will be better than releasing a patch
b) Decides not to fund the software beyond a certain date
Unfortunately, (b) happens all the time, generally when software has gotten quite old, but occasionally in a very short time frame, which leaves some amount of users discouraged, and possibly even disgusted with that particular vendor. This is especially a problem when the software is crucial to what the user does with his/her computer (or what a corporation does with its computers). These are the cases where open source software really helps, but I believe it can be solved just as easily with regulation requiring open source licensing (specifically freeBSD-like, so that it can be used in all aspects, not just further open-source software) of all software that is deemed ‘end of life’, or which the developer no longer supports properly.
I wonder if Microsoft will start to sue people for violating their patents soon, now that they have the rules for licensing out of the way.
First of all the title is misleading. Talking about sharing source while it is also about asking money for IP.
After the reverse engineering and several, lots of implementations Microsoft -years later- asks money for that? Do it at once, or leave it. While excessive work is done on reverse engineering NTFS.
Oh and this only counts in the USA, the patent paradise of the world. While in the USA, reverse engineering is illegal because of the DMCA. How can NTFS be reverse engineered in the USA then? Damn, what a lock-in this is…
I don’t agree with the government bailing anybody out. Because the product is obviously not something the consumers want, or their was bad management practices.
Second I am a subcontractor of LM, and I beleive your country has been using them to build fighters for over 50 years now. So I don’t really need lectured. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13082&rsbc…
I guess you missed the C# 2.0 specification taht you said didn’t exits. So here is the link again. http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/team/language/default.aspx
There is a difference between Marxism and Communism or Socialism.
Make sure you read this CheezyCake
“Then again, it could be implied that a communist society forces the sharing by it’s very nature, as there is no alternative except to leave the society.”
Bingo.
Anyway, I think everyone (ourselves included) is reading too much into the analogy. Lol –
this whole line of argument is really the height of sophistry since it’s stretching the comparison way too far, but let’s continue just for the heck of it. 😀
Any and all negative perceptions of communism as a philosophy in the public eye are due to the USSR et al, which were not communist at all other than by name. Sadly, by and large the *only* reason people make references to communism when discussing Open Source is because they want to try to contaminate its image with the same negative connotations.
True communism has never been achieved (at least not in a sizeable group) and thus any comparison to a model which is functional and in operation in the here-and-now is (IMO) inherently flawed. What most people seem to be implying when they make the analogy is that “communism doesn’t work, so Open Source can’t, either”. But this is blatantly false: many fine projects such as Apache, Samba and the Linux kernel have come to fruition as the end products of this open development model, and continue to improve.
Also notable is the fact that communism was (in Marx’s eyes) inevitably going to replace capitalism (freeing the workers from their chains, etc). In stark contrast, the Open Source movement as headed by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org) does *not* (unlike the FSF) seek the end of proprietary software. This was reaffirmed in a recent Slashdot post by Bruce Perens (http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=87996&cid=7623652).
—
This is where Richard and I differ somewhat. I think that proprietary software and Free Software should exist together on a level playing field.
—
“These are the cases where open source software really helps, but I believe it can be solved just as easily with regulation requiring open source licensing (specifically freeBSD-like, so that it can be used in all aspects, not just further open-source software) of all software that is deemed ‘end of life’, or which the developer no longer supports properly.”
The Open Source model as it stands is one of voluntary code disclosure and collaboration. You advocate replacing this with a system that *forces* people to divulge their code under an open license for the greater good. Quite aside from being utterly impractical, I would question the ethics of such a move.
Just in case it’s not clear, the
—
This is where Richard and I differ somewhat. I think that proprietary software and Free Software should exist together on a level playing field.”
—
part is a quote from Bruce Perens, not my own words.
Apologies: the preceding period should really have been a colon. My bad.
I think what most of these arguments on OSNews come down to is that the *nix guys can’t understand why somebody else loves their Windows box as much as you love yoru *nix box. And if they do that you say that are idiots. And you fail to see that the linux comminty is engaging in the same smear campaigns towards Microsoft as Microsoft is doing towards the OSS community.
I think alot of it has to do with envy. Because I don’t know any guy that wouldn’t willingly trade places with Bill Gates, if just for a brief second, to have all that money at the palms of you hands.
You need to all grow up and realize you have a good OS but it is not suited for the masses like Windows and OSX are.
“There is a difference between Marxism and Communism or Socialism.”
True communism *is* Marxism – that which is enshrined in the Communist Manifesto and other writings of Karl Marx. He was unfortunately rather vague on the specific details of how communism should actually be attained.
Communism with a capital C is (AIUI) generally used to denote the various philosophies/approaches adopted by those communist-wannabe countries such as the USSR and China, who claimed to be on the *road* toward’s Marx’s communist utopia (the dictatorship of the proletariat being the first step, IIRC) but whose leaders were in fact just using this as a convenient excuse for their seizure and retention of power.
“”Careful, now. You’re tarring the Open Source and Free Software movements with the same brush. The Open Source movement split off from the FSF in the first place precisely because those involved felt very much as you do. “”
Very true, Open Source and Free Software are two different things so it is unfair to treat them the same. However I have noticed an increasing tendency even amongst Open Source advocates to denounce any proprietary software as being somehow tainted. It’s probably just carry-over from various FSF influenced rant, but is an irritating development.
As a side note I’ve been considering the impact of Open Source on programmer’s livelihoods. I used to hold the view, quite strongly, that the advent of Open Source was going to reduce the number of developer jobs out there. However now I’m not so sure. I’ve had it pointed out to me numerous times that the majority of code is actually developed for in-house solutions, not for public release. Open Source is unlikely to affect that kind of programming much at all. However there is an area I think it will affect, namely programmer independence.
Consider someone writing a web-server. If they try to sell it they’ll get nowhere, Apache is available for free along with its source code; or a graphics app, GIMP is available for free and if more power is needed their are large commercial apps available; or an MP3 player, XMMS, Noatun and many others are available free. As the number of Open Source apps increases there is a corresponding decrease in the number of niches available to an independent developer. We’re looking at a pattern which leaves developers in a position where they are forced to work for a large company to earn a living, because there is simply no opportunity left to earn a living from niche applications that have Open Source analogues. I hope I’m wrong, but I just see this thing spiralling down to a point where the software industry is taken from a self-supporting, prgressive industry into one base on patronage, charity, stagnation and something not dissimilar to bonded labour “Work real hard during the day doing what the company man tells you, then maybe at night you can work on your own stuff for a while…but don’t ever dream of making a living from it”.
Perhaps that’s an overly paranoid assessment (I truly hope it is), but I can’t shake the feeling that somewhere along the line there is a detrimental side effect to Open Source that we just aren’t aware of yet.
Gotta learn to type someday, hope folks can decipher that post.
Any and all negative perceptions of communism as a philosophy in the public eye are due to the USSR et al, which were not communist at all other than by name.
This is also part of the fairly pathetic part of the whole problem. The USSR, after all, is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, after all. It’s not so much the fault of the USSR as it is the fault of politicians outside the USSR (especially here in the USA, at least from my perspective) characterizing that country (and others) as communist, though originally this had the dual-benefit of turning people against the hippie communes of the ’60s, too. The original ideal used to gain (or originally maintain) power may have been communism, but the reality is that no one in power was likely to have ever intended to actually turn over that power to the people and create a communist nation. Beyond that, it could be debated that a communist nation could not truly co-exist within a capitalist world economy, unless they could somehow maintain a peaceful existence and remain self-sufficient.
Sadly, by and large the *only* reason people make references to communism when discussing Open Source is because they want to try to contaminate its image with the same negative connotations.
I wouldn’t say it’s the *only* reason, but I do agree that it is the reason that some people choose to make the comparison (and probably most).
True communism has never been achieved (at least not in a sizeable group) and thus any comparison to a model which is functional and in operation in the here-and-now is (IMO) inherently flawed. What most people seem to be implying when they make the analogy is that “communism doesn’t work, so Open Source can’t, either”. But this is blatantly false: many fine projects such as Apache, Samba and the Linux kernel have come to fruition as the end products of this open development model, and continue to improve.
Of course, but then some portions of the Open Source movement may be the only functional model of communism we have seen to date
The fact is that sizeable groups haven’t given it a chance to work, and that in most cases they turn themselves over to socialist leaders. As the somewhat cliched axiom goes, ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’, and giving someone control over the distribution of goods in a communist state is certainly giving them absolute power. The GNU model, especially, turns this on it’s head, taking control (and therefore power) out of the hands of the developer(s) the moment they put it under the GPL (and someone else contributes, after all, the original developers still have control over the original code), by preventing the developer from taking the submissions of others and exploiting them for their own sole benefit.
Also notable is the fact that communism was (in Marx’s eyes) inevitably going to replace capitalism (freeing the workers from their chains, etc). In stark contrast, the Open Source movement as headed by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org) does *not* (unlike the FSF) seek the end of proprietary software. This was reaffirmed in a recent Slashdot post by Bruce Perens (http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=87996&cid=762365…).
Unfortunately, the prime examples of the Open Source movement, at least in terms of publicity, tend to be the work of the FSF, or published under the FSF’s terms, sometimes without the full understanding of those terms by the developers (ie much like the people of the USSR believing their leaders when they say they’ll have communism, only to find they are now under socialist control, though admittedly there’s a big-assed hole in that argument unless you turn it on it’s head, with the minority being the majority and vice versa).
This is where Richard and I differ somewhat. I think that proprietary software and Free Software should exist together on a level playing field.
I think a lot of people have different ideas of what a level playing field might be, so I really couldn’t say whether I agree with you or not.
The Open Source model as it stands is one of voluntary code disclosure and collaboration. You advocate replacing this with a system that *forces* people to divulge their code under an open license for the greater good. Quite aside from being utterly impractical, I would question the ethics of such a move
Actually, I don’t advocate replacing the system at all. I simply advocate that developers (or publishers) that abandon their code should allow others to maintain it. We have a severe problem when application code has to be rewritten simply because an operating system with security vulnerabilities is no longer supported, or when anyone has to replace hardware that is perfectly functional simply because the software is no longer supported. Even if someone were to decide to switch that aging Win95 box to Linux to avoid the hardware upgrade, where are they going to find a current distro that runs on a 4×86 w/ 8MB RAM? and what kind of problems are they going to have getting the right software?
part is a quote from Bruce Perens, not my own words.
I zoned a bit while typing my own post and forgot your post with the above portion…
“Consider someone writing a web-server. If they try to sell it they’ll get nowhere, Apache is available for free along with its source code”
Despite Apache now powering two thirds of web sites on the net (according to Netcraft) there are quite a few commercial web-servers around, many of them Apache-based (e.g. Oracle’s Web Application Server), but not all (e.g. Zeus).
Besides, Microsoft gives IIS away for free, too, though obviously it’s not Open Source.
“GIMP is available for free”
The win32 port’s (http://www.gimp.org/win32) not up to snuff, and the Linux desktop user base is not yet high enough for there to be e.g. Paint Shop Pro for Linux, so the GIMP’s not really competing with any proprietary apps at the moment.
“XMMS, Noatun and many others are available free”
So are Winamp, RealPlayer, Windows Media Player and QuickTime on the Windows side, though they’re not Open Source.
“Work real hard during the day doing what the company man tells you, then maybe at night you can work on your own stuff for a while…but don’t ever dream of making a living from it”
Depending on one’s point of view (and level of cynicism), it could be argued that this has already come to pass. It’s standard practise for it to be written into a developer’s contract that he cannot work on products that compete with any of his employer’s offerings. He must also be exceedingly careful not to work on *any* of his own code on company time (and be able to prove it) or else the employer could legally claim ownership of it.
“Perhaps that’s an overly paranoid assessment (I truly hope it is), but I can’t shake the feeling that somewhere along the line there is a detrimental side effect to Open Source that we just aren’t aware of yet.”
I agree that the picture you paint isn’t a particularly attractive one. However, I shan’t worry about it unless/until it looks like there may be a danger of it actually coming true. I suppose anything’s possible, but with a prediction as long-term as that, the only thing to do is wait and see.
“The GNU model, especially, turns this on it’s head, taking control (and therefore power) out of the hands of the developer(s) the moment they put it under the GPL (and someone else contributes, after all, the original developers still have control over the original code), by preventing the developer from taking the submissions of others and exploiting them for their own sole benefit.”
I’m not sure I understand this argument. It doesn’t take control out of the author’s hands at all – he is not bound by the licensing terms for code he wrote himself, so he can freely relicense it if he wishes to, under any terms he chooses.
As for preventing him from taking the submissions of others under different terms, this is a voluntary choice that he made for himself. If he didn’t want to be bound by the terms of the GPL, he should have picked a different license. More fool him for releasing his code under a license he did not fully understand.
“I simply advocate that developers (or publishers) that abandon their code should allow others to maintain it.”
I understand your argument and certainly don’t dispute that there would be tangible benefits as a consequence. My objection was on the grounds that I don’t understand how it would be either workable in practice (how would it even be *possible* to regulate this?) or ethically justifiable. My fundamental complaint regarding your proposal is that I don’t think copyright holders should be forced to relicense their code against their will.
“The win32 port’s (http://www.gimp.org/win32) not up to snuff”
What?
“and the Linux desktop user base is not yet high enough for there to be e.g. Paint Shop Pro for Linux, so the GIMP’s not really competing with any proprietary apps at the moment.”
Userbase doesn’t say a dog. Userbase does not mean a program can (not) be as good as a populair alternative. You are using a fallacy: argumentum ad populum.
“Besides, Microsoft gives IIS away for free, too, though obviously it’s not Open Source.”
It would surprise me if one doesn’t need a Windows license for it in order to run it (see the Captive thread), iow: not Free speech; not free beer.
Regards,
it works good
“In other words, the entire development cost is shifted to either the developers themselves or the few that can afford to pay for it, while the masses reap the benefits for free.”
Since these are volunteers, the cost is shifted to the masses. People come forward from the masses to add something to a project that they need or want, or to add a comment or bug report. Companies also play a part in the masses. They pay a programmer for a feature to be added. If your in doubt, take a close look at the Debian project. It relies totally on donations from the outside. Where are the few programmers flipping the bill there?
“The idea that the software is maintained assumes that other people can read and understand the source in the first place, and will actually take the time to maintain the software. This is an assumption, as no one is getting paid to do so.”
Actually there are projects where people are being paid to do so. But by and far, the projects that people actually WANT get maintained.
You are looking at all this from the POV of a hostile commercial developer who makes their money totally from software. Have you ever considered that in a totally Free Software world, people would program as part of thir normal job, which would be something else? Also, have you considered the concept of demand? There will always be demand for good software, no matter how it licenced, the vast majority of companies are not software developers and need software to get a job done.
“In other words, the entire development cost is shifted to either the developers themselves or the few that can afford to pay for it, while the masses reap the benefits for free.”
Since these are volunteers, the cost is shifted to the masses. People come forward from the masses to add something to a project that they need or want, or to add a comment or bug report. Companies also play a part in the masses. They pay a programmer for a feature to be added. If your[sic] in doubt, take a close look at the Debian project. It relies totally on donations from the outside. Where are the few programmers flipping the bill there?
What percentage of Debian users make donations? Just because people volunteer to work on something does not shift the cost to the masses. The cost is on those volunteers, in terms of time spent in development. A single company paying a programmer for a feature to be added is, again, shifting a larger amount of the cost to a single entity than would normally be paid. Ideally, they would pay less this way, though, as they could be a large enough organization to save money by developing a feature in a piece of free software than licensing numerous copies of a piece of commercial software that already has said feature.
“The idea that the software is maintained assumes that other people can read and understand the source in the first place, and will actually take the time to maintain the software. This is an assumption, as no one is getting paid to do so.”
Actually there are projects where people are being paid to do so. But by and far, the projects that people actually WANT get maintained.
The projects that get maintained are those that developers actually want or that particular companies are willing to pay for. This is quite different from what ‘people’ actually want.
You are looking at all this from the POV of a hostile commercial developer who makes their money totally from software.
No, actually, I’m looking at it from the POV of a non-commercial developer that licenses code entirely in the license in the contract under which it was developed. You make assumptions based on your own mis-understanding of my arguments. The software I write exists solely because a customer had a requirement or my company believed a customer would be interested in the software. If my company was wrong in that belief, the software would be rewritten to meet the customer’s requirements, or shelved completely. As much of my software ships with the source code as without, again based entirely on the contract under which the software was developed. I’m one of those lucky people who gets paid to develop something very specific, rather than, say, a Microsoft programmer getting paid to develop a function that Microsoft thinks will look good on the box.
Have you ever considered that in a totally Free Software world, people would program as part of thir normal job, which would be something else?
Such as? Would I actually want people writing software for me that don’t write software as the primary part of their normal job? I sure as hell wouldn’t want my company’s IT department writing software for me (I’ve seen plenty of what they try to put together for people).
Also, have you considered the concept of demand? There will always be demand for good software, no matter how it licenced, the vast majority of companies are not software developers and need software to get a job done.
Yet you did not quote nor address my issues with the supply side. Of course there’s demand, otherwise Microsoft would not be such a rich company, but with free software, especially, there’s an issue of supply. You’re saying that in an all free software world, you’d have companies paying people to write functions they need, but the question is, where are they going to find these people if most people don’t pay for software, and the return for developing software is only reaped from individuals or corporations? How many corporations will simply hire in-house developers and prevent code changes from going outside the corporation?
I know this post comes a little late; however here it goes:
spend .25 cents for a license. Now since I dont have an email address, it will cost MS .32 cents+ to mail the license. Not to mention phone charges and personal costs. Sounds like a bargain to me. That comes to at least .06 loss per license.
Got to love them wacky guys at MS.