Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Microsoft Nicks Code for ODF Translator from LGPL Project

  • Subject: Re: [News] Microsoft Nicks Code for ODF Translator from LGPL Project
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:10:18 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <3570008.eHuq3kG4VS@schestowitz.com> <4hevf6F1r0alsU1@individual.net>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ B Gruff ] on Monday 10 July 2006 13:28 \__

> On Monday 10 July 2006 12:28 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>> Microsoft Grabs Some Code for its ODF Plugin... From the ODF Fellowship
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | It seems that when Microsoft was looking to build its new ODF plugin, it
>> | took a short cut. It seems to have grabbed some code from the
>> | OpenDocument Fellowship's program that converts ODF to HTML, written by
>> | J. David Eisenberg. His code is released under a dual license, the LGPL
>> | and the Apache 2.0 license. Microsoft has put it into its ODF plugin,
>> | which is licensed under the BSD license.
>> `----
>> 
>>         http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060709143240795
>> 
>> As I said before, Microsoft feared having third-parties with permissive
>> licences taking over Office. It was never a case of good will.
> 
> Readers might like to look at the on-for-one comparison (and have a giggle
> at "the way the big corporation would react"!)
> 
> Don't you think that perhaps the judge in the SCO case wishes that SCO
> would come up with some similar line-for-line comparison... an excellent
> way to make your point:-)
> 
> Also note the author's response (paraphrasing):-
> "Sure, it's my code.  I really don't mind them using it, because I wrote it
> to be used, but I really *must* speak to them about the licensing, because
> I don't much like the one under which they are re-packaging it....."
> 
> Is this what "they" mean when "they" call people like this a commie, their
> work viral and a cancer, and claim that it stiffles innovation?

The Open Source philosophy says that the code is there for others to use it
without a sense of obligations or guilt. Others can exploit it, so long as
derivative work benefits others by being public, as well as legally
modifiable and redistributable. But here Microsoft locks and bolts down the
code using dirty licensing tricks. And... not only that!

It also uses the code to deter and subvert other similar (and *better*)
projects in existence. To make matter worst, the code is used by a company
that spends many, many millions of dollars taking the c**p of out of Open
Source, calling it "cancer" and using fake benchmark to shatter its
perceived value. Microsoft's use of this project is the equivalent of taking
a dump in the neighbour's back yard and asking the neighbour for some toilet
paper.

Best wishes,

Roy

-- 
Roy S. Schestowitz      | "Ping this IP, see if it responds the second time"
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  4:05pm  up 74 days 21:08,  11 users,  load average: 0.02, 0.15, 0.53
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index