____/ Doug Mentohl on Monday 18 June 2007 21:40 : \____
> "To me, the Linux/Microsoft deals not only make sense, they show that we
> are in the last stage. Linux is winning, and Microsoft is acknowledging
> it. After all, if Microsoft didn't have to deal with Linux as something
> like an equal, why would they bother to make agreements at all?"
>
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6099316851.html
[PJ: Actually, that is not what Microsoft does. They do Embrace, Extend,
Extinguish. It's a differenct strategy and they are now in the embrace part.
Is it a "win" if the basic concept of equal distribution rights to downstream
users is now limited? If the agreement covers only per seat paying customers
who can't pass along the rights to others? Is it a win if the terms force the
Linux side to violate the spirit of the GPL, and in fact the very terms of the
GPLv3? Who is winning now? That alters the very development method that made
FOSS what it is. It ensures it can never happen again. Is it a win if
noncommercial programmers can't contribute to commercial products without fear
of a lawsuit? That means a new Linus can't do Linux ever again, folks.
And is it an agreement between equals when the Linux side agrees to code for
Microsoft and not vice versa, and for an XML that directly competes against
ODF, the ISO standard that OpenOffice.org and other Open Source office
products use? When does Microsoft reciprocate and agree to work with ODF, to
achieve real interoperability? Is it a win when there are no penalities in the
agreement for violations? When only Microsoft can change the terms of the
agreement at will? Puh-lease. A win like that is no different than a loss,
except some people got some money, and not the folks who wrote the code, I
noticed. It's not a win when only one side has to change the fundamentals of
how it operates and who it is.
And by the way, it's not FUD, this patent agreement, after someone signs it.
|
|
