02.27.08
It’s Official: Microsoft Has Redefined “Open Source”
…and it didn’t even ask anybody else for approval of the new definition
A reader has just asked us to re-emphasise a very important point that was alluded to before. Having entered the OSI back in October, Microsoft has been attempting to break the spirit not only of the GPL, but that of “Open Source” (as perceived by the OSI) as well, using their enormous marketing and publication power.
“It was not open source at all. Microsoft pitched to the press something altogether different.”The mainstream press proudly spoke about Microsoft “opening up to open source” (never mind the reality), but what is it that Microsoft called “open source” anyway? Guess what? It was not open source at all. Microsoft pitched to the press something altogether different.
Moments ago, the Office Open - OpenOffice confusion was discussed, following other recent posts that illustrate this self-serving confusion (serving Microsoft, of course). It was a good squeal to yesterday’s post about Microsoft’s redefinition of “cross platform” (not “multi-platform” or “dual-platform”), among many other things.
Our reader tells us that “Microsoft officially redefined OpenSource.” He point to this page and adds: “Predictable, but *DONE*.”
To quote the remainder of the followup message:
…You don’t stress the point that they [Microsoft] *ARE* redefining it.
We have merely jumped from reading between the lines to it getting written explicitly by Microsoft!
This point may escape many while reading your post. Actually, only a few comments reflected that.
Glyn Moody foresaw this. He pointed out early attempts to achieve this when Microsoft signed a horrible agreement with the EU, so it’s worth looking back at what we posted at the time [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.
CoolGuy said,
February 27, 2008 at 10:59 am
Their last desperate attempts to remain relevant in the tech industry…lol.
Just watch the goliath crumble…
No matter what they do, nothing can stop GNU/Linux coming domination.
M$ is under tremendous pressure to keep their market. Look at how desperatly they are fighting FOSS/Linux.
They have forgotten the little thing called Apple which just keeps growing its market share behind all this.
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 27, 2008 at 11:20 am
Microsoft is closer to Apple than you might imagine. Some of Microsoft’s cash cows run on Macs as well.
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/30/novell-apple-deal-similarity/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/17/font-patent-deals-and-ooxml/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/23/apple-patent-linux/
The GPL (not just GNU/Linux) is the biggest danger to Microsoft because developers flock in the direction to create affordable and more resilient software (the advantage of reuse). Watch Microsoft’s SEC filings. Apple was never a threat quite as considerable as Google and Linux, which change the rules of the game (Web/service/ads, cost/IPR disruptions, respectively).
Victor Soliz said,
February 27, 2008 at 11:31 am
I hope that for one thing this blog would be wrong in its predictions, but nope, it doesn’t seem to happen. I’ve read that one on Groklaw’s news picks, it is alarming a week has passed since MS big “we are openness friends nows” going to the press and all and we are noticing this now.
So, this story is: MS released protoccols and opened them, there is also a “promise not to sue” (promise, not license, not anything really legally binding, but a promise) that affects “open source developers” according to MS’ definition an open source developer works in non-commercial projects, also, the rights are not transferible, so you can only get the rights directly from Microsoft, as long as the promise is still online.
But the press said that MS is opening up and trying to be friendlier to open source…
What’s worse, is that this ridiculous pledge is certainly going to be used by MS as a resource of showing how open a company they are, I just hope, ISO gets smart on this one and avoids suicide.
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 27, 2008 at 11:39 am
ISO (I dare to predict) will commit suicide, but senior people tell me that they will recover.
Microsoft’s control (sometimes bribery) of the press remains appalling.
Victor Soliz said,
February 27, 2008 at 11:59 am
BTW, OSI comments on the issue: http://www.opensource.org/node/257
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 27, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I think he prepared this statement right after commenting in LT. He’s all right. He gets it (he’s also in Red Hat after all). ESR didn’t even want to give Microsoft a place in OSI (pointing to OOXML abuses and telling Microsoft is can shove its licenses “up its orifices”)…. Neither did DiBona (Google). Asay was probably the only one to be against what he called “discrimination”. PJ and I protested against this at the time.
I really don’t get it. Did they really think Microsoft entered OSI without intent to resort to malice for profits of a proprietary software powerhouse? Remember: to Microsoft, this is “war”.
I’m going to turn my recent correspondence with Asay into a post pretty soon. Someone in the OSI must respond. I just see too many apologists and almost nobody with guts.