04.03.09
Microsoft Uses Pseudo “Open Source” to Fight Against GNU/Linux and the GPL
Like a gun that turns against its owner
Summary: Microsoft deceives on “open source” and uses it to exclude or to poison (with software patents) GNU/Linux
MICROSOFT IS UP to no good, but this is hardly news. The news can be broken down as follows.
Microsoft Tries to Make Silverlight be Perceived as “Open Source”
We saw this before and we are seeing it again. It was last mentioned with examples just over a week ago (Microsoft’s /opensource page trying to associate Silverlight with “open source”). Now we see Microsoft joining forces with Rupert Murdoch and issuing a press release which is summarised like this:
World’s Premier Social Portal Works With Microsoft to Launch Open Source Kit for Silverlight Developers
When Microsoft puts the “open source” label next to Silverlight, then it’s known that the company renders the term almost worthless and deceiving. Silverlight is blocking GNU/Linux users (out of Web sites) whilst Microsoft is falsely claiming that Silverlight cross-platform, which it is not. As we will show in a moment, Moonlight is neither a Silverlight clone nor is it safe for GNU/Linux users to touch. It’s the type of thing which Microsoft’s Partner[sic] Group calls patent trap (or "poison pill"). We already know how close Gartner is to Microsoft.
Microsoft Shuts GNU/Linux Users Out of NASA
The above example comes from MySpace, which is a private entity, but what about NASA? There was a similar deal/arrangement with NASA recently, bragging about an open source platform (not really open), which helps totally exclude GNU/Linux users — or users of any open source platform for that matter — from access to NASA data. As Matt Aslett put it, “it would appear unfortunate that while the data will be hosted on an open source platform individuals with an open source desktop are not going to be able to view it.”
This case involves national assets, much like the Library of Congress [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] where Microsoft pulled similar stunts with Silverlight. Since Microsoft’s Silverlight is not catching on, Microsoft actually paid this government/federal section to pick up a patents-encumbered technology that excludes those who are not customers of Microsoft, thus denying them access to national assets that they own (library).
More Poison Against the GPL
Here is a new publicity stunt with Microsoft’s ‘poison pill’ licence. Last month we explained what makes the MS-PL so problematic (it’s incompatible with the GPL, by design) and it is hard not to see what is happening here.
Regarding this Microsoft publicity stunt, Miguel de Icaza has already enhanced some PR efforts for his good friend Scott Guthrie from Microsoft (even though it’s a Windows technology) and so have Microsoft fans like Gavin Clarke.
“Let’s remember that with an increased investment of $100 million, Microsoft essentially pays some Novell wages.”For a sobering reality, the comments in LinuxToday are worth a look. These comments are ranging from “Senor Microsoft de Icaza is all giddy….” to “Miguel == MS” — a comment that states: “I remain convinced that Miguel De Icaza and Nat Friedman are on the Microsoft payroll (probably using some shady accounting tricks to hide it). Ximian (now known as “Novell”) are a Microsoft cancer infecting Linux and Open Source and should be eradicated.”
Let’s remember that with an increased investment of $100 million, Microsoft essentially pays many Novell wages. Nat Friedman actually worked for Microsoft prior to his days at Novell. In our daily links we’ve recently tried to show who is really is by adding video interviews. Miguel de Icaza wanted to work for Microsoft before starting his Free software endeavours in the late 90s. A lot of what he has built recently did more harm than good, notable examples being promotion of Microsoft technologies at the expense their competition, the “superb” OOXML remark, and even him telling off European regulators who watched over Microsoft’s abuses.
Here is a recent video where de Icaza expresses his feelings about Microsoft. He is still totally ignoring the FAT/TomTom situation and saying nothing about what it means to trust in Microsoft, the risk of Mono, and so on.
Quoting from Microsoft's very own evangelism 'bible', one of the commenters in LinuxToday writes:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-03-31-029-35-OS-NV-0007
Every line of code that is written to Microsoft’s standard is a small defeat; every line of code that is written to a Linux standard is a small victory.
You want to destroy Linux? Just continue to use MONO or begin using ASP.NET. After everything Linux is dependent on MONO and ASP then watch the other shoe fall: updates cut off, licenses reversed, and lawsuits for infringement begin.
De Icaza is doing EVERYTHING he possible can to make Microsoft technology dominate on Linux. Microsoft’s past history and current examples of unethical and illegal behavior doesn’t seem to phase him.
It is time to consider that he is a STEALTH Microsoft employee who does NOT have the best interests of Linux at heart.
Corresponding transcripts about Microsoft’s standard strategy can be found here and none of this is new, just leaked. The TomTom case was merely a reminder of the harms of Mono [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
Groklaw: Time to Get Mono and Moonlight Out of GNU/Linux?
As Groklaw put it yesterday, “Perens on TomTom: Be Wary of FAT, OOXML, .NET, Mono, Silverlight.” Pamela Jones even did a detailed post to mention this, so it’s not just in News Picks.
Ah, yes. Mono. Once again. And OOXML. Might governmental agencies wish to particularly take note of OOXML in light of the TomTom settlement? I would think so. And .NET and Silverlight. Perhaps you can think of others.
[...]
Wake up. Microsoft should be treated like Microsoft.
It is what it is. It is what it always has been.
Microsoft asked recently to be judged by its actions, not its words. OK. The TomTom settlement *is* Microsoft actions. We watched it, and we judge them by it.
Will Novell listen? Not everyone has paid Microsoft for the use of Mono. █
“There is a substantive effort in open source to bring such an implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to Novell customers.”
–Bob Muglia, Microsoft President
Dan O'Brian said,
April 3, 2009 at 9:07 am
First of all, both the OSI and the FSF have accepted the MS-PL as a Free Software license.
Secondly, there are a lot of F/OSS licenses that are incompatible with GPLv3 (including older versions of the GPL, hah!), does that make them non-free? See here for details: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Roy Schestowitz said,
April 3, 2009 at 9:31 am
That’s what makes effective Trojan horses; they appear benign.
Care to comment on Mono, which you ignored?
Here are some comments from Groklaw:
Someone asks whether anyone “can help against inadvertently reinstalling mono.”
Replies include:
And:
And:
And:
PJ writes:
Sarcastic approach to a reality:
Yfrwlf said,
April 3, 2009 at 11:44 am
@Roy: Pet peeve here, but it kind of makes me cringe when software is called “technology”. Such a term migration IMO has stemmed from businesses pushing it in ads and when talking about themselves. They do so not only to make it sound like it’s “more amazing than just plain ’software’”, but also to make it sound like it’s something special that could deserve a *patent*. IMO, everyone should call software software, because it isn’t anything special, it’s just art.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Good point. I’m a lot more careful with the word “solution”.
Jose_X Reply:
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I cringed as well and refused to use the term for a long time.. but I caved in. I use it now as I think it gets the point across quicker sometimes.