Move over, Richard Stallman, Microsoft will take it from here…
Summary: Microsoft folks have decided on ‘our behalf’ who is important to Open Source and who is not
IS IT not just lovely when Microsoft people get to define who is a valid Open Source voice and who is not? This way they can marginalise key people like Stallman (the founder of the movement back when it was more widely known as "Free software") and promote apologists of Microsoft.
“This way they can marginalise key people like Stallman (the founder of the movement back when it was more widely known as “Free software”) and promote apologists of Microsoft.”We are talking about MindTouch, the former Microsoft employees who are also Mono boosters. They were sucking up to people like Matt Asay last year [1, 2]. He is the man who helped Microsoft enter OSI and OSBC [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] — a fact that many people either don’t know or don’t remember.
They also idolise one of Microsoft’s gate openers [1, 2, 3], Tim O’Reilly. He has financial interests with the company from Redmond, just like the following man whom they included in this year’s list:
Miguel de Icaza, founder, Mono and GNOME projects
It’s almost as though MindTouch wants to go around publishers and disseminate this list which says, “these are your friends! Follow them.”
Now ponder all those who are conspicuously missing. IDG says:
Torvalds was named the most influential blogger in open source, however, despite ranking behind O’Reilly in the overall metric, which includes various Twitter analysis tools and Google Trends.
This is just the latest example of Microsoft redefining the landscape of Free/open source software by wrapping itself up with Geeknet, CodePlex, etc. Matt Asay is on the board of advisors for Geeknet, which got filled with former Microsoft employees as well [1, 2]. Geeknet’s news site, Slashdot, also promoted (front page) MindTouch’s list that lauded Asay as an Open Source champion.
Watch the author of this latest press release which promotes a Microsoft lobby that Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza participated in until recently. It says “CodePlex Foundation”, but it’s really just Microsoft. They try to pretend it’s something separate that submits press releases independently.
Microsoft pretends to have embraced Free software (it called it “shared source” or “open source” and bends the meaning it conveys) while attacking Free software, illegally and legally at the same time (with legal means but with accompanying racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]). We gave two examples just hours ago [1, 2]. █
“If anybody thinks open-source alternatives are free, I guess as they say, you can see me after class. [...] I will tell you that in any comparison that you would do of Windows with Linux, which is an open-source alternative, we will prove to you that when it comes to total cost of ownership our stuff is more economical, whether it’s the other patent-licensing costs that you might have to pay to use open-source software, which is kind of a big unknown right now [...]“
Summary: Microsoft is once again using the British Library to promote its own agenda and extend its grip over society’s assets
THE British Library is tied to a lot of Microsoft scandals [1, 2, 3, 4]. This post won’t discuss these older scandals, but readers can rest assured that the British Library, which is funded by taxpayers, played a role in the OOXML corruptions. It also promoted Microsoft products and DRM. It’s really that bad. The British Library sometimes seems like a victim of Microsoft infiltration into key positions (a bit like the BBC [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]), but we do not have the names of such people, except Adam Farquhar who has been pivotal to the Microsoft scandals at the British Library).
The British Library is now embarking on a project that not only brings Microsoft deeper into the heart of the public’s common property but also helps Microsoft pretend that it’s “open”. Here is an article on the subject:
The Research Information Centre (RIC) Framework v1.0 released this week has been designed to help international researchers collaborate more effectively. Hosted via Microsoft’s open source Codeplex project and based on Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 Platform, the “virtual research environment” allows researchers to create and share content and also work on specific issues such as funding proposals, the organisations claim.
Built on top of Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) 2007, the RIC extends the core MOSS functionality to meet the needs to academic researchers engaged in collaborative research projects
Gee, doc, you’re not a Microsoft shop? Even if you can connect with these resources, you’re always going to be second-class in a group project that depends on them.
Which is sort of the point. To Microsoft open source is not an end in itself. It is a marketing tool. It is a way to gain lock-in with important customer sets.
Glyn Moody, a Brit, calls the British Library the “Betrayed Library”. It’s getting easier to see why. █
I suppose this [OOXML] is “global” in a sense, in the same way one could stage an “International Food Festival” and then have McDonalds show up and contribute a Big Mac from the U.S., a Big Mac from Germany, a Big Mac from the Ivory Coast, a Big Mac from Finland and another Big Mac from Brazil and so on. Certainly, you could claim this was “international”, but you would be laughed right out of the festival if you did.
[...]
Evidently there is no one capable of fixing this. ISO says that domination by a single corporation is not their responsibility, because only NBs vote and each NB determines its own participation rules. But individual NBs also don’t see a problem, because any single one of them only has one Microsoft employee at the meeting. So the NB itself is not necessary stuffed (although that does happens occasionally as well). So by placing Microsoft employees in many NB delegations and putting the overflow into the Ecma delegation, Microsoft can still dominate the ISO committee and not trigger a rule violation in ISO or in any NB.
This is essentially how Microsoft hacked ISO. Now that the flaw has been demonstrated, any large international corporation with sufficient funds and interest can exploit it as well. So long as the rules remain as they are, ISO is vulnerable. ISO defends this criticism by pointing out what good work they’ve done in the past, and how they rarely have problems of this kind before. But this shows little appreciation for the nature of the problem which have been demonstrated. It is like arguing that a newly discovered (though long latent) security flaw in an operating system is insignificant because you’ve never had an attack before now. Of course, this misses the point entirely. Once the vulnerability is known and publicly exploited, you’re living on borrowed time until you can secure the system. Today ISO is living on borrowed time and is very close to becoming a Microsoft-infested zombie server.
The author, Rob Weir, is already being heckled by Microsoft employees and their MVPs, who try to change the topic of discussion because defending corruption is so much more difficult. Sadly, Weir is perhaps too shy to admit that he is not happy with the company that attacked ODF so viciously and now forks it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] sitting on the ODF table.
To repeat an old analogical expression, Microsoft wants to stick its finger in all the pies, including Linux and Free software (or “open source”) where it is doing the same type of routine.
Microsoft and its army of partners have their limits though. They did not manage to stuff OSI like they did stuff ISO, so they created their own separate entity [1, 2, 3, 4], akin to OOXML. Jason Brooks, writing on the subject in his latest column, thinks that this could lead to flames.
For its part, the FSF has spent the summer alternately blasting individuals and groups for and warning them against using or adopting technologies distributed or even invented by Microsoft. For instance, the FSF this summer launched a Website devoted to cataloging the “sins” of Windows 7 and has weighed in on multiple occasions as to why, despite what Microsoft promises, no open-source developer should code in Microsoft’s C#.
As Groklaw showed a few days ago, Novell is a big part of this problem [1, 2]. Groklaw received flak for saying so. The Mono-Nono Web site adds:
For one thing, PJ has a bit of experience dealing with such nastiness. The irony of course is that she gained it while investigating SCOs attacks on Linux, and will probably be using it for Team Mono and Friends attacks on Freedom now! There’s a certain symmetry to that, I think.
Another thing is that I’ve noticed that the pro-Mono attacks are looking a bit faded lately.
I guess that’s what happens when you keep attacking honest people truly interested in Freedom and your basic weapons are ad hominem and disinformation.
Microsoft is no different from any other proprietary vendor in this regard. The like sof IBM and Oracle and SAP have all had to find their own ways of coexisting with FOSS.
This is not so accurate. Microsoft is unique for the reason shown below (which still applies). █
“Microsoft is unique among proprietary software companies: they are the only ones who have actively tried to kill Open Source and Free Software. It’s not often someone wants to be your friend after trying to kill you for ten years, but such change is cause for suspicion.”
Summary: Is “Open Source” simply where Free software meets Microsoft’s software patents and other “compromises”? In some cases, it sure seems like a terminological fit
On the one hand, there is good output coming from Mono, but on the other hand there is obvious advantage to Microsoft if this route is taken. GreyGeek has responded to this issue of attacks on “Free software”, noting that:
Diluting the meaning of Open Source and HIDING the GPL in a forest of several dozen pseudo GPL licenses which do NOT offer the FOUR FREEDOMS of the GPL has been the total business of the OSI, of which Microsoft is now a member. The OSI’s “compromise” to “go mainstream” was to allow the corporate member to monitor THEIR OWN COMPLIANCE with the “Open Source” requirements defined by the OSI, as weak as the OSI requirements are. It is ALL about MONEY, and the OSI is handing out Tux Suits for cash to proprietary software houses as they try to decieve the consumer about the meaning of the GPL and the Four Freedoms.
Assuming that Moblin, for example, is encumbered by Microsoft patent tax [1, 2] (evidence does suggest so [1, 2]), then the following new analysis of “why Microsoft won’t fight moblin” makes a lot of sense. It only seems to be missing the point about software patents and it concludes with:
Moblin is the solution to the problem of Intel: providing a free, lightweight and powerful OS to sell cheaper netbooks and devices. This allows Microsoft to get out of the “bargain basement OS” market and to focus on a more expensive, higher end market with Windows 7. The differentiation between both OS is large enough to ensure that most people won’t buy a Moblin device to replace their computer but to complement it. It suits Microsoft better if consumer purchase a Windows 7 desktop AND a Moblin netbook than if their purchase only a cheap Windows XP netbook.
It is worth noting that Microsoft broke competition laws to exclude GNU/Linux from many sub-notebooks (elimination of choice) only to then complain that it was losing money by doing so. It is akin to a burglar breaking into shop, emptying the register, only to complain to the shopkeeper that there is not “enough” money at the shop and the refrigerator has no soda. █
Summary: Opposition to Mono grows in some GNU/Linux distributions and run over in others
THIS is a quick update about the Mono situation. We’ll treat some of the key distributions in turn, at least where developments exist.
Red Hat/Fedora
In a timely new report, Fedora leader and Red Hat employee Paul Frields admits that the company is looking into possible legal issues relating to Mono.
That said, Frields also told me that in his view there are some problems with the language used in the legalese surrounding Mono and its redistribution.
“We do have some serious concerns about Mono and we’ll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part,” Frields said.
While Mono is part of Fedora, Mono is not part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and hasn’t been since 2006. It’s not clear if mono will stay or go for the final Fedora 12 release when it appears 6 months from now.
“We haven’t come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out,” Frields said. “Right now we’re in a status quo. Gnote is a relatively recent development and unfortunately was too late in the Fedora 11 development cycle to include by default.”
Response from proponents of Mono would be helpful. The very fact that Red Hat is looking into it suggests that there is uncertainty and quite likely a real problem. Fedora has already rejected Moonlight for legal reasons (Microsoft licences/covenants for starters).
Canonical/Ubuntu
One person believes that Mono does not belong in Ubuntu by default (printed on CDs, as opposed to patent-encumbered codecs for example). It is very important to make the distinction between inclusion by default and inclusion in the repositories. If Mono-based programs are as great as their proponents claim they are, then people will install them. It is very trivial to achieve in Ubuntu and those who wish to accept the risk of Mono will do so by personal choice, not a choice imposed by those with unquestioned affinity for Mono.
Now when I install Ubuntu and therefor Gnome, it does not pull in Wine at all. In fact, I’ve been running Ubuntu without wine for most of the past 5 years. So killing wine would only affect people still locked in to certain windows programs and not have any effect of the Free Desktop by itself.
In contrast, removing mono rips out F-Spot and Tomboy and even the Ubuntu-desktop meta-package. You see, Ubuntu uses a lot of mono-apps by default and even vanilla-Gnome includes Tomboy and as such, depends on mono. Yes, replacing Tomboy is easy, but what if Evolution also comes to depend on mono, or Nautilus or gnome-panel? Then ripping out mono means the end of the Gnome Desktop.
My perspective on the Mono thing is from that of a user and not a developer. I really fail to see why anyone would want to build new applications on top of a framework that has so many unanswered questions and causes so much angst in the community as a whole. We have plenty of other solutions that are – if not 100% free from controversy – certainly far less likely to end up requiring the kind of backtracking or complete re-writing that Jo describes above.
Software patents are not the only issue at play. As Microsoft puts it[PDF], “Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat.” One reader of ours adds: “Maybe that is some of what Mono is about: porting security flaws, bad design and vulnerabilities to new platforms.”
Is mono a problem outside the US and other patent friendly countries?
[...]
As Canonical is based in the EU this should not give the Ubuntu community any issue by itself. So keep any patent related problem for United-States based distributions and leave Ubuntu alone. Or move to a country that enforces your freedom all-day-every-day!
The situation is unfortunately quite different. TomTom, for example, is based in Europe, but Microsoft brought software patents to a case against it. Microsoft got its way for reasons we explained before.
More whining from the anti-software patent lot? Well, not actually. These words were written by Alison Crofts, who:
provides specialist IP advice and expertise in both litigation and commercial matters. This includes advising on: the creation, protection and exploitation of IP rights, including trade secrets, confidentiality issues, technology transfer agreements and licensing; the enforcement and defence of IP rights, including the conduct of litigation and arbitration proceedings; and IP aspects of joint ventures, co-ownership and transactions. Alison has an engineering background and has particular experience in the semiconductor, oil and gas, hi-tech and telecoms engineering industries.
In other words, she’s likely to be for rather than against software patents.
I’ve heard a lot of arguments against software patents (SWPAT) since Richard Stallman first raised the flag at the League for Programming Freedom, and almost all of the arguments are variations on a theme. A valid theme, but a theme that, after 20 years, has become a bit monotonous. Herman Daly puts that theme in a new context that has me all excited. He says
Stop treating the scarce as if it were non-scarce, but also stop treating the non-scarce as if it were scarce. Enclose the remaining commons of rival natural capital (e.g. atmosphere, electromagnetic spectrum, public lands) in public trusts, and price it by a cap-auction-trade system, or by taxes, while freeing from private enclosure and prices the non-rival commonwealth of knowledge and information.
Until software patents are eliminated altogether — and there is a chance this might happen with sufficient public support — Mono will continue to be a weapon of FUD to Microsoft (and Novell). They’ll vilify — in a whisper campaign (behind-closed-doors) fashion — those who don’t offer "intellectual property peace of mind". Microsoft President Bob Muglia says that Mono is “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.” What about Ubuntu users? OpenSUSE users? Fedora Users? Debian users?
Debian
Debian, unlike Fedora and Ubuntu, does not have a commercial entity behind it. Well, at least not in the sense that a company actually owns Debian. Some people have decided to treat this as an open door to a form of civil disobedience, so rather than claim that Mono has no legal issues, it is being added to Debian (by default) because legal issues can be disregarded.
For those who haven’t been following closely, the explanation behind Jo Shields’ recent post instructing us on the greatness of Mono and the Microsoft .NET approach to software development could be found in the fact that Josselin Mouette has decided that Mono must be part of the default desktop install for Debian Squeeze.
There are some interesting comments to be found in there and also cheap shots like the one we've been getting because Mono is “holy” or “sacred” (it cannot be criticised, it’s a taboo). It would be a lot more constructive to carry a technical discussion which also makes use of Red Hat’s assessment. Fedora already lists Moonlight under “forbidden” items for legal reasons and it is only now taking a closer look at Mono. So to simply toss Mono into Debian (by default) under the premise that “Mono doesn’t suck” and software patents are already void (i.e. made history prematurely ) is not the best way to proceed.
There are those who propose looking at Vala, so there is clearly acknowledgment that Mono presents/poses a dilemma. █
Summary: A quick look at stories that may impact Free software at a lesser technical level
GLYN Moody and the OSI spoke about patents very recently. A context in which their arguments ought to be seen is this post from Carlo Piana. The short story is that the OSI needs to develop principles of strong resistance to software patents, or else it might accommodate open source licences that are poisonous and mutually hostile.
The first chart below shows a time series for the percentage of continuation applications and RCE filings as compared to the total UPR filings (Utility, Plant, and Re-Issue applications). Remember here, that for most PTO statistics, RCE filings are counted as a utility application. According to this data, 27.6% of all of the UPR filings thus far in FY09 are RCEs – continuing a steady trend of of rising RCE filings. (Note – the RCE data also includes historical data for CPA and R129 filings).
[...]
In the title of this post, I link the economic downturn with the downturn in patent filings. Some may also link the drop in patent filings with other recent events that may drop the allure of a patent application – namely, KSR v. Teleflex; eBay v. MercExchange; Bilski; Seagate; the prospect of further patent reform; the Second Pair of Eyes review; 750,000 backlog of unexamined patents; and the 26 month average pendency before the first OA.
A decline in the acquisition of patents does not necessarily mean decline in litigation and patent trolls.
Microsoft scored a win in its long-running patent dispute with Alcatel-Lucent on Monday, when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that Alcatel-Lucent’s claims on a disputed patent were invalid. A year ago, a jury awarded Alcatel-Lucent $358 million on the finding that Microsoft had infringed the patent, which deals with touch-screen form entry. Microsoft appealed.
[C]onsider this email with the subject line “BSA Launches Faces of Piracy Campaign” (BSA = Business Software Alliance), reproduced on this blog post:
We’ve all been following the events of the past week of the pirates off the Horn of Africa. Piracy takes many forms, some more violent than others. I wanted to let you know that the Business Software Alliance is launching a new campaign today “Faces of Internet Piracy” that shows the real-life impact of software piracy–from hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines to jail time.
This callous linking of life-threatening events off the coast of Africa, with digital copyright infringement, which doesn’t even involve the loss of material objects, since perfect copies can be produced without affecting the original, is cynical in the extreme. It shows to what depths the BSA has sunk if it is able to equate the two.
SA Tries To Exploit Somali Piracy News In PR Campaign Against Software Sharing
[...]
We already wrote about how ridiculous it is to compare Somali high seas pirates with music, movie and software fans downloading an unauthorized copy of something off the internet — and even the press is starting to question the wisdom of calling unauthorized file sharing “piracy.” Yet, that hasn’t stopped the BSA, masters of misleading through questionable stats from ramping up a marketing campaign that purposely tries to compare software file sharers with Somali pirates.
“They have not turned over a new leaf, and still remain insincere about their involvement in open source,” Perens said.
Making it plain, Perens said:
“I don’t believe Microsoft was ever attempting to be sincere. A perceived involvement in open source by Microsoft, along with highly paid mouthpieces like Novell to chime in for them, is giving Microsoft the ability to speak for open source in government circles, short-circuiting the legislation we need to defend ourselves from software patents or to establish a level playing field on which open source and proprietary software can compete fairly. That’s their true interest.”
The answer is legislation, he said. Perens said legislation is needed to “clean out the software patent system. Developers need to be able to make and sell software without the threat of patent-related extortion. We must unite both proprietary and open-source developers – who are equally at risk – to work for this cause, if we’re to have a hope of being heard by legislators.”
This is similar to what the SFLC had to say, namely that “It’s a good moment for people to take a step back and re-think how friendly Microsoft is to open source.”
Here comes Novell again, characteristically appearing as Microsoft’s beloved role model. Ronald Zink from Microsoft had some interesting words to share, as noted in this article about TomTom. (emphasis is ours)
“We will talk about patents and how they relate to our technologies, but it’s on the basis of private conversations rather than openly broad negotiation,” said [Microsoft's] Zink. “We are willing to license on reasonable terms, and we have covenants not to sue open source developers or for research and development.”
[Microsoft's] Zink added that the covenants, which also extend to those companies such as Novell which agree to cross-license, “give understanding and certainty to people”.
[...]
Allison also spoke out about the TomTom case in February, saying Microsoft’s move would alienate the open source community.
We wrote about Jeremy Allison’s take in [1, 2, 3]. Two years ago he told Boycott Novell why he disliked the deal between Microsoft and Novell (his employer at the time) before he even left the company.
Sam Varghese wrote this good new article which reinforces the belief that Microsoft has officially taken a SCO-like route to fighting its #1 competitor.
But if any Microsoft employee went to a free software or open source conference today, I doubt he or she would attract anything other than hostile glares. By suing GPS device maker TomTom over alleged violation of patents connected with an implementation of the Linux kernel any goodwill that Microsoft has built up has gone down the drain.
[...]
Why did Microsoft decide to sue TomTom at this time? Is it the old arrogance asserting itself again as it has many times in the past? Is it a sense that suing at this time gives it more leeway than at others?
[...]
But there is one thing which a corporate entity like Microsoft can never comprehend. And that is the energy of the free software community, the anger and hatred that the lawsuit has generated.
When SCO started its campaign against Linux by suing IBM, it was quite confident that things would go its way. Six years later, the company is just a shell and few people would even bother pissing on it.
Somehow I have the feeling that this time Microsoft may have bitten off more than even it can chew.
“Novell spends a lot of time lauding and promoting its work on Mono, MonoDevelop, and Moonlight.”A reader and informant of ours has already embarked on the task involving lots of historical excavation, only to find out that popular distributions accepted Mono because everyone else had (i.e. cattle effect). This means that Mono had become contagious and dangerous at the same time. It’s a lot like FAT because it relies on the ‘network effect’ to spread itself and at the same time it comes with a loose promise not to sue which is not even being honoured (in no case, neither FAT nor Mono). The recent decision regarding Rambus teaches us that this is seen as legitimate in the US.
Novell spends a lot of time lauding and promoting its work on Mono, MonoDevelop, and Moonlight. Novell also praises Microsoft on various occasions and helps it get a ‘free pass’ — usually resulting in entry into Free software/Linux conferences [1, 2, 3]. Microsoft understands that this is a convenient way of 'crashing' competitors' events. This is all happening while Novell sacks 20% of SUSE's staff without a reasonable explanation (SUSE was one of the only growth products). Whose team is Novell playing ball for and is it being pressured to step away from the Free desktop, as some rumours suggest?
“I think the Mac has a part to play here. Mono for OS X *sucks*… no one uses it. Therefore, if programmers want to target Mac as well, they can’t really use Mono,” wrote Balrog a couple of hours ago. Another person, David Gerard, points out that “There was a rumour that, in the wake of the TomTom case, Canonical was seriously considering removing Mono from main and leaving it to multiverse as too dangerous to support (like mp3). I haven’t been able to find any more info either way, asking around.”
