Microsoft Redefines "Open Standards"

Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft is at it again: trying to redefine what 'open' means. This time it wants open standards to be 'balanced' — for them to include patent-encumbered technologies under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Which just happens to be incompatible with free software licensed under the GNU GPL."

Ya gotta love Microsoft

[Vinegar Joe]

They'll never miss a chance to try and bend you over the dining room table.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Vinegar Joe]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.

Knowing Microsoft, the free blowjobs would come with a free dose of the clap.

Re:They're still at this?

[larry bagina]

Fun fact of the day: Open has multiple meanings. Tomorrow's fun fact: Free has multiple meanings.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[thereimns]

"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."

Everlasting fame and the undying love of children everywhere?

So.... woah

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words they just wanna, "stick it in, but only a little bit".

Let's redefine "free" to mean "less than $10"

[lcrocker]

Seems "reasonable and non-discriminatory" to me.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[stonefoz]

And, for 29.95 they'll sell you the penicillin, $100 for penicillin that works, and 200 for "Penicillin Ultimate Edition"

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[clone53421]

No kidding. Letting Microsoft define "open" is like a bunch of sheep letting the wolf define "vegetarian".

Re:You guys would bitch if

[jimicus]

And even if you go for the $200 "ultimate edition", there's still a 5% chance that it won't do any good and Microsoft's advice would be "shoot yourself, reincarnate and try again".

Re:You guys would bitch if

[IGnatius T Foobar]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.

I'm sure they'd fail at that too. In fact, it might be the first time in history that they didn't suck.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[migla]

You need corporate lawyers now to evolve into birds?

Not just balanced... Fair and Balanced

[Toe, The]

Microsoft is probably just following the example of FoxNews, which of course is "Fair and Balanced." Says so right in the credits (and on the website and every couple minutes throughout the broadcast, so you just know it has to be true).

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[gbjbaanb]

Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term.

nonsense, Microsoft's new definition of the term open simple refers to the inclusivity of the number of people who are affected by their licences. If the definition of openness means it is available to everyone equally, then the new definition from MS makes perfect sense.

Their software is completely open: absolutely anyone can do nothing with it. :-)

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[NoOneInParticular]

I'm pretty sure neither you nor the parent post actually know what orthagonal means.

At least they know how to spell it, which gives them one leg up to you.