Microsoft Redefines "Open Standards" 325
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."
I will be the first to defend MS (Score:2, Interesting)
I will be the first one to defend MS and their right to make money on the product they work so hard on. It is also true that the GPL is not the only licence you will ever need. But I really can only think of one thing that open can mean, if MS wants to do open source I welcome it but if want to move into the neighborhood and ask that the rules change because they are here now, I find that just plain silly.
It reminds me of the vacationers that have a summer house on the lake and can't figure out why the laws are not the same here as they are in the big city. If you want to move in please do but don't ask us to change to meet just because you are here now.
losing contracts (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this have anything to do with losing the ability to get government contracts because of FOSS requirements? Remember the stink ?last year? when M$ got their proprietary document format declared a standard so they could bid on contracts that required open document standards? They must have another contract coming up for renewal.
Re:You guys would bitch if (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment. (Score:5, Interesting)
"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."
Don't be so sure: dinos didn't have corporate lawyers.
Re:They're still at this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that makes things so easy!
1 - Define 'open' as 'made by your freaking money-grabbing company'
2 - Impose your definition to everyone else
3 - Profit!!!
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, Matusow didn't say they want all open standards to be able to include RAND, just that he considers some RAND standards as open to him. The article writer even seems to agree with most of his points, and then turns a 360 and brings up the OOXML to bash on them a bit.
On the side of openness, I think the article writer misunderstood Matusow's main point about patents and standards, which is that if a patentable idea could be used in more then one way (his two examples were protocols and an aphrodisiac) that the owner should be able to grant use of the patent for a protocol standard, but should not be required to give up rights to license separately use as an aphrodisiac. Doing so might make the contributor less likely to contribute, which make sense because if that were required, the cost of the contribution might outweigh the benefit.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:3, Interesting)
Open standards != open source (Score:3, Interesting)
Open standards and open source are two completely different things and always has been.
Open Source means allowing people to see how programs work and be free to change them as they see fit and promote sharing and interoperability.
Open Standards means allowing software companies to ignore standards and change them as they see fit in order to generate greater lock-in (under the guise of competitiveness). See also: MS Visual Java.
Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent" (Score:1, Interesting)
You're wrong that something Opened can't have patent associated with it, because most ISO, ANSI and other standards do. For example. The MPEG 4 standard is all about documenting this group of patents.
Open Standards just means that cards are on the table: the specs and the list of patents that go with it are published. Open, the company that owns the patents licenses them for free.
Whether someone can code it with GPL has nothing to with whether something is an acceptable ISO, EMCA or ANSI standard, the FSF isn't an open standard authority.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell you what, then (Score:1, Interesting)
If the patent can be freely coded into a BSD license and can be operated FULLY under the BSD license, that is open.
Remember: BSD code can be included in GPL code and if you cannot implement in BSD and operate under the BSD which allows the code to be used for ANY purpose (even closing the source), then it isn't BSD compatible either.
Re:Open standards != open source (Score:2, Interesting)
The freedom in GPL. (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL license shields the freedom of the end user from everyone, developpers of other open source and not-so-free licenses projects included. That's the point of its very existence.
You may want to or need to use another "free" license, but doing so always entail at some point that the end-user freedom can and will be reduced. This is not OK with the GPL, hence the strong stance on this point.
And, yes, IAL, and I read the GPL from top to bottom, every version of it.
Win NT on Alpha... (Score:4, Interesting)
OMG, what a sad joke it was !
the DEC Alpha was the absolute epitome of 64 bits processing in its times, a fabulous cpu running loops around what intel had to offer, and head and shoulders above the competition from Sun and IBM. The Alpha was emulating a top of the line Ppro faster than the ppro could run natively. And those retards at MSFT just ported a 32 bits NT to it, and moreover were unable to provide native software for it (MS Office can't run on the Alpha).
Allegedly, the bulk of the work on the 64 bit version of NT (call it 2K_64, XP_64 or whatever, it's never been released) was conducted on Alpha hardware for the lack of competent Itanium platforms at the time.
In short, MS benefited from the Alpha while doing their very best to kill the product, by not delivering the promised goods for it. They created high public expectations and their shoddy behaviours finally put DEC in a bad light.
It makes me sick to read such statements. I still run a PWS under Linux for the good old days memories, and the only comforting thoughts I have are that AMD managed to build upon DEC expertise to create the Athlon 64 after DEC had been swallowed by Compaq and their R&D disbanded.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:3, Interesting)
You can redefine terms to mean something different from how they have been used for decades and complain that everyone else is using the wrong definition, but you are unlikely to get much sympathy. If you want a term that means something different from the accepted definition, create a new term, don't try to hijack an existing one.
Re:Cue Microsoft bashing... (Score:5, Interesting)
No bashing is occurring.
Facts are being discussed and reason is attempting to be made. In 2006/7 Microsoft explicitly claimed that they would kill open source. Later Ballmer claimed that open source was a cancer on the software industry. Recently Microsoft stated they would kill Google like they did Netscape. These aren't attempts to compete, they attempts to use their monopoly power to kill the competition. You compete based on the merits of your product.
Clearly and unequivocally this is nothing more than "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft is using their PR arm to attempt to make this out as a makeover while it is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the efforts of Open Source so that businesses look differently at it with less willingness to use it if there is an alternative.
It is no coincidence that Ballmer and Microsoft see open source as a bigger threat today in a sliding economy. They see the inroads that open source has made. It is no coincidence that this is happening at the largest slide in their revenue/profits. They see no other competition other than Linux and the Mac (and they have the Mac in hand as they develop some pretty strong software there).
Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered (Score:3, Interesting)
Open Licences do not generally allow patented code, GPL does not allow patented code, BSD does not allow patented code
Just because you have the source code does not mean it is truly open, you may not be allowed to use your knowledge to improve the product or correct errors
Open standards do allow patented code (OOXML has them, so do many others), but in most cases these are not distributed in the USA *because* they are encumbered with patents ....
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:3, Interesting)
An open standard can be implemented by anyone without any restrictions.
The whole point of an open standard in fact is that you want it implemented, for the purposes of interoperability. So, for example, POSIX is an open standard; at least these days, you can get right online and read the damned thing on the official sites. IEEE1394 is not; there is a licensing fee of $0.25/device (IIRC it was higher originally?) to cover patents.