Fighting Microsoft the Open-Source Way

Business 2.0 ^ | November 08, 2002 | Erick Schonfeld,

[Knitebane]

And let's continue: They want to dictate what software the government can use. Thanks, but no thanks.

But it's okay for Microsoft to try to dictate what software the government can use. Gotcha.

Prove it. I've seen reports that MS has warned lawmakers of the dangers of GPL but there hasn't been any attempt to get laws passed banning GPL.

Okay. Here and here.

Of course it is. GPL is a cancer.

The GPL gives users rights above and beyond that which normal copyrights gives them. Microsoft EULAs, on the other hand, take rights away from people who have paid for a product.

Anyone who advocates less rights for citizens is no friend of liberty and is likewise no conservative. I always expected that your authoritarian roots would eventually be uncovered. Now it's out.

[TheEngineer]

I read the first link that you gave to provide "proof" of MS trying to have OSS banned... Knitebane, c'mon... Get a caffeine fix, and re-read the article. The article was a joke! I almost fell for it too, until the part about the MS lawyer, "Herman Gurring". :-) Actually, it was a sarcastic spoof poking fun at what the OSS advocates are doing out in California with the DSSA (trying to ban closed-source software from govt contracts).

As for the second link, it talks about the UCITA law, which is designed to put teeth into licenses which prohibit reverse-engineering of software. Of course, I suppose this law would only be applied to commercial, closed-source software. But what I don't understand is this... If MS software sucks so bad, why are you outraged that people aren't allowed to reverse-engineer it?

[Bush2000]

But it's okay for Microsoft to try to dictate what software the government can use. Gotcha.

MS isn't telling the government what to use. Proof: Los Alamos is going to use Linux clusters.

Okay. Here and here.

Dude, I had no idea that you considered an obvious parody to be "news". LMFAO, what an aquamaroon!

The GPL gives users rights above and beyond that which normal copyrights gives them...

... and then proceeds to take away those rights by restricting what you can do with the software.

Microsoft EULAs, on the other hand, take rights away from people who have paid for a product.

So does your credit card agreement. And your mortgage. And your car loan. And your insurance policy. All "products" which place restrictions on your actions. And, despite your lame attempts to generate outrage, it's not working. People simply don't care. The terms are provided in black and white. People can read. No harm, no foul.

[Knitebane]

As for the second link, it talks about the UCITA law, which is designed to put teeth into licenses which prohibit reverse-engineering of software.

Well, reverse engineering is one of those terms that have been liberalized and made to sound evil. The truth is that companies have been using reverse engineering for years and years and they will continue to do so. The difference with UCITA is that it limits reverse engineering to those companies with enough lawyers on staff to keep them safe.

Unless you're a die-hard IBMer, it is quite likely that reverse engineering is responsible for the computer that you used to type your response. Without it, there would be a lot fewer of us, as "us" would be limited to those who could afford a $5000 IBM PC.

Of course, I suppose this law would only be applied to commercial, closed-source software.

Well, murder laws only apply to murderers. Open Source software doesn't need to be reverse engineered. All of it is already in the open.

But what I don't understand is this... If MS software sucks so bad, why are you outraged that people aren't allowed to reverse-engineer it?

The fact that MS software sucks so badly is precisely the reason that it needs to be reverse engineered. It needs to have a competing product that provides the same basic functionality. Competition and fear of losing their market is the only way to ensure that Microsoft improves it's products. I refer you to Internet Explorer, Windows 95, MSSQL and Exchange as examples of Microsoft going to a lot of trouble to improve their product as long as there was a competing product.

I refer to you Windows ME, Visual Interdev and Proxy Server as examples of what happens when Microsoft has no competition and thus no incentive to improve.

This is not a phenomenon exclusive to Microsoft. I refer you to the IBM PCjr, American cars in the 1970s and the Iridium phone system as further examples of what happens when there is no competition.

Microsoft built their empire upon the work of IBM software, BSD software, Stac Electronics software, Spyglass software, WordPerfect software, Lotus software and a score of others. Microsoft basically either bought, stole or reverse engineered the work of dozens of other software companies. So why was it ok for Microsoft to do it then, but when Samba, Lindows, OneMail or other threats to the Microsoft empire appear, is it cause for banning reverse engineering?

As for the first link, I see that you actually read it. So did I. That makes two of us. Far too many times do I do research for a discussion, only to find that most people don't read the material that I provide and then simply rehash their original rants based on what they've been spoon-fed by the Microsoft PR department. Call it a canary trap.

But if you want a second link for Microsoft backing legislation that attempts to outlaw open source software, try here.

[Knitebane]

MS isn't telling the government what to use. Proof: Los Alamos is going to use Linux clusters.

That's because their isn't any legislation to stop them. Yet. Buy Microsoft sure is trying.

Dude, I had no idea that you considered an obvious parody to be "news". LMFAO, what an aquamaroon!

So you read the first one. Great. Did you read the second one?

... and then proceeds to take away those rights by restricting what you can do with the software.

Really? What rights are those? Please elaborate as to what rights those are and what law establishes them.

So does your credit card agreement. And your mortgage. And your car loan. And your insurance policy. All "products" which place restrictions on your actions. And, despite your lame attempts to generate outrage, it's not working. People simply don't care. The terms are provided in black and white. People can read. No harm, no foul.

Except that none of your examples measure up. With a loan (a credit card is a loan, that's why they charge interest) and insurance (a promise of money if X happens) I am promising to take or not take certain actions so that services will be provided in the future. Once I've bought software, I have no expectation of future actions from the company, yet Microsoft thinks that it can continue to dictate what I can do with my own property.

And as far as outrage and apathy are concerned, people are only outraged when they are aware of what's happening. Microsoft has gone to a lot of trouble to hide their activities in their legalese. Not a lot of people had a problem with child labor, German concentration camps or Jim Crow laws either. Either they weren't aware or it didn't apply to them. That doesn't make it any less wrong.