Rockin' on without Microsoft

C/Net ^ | 8/20/2003 | David Becker

[Question_Assumptions]

But I will never support these sneaky licenses that steal your IP and provide no return revenue to the IT market which I work in.

If you don't want your code to fall under the GPL, then don't use GPL code in your programs. The GNU library license does allow you to dynamically link your programs to GNU software, which is why proprietary software is made for Linux. You seem to think that you can't run commercial software on Linux. Oracle and quite a few other vendors seem to disagree. The GPL will only "steal" your IP if you first "steal" GPL IP. That seems to be a fair trade to me.

[justlurking]

But I will never support these sneaky licenses that steal your IP and provide no return revenue to the IT market which I work in.

Open source licenses do not "steal" IP. Some of them require that you contribute your IP if you choose to redistribute your work derived from it. Others don't impose that requirement at all.

However, there is plenty of return revenue to the IT market. A lot of people are earning revenue while supporting and developing open source systems. It isn't large in comparision to the proprietary systems, but it is non-trivial.

I've personally done consulting for companies that use open source systems among the rest of their infrastructure, and wrote (non-GPL'ed) code for them to meet a specific need. It's not yet a large piece of my work, but it has been steadily increasing over the past couple of years.

[N3WBI3]

Stop comparing this to criminal law, no crime was comitted here at worst it was a breach of contract which falls under civil law.

In Civil law intent holds much more weight than it does in criminal (which btw has different statutes for Theft and possession of stolen property). In civil law the penelty for breaking a contract is the other parties loss, if we assum on six computers he had an illegal copy of office and a few other apps there is no way MS lost more than 10K per computer.

[N3WBI3]

lol the GPL does not look so bad now eh?

[N3WBI3]

As opposed to a noted monopolist? Also the communist line is pretty sad youre holding him responsable for his fathers views?

[N3WBI3]

You have no clue how GPL works. BTW Apples UNIX base (DARWIN) is under BSD (not quite GPL but in practice close) would you liek to see the code? Apple yet another company that uses open source software yet holds their IP, guess its not quite as viral as you think.

Its funny because Oracle moved off of Solaris as their primary platform and moved to linux yet they still own their IP, BEA provides its own software to Linux and holds its IP. Your argument is weak..

[Bush2000]

Without intent, it isn't theft.

I didn't mean to steal your car. It was purely accidental.

[Bush2000]

Yes, much better to sympathize with Microsoft and their lawyers rather than small business owners who can't afford to defend themselves in court.

Oh, puh-lease. Don't get on your high horse. These "small business owners" rip off countless dollars from the software industry every year. That they can't afford to pay their legal fees is their own fault.

[Revolting cat!]

Okie, Dokie, you've convinced me - I won't switch to Linux! Would it be all right with you if I switched to

Microsoft Xenix?

[justlurking]

Also the communist line is pretty sad youre holding him responsable for his fathers views?

He would be really disappointed to find out the truth about Bill Gates' father.

[justlurking]

I didn't mean to steal your car. It was purely accidental.

Let me give you a hint: when you resort to sarcasm in a lame attempt to avoid the issue, you have effectively admitted that you were wrong.

You may not believe that you are doing so, but that's how everyone else (except your chorus of lackeys) interprets it.

[stripes1776]

His intentions are irrelevant.

Intentions play a large role in the justice system. What law school did you flunk out of?

[Bush2000]

You are presuming that the software in question was installed by the OEM.

Doesn't matter. Regardless of how the software was installed, the buyer received a paper license. That license could be an individual license -- or a site license -- but in either case, the buyer has it. If he doesn't, he's violating the conditions of the license.

[Bush2000]

Intentions play a large role in the justice system.

And weighing them is a guessing game: No more scientific than flipping a coin.

[Bush2000]

that's how everyone else (except your chorus of lackeys) interprets it.

I'm shocked that a bunch of GPL bigots would interpret it that way...

[Bush2000]

They don't want to know ...

It's just business. Nothing personal..

[stripes1776]

And weighing them is a guessing game: No more scientific than flipping a coin.

The practice of law is not a science. But reaching a judgment is not equivalent to flipping a coin.

[Bush2000]

That someone actually paid Microsoft for a license is, of course, irrelevant to you.

You're assuming that somebody "actually paid" -- which is doubtful in this case. Look, if somebody is using your product without paying for it, you have every right to take action against them. You guys like to think that that's un-American. Fine. The last thing this country needs is a lesson in commercial ethics from a bunch of Bolsheviks.

[Bush2000]

The practice of law is not a science. But reaching a judgment is not equivalent to flipping a coin.

Yeaaaaaaaaahhhhhm, rrrrrright. It's about convincing your fellow jurors to find against the guy so you can get home to your beer and La-Z-Boy...

[justlurking]

Doesn't matter. Regardless of how the software was installed, the buyer received a paper license. That license could be an individual license -- or a site license -- but in either case, the buyer has it. If he doesn't, he's violating the conditions of the license.

OK, now you are changing your story: you claimed that it came with a license from the OEM.

However, while you are correct about the license violation, it still isn't theft. Theft requires intent, and there is no evidence of it. Furthermore, this is a civil matter about violation of contract, not a criminal matter.

Had the business owner been given an opportunity to remedy the problem by removing (or buying a license for) the offending software that was inadvertantly passed on to another user, there wouldn't be an issue. He would probably even still be a Microsoft customer.

However, you do bring up an interesting problem: how many people or businesses could meet those requirements? Would your company survive a BSA audit, with no non-compliant items? If you have site licenses, it certainly makes it easier (but that's financially prohibitive for many small businesses). Are you absolutely sure that no one has installed unlicensed software on any of your PC's, or that the unused ones in the storeroom don't still have old copies of software on them?

Of all the clients that I've worked for, only one had stringent configuration and access controls on their PC's that prevented the installation of any software. The user was restricted from writing files anywhere except in their "home" directory (in Documents and Settings\Username). It was fine in theory, but caused a lot of problems with applications that didn't adhere to that rule.