7 ms·

Honestly, I am a little tired of all the articles (edit: I meant posts) claiming MS is suddenly in the Open Source camp. To truly support Open Source, they sho

by jeswin 11y ago

Honestly, I am a little tired of all the articles (edit: I meant posts) claiming MS is suddenly in the Open Source camp. To truly support Open Source, they should show a willingness to work against Software Patents. The essence of Open Source is the freedom for anyone with a computer to turn their imagination into code. MS remains one of the biggest obstacles in that path. Instead here is what they do: 1) Directly attack the Linux kernel in Android through patents 2) Sell patents to trolls like Intellectual Ventures, and directly fund them via investments 3) Support the cartel called BSA, which includes other luminaries like Oracle (http://www.bsa.org/about-bsa/bsa-members http://www.bsa.org/about-bsa/bsa-members). Honestly, say what you will about Google, but I can't imagine them ever threatening another software company with software patents.

Aldo_MX 11y ago
I honestly disagree with your stance against patents, disregarding dull patents and the issues they bring like patent trolls, I really believe that the industry needs patents to prevent unfair competition. The issue is the length of patents, the Software industry doesn't need 20 year-long patents, it's too much time, at most a patent should be valid for 5 years... And well, we also need mechanisms to punish people who abuse the patent system with dull patents.
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  I don't understand exactly what you mean by "dull patents". Is that a standard term? I'm not well versed in this space, but Google's not returning much for that phrase. I'm guessing you mean overly broad or generic patents, i.e., not sharp and specific. I'm thinking something like a patent for adding an item to a virtual shopping cart. Am I inferring correctly?
  - Aldo_MX 11y ago
    I used `dull patent` as a synonym of `stupid patent`[1], so you are right with the meaning you inferred. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month
- incepted 11y ago
  Agree that software patents but to me, the issue is patent trolls. Patents should only be applicable if the company can show it's actually working in a domain that will apply this patent. With rules like this, patent trolls would cease to exist and software patents would go back to being extremely useful to software innovation, like they were designed to be.
sremani 11y ago
A project under MIT license and accepting PR is good enough for me and is an open source project by definition. No one is taking away your right to hate Microsoft, but picking OSS as bull-work of your argument is not there any more. edit: bull-work(tm)
- treehau5 11y ago
  > A project under MIT license and accepting PR is good enough for me He is not pretending to be an arbiter but speaking generally to what many people, including myself, believe. And in any case, you attempted to refute what you reduced down to his own subjective opinion, with your own subjective opinion. Working against software patents is part of the larger essence of OSS, and it was just a specific example of it. If you are for software patents, and somehow magically "for" open source, then you aren't really "Open Source" you are just hiding behind that facade so you can now accept free labor when it serves your purposes. So, in that regard, it isn't difficult to see where the negative sentiment is coming from in regard's to the recent media blast of the "new Microsoft."
  - sremani 11y ago
    Lets agree there are levels of open-ness and not being a Gnu-level or RedHat level OSS does not mean the contributions are not worth it nor should not be acknowledged.
    - treehau5 11y ago
      Well I will most certainly agree there is "publicly accessible" source, which is essentially what Microsoft, Facebook, and the likes have, where you can view the code, but getting a pull request accepted requires signing a CLA (with varying levels of avarice) and conforming to the goals of the organization, rather than the project. (Actually I will defend facebook by saying their CLA is not that egregious, and according to most, the version of react that is open sourced is actually different than the version they use internally), but calling that "Open Source Software" is disingenuous at best.
nivla 11y ago
>Honestly, say what you will about Google, but I can't imagine them ever threatening another software company with software patents. That is a naive fanboy outlook towards a company. Its a well known fact that Google bought Motorola only for the patents. Google has also managed to use the patents to sue other companies including Microsoft. Although I still believe it is the game that is flawed and not the players. Google has also done things that could hold back the Windows Phone ecosystem. However, none of that should discount how much Google has contributed to betterment of the web just like Facebook or Microsoft. Open-Source is open source, the only thing that matters is license here and it is as liberal as it could get MIT.
- jeswin 11y ago
  I am not a Google fanboy, I am merely saying they abide by the spirit of Open Source. I just used them as an example. RedHat is another example. > Google has also managed to use the patents to sue other companies including Microsoft. Can you post a link to Google suing Microsoft first (not in retaliation)? Google was way behind in the patent game until they got hurt. Google bought Motorola to have a defensive patent portfolio. Also, see their Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ > Open-Source is open source, the only thing that matters is license here and it is as liberal as it could get MIT. Open Source is where it is today from the decades of hard work by many, many people (in the early days, just for the love of it with no pay). MS is doing Open Source today because it really has no choice. There is no comparison between these two. Open Source can welcome MS, but it should demonstrate a willingness to work towards the best interests of the movement. There are bigger goals here.
  - ifdefdebug 11y ago
    > MS is doing Open Source today because it really has no choice And that's a good thing. It shows the strength of open source. MS is a company. Just as Google. Companies will "work towards the best interests of the movement" as long as those interests converge with theirs: make money. AFAIK large portions of Google's core business are closed source. They are not in open source for love.
munificent 11y ago
> To truly support Open Source, they should show a willingness to work against Software Patents. See: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-microsoft-settle-long-running-patent-feud/ http://www.cnet.com/news/google-microsoft-settle-long-runnin... It is very hard for large software companies to unilaterally work against software patents because it puts them at a competitive disadvantage, at least temporarily. It's sort of like arms limitation talks where you can't put down your nukes before anyone else does or it's an open invitation to attack.
pjmlp 11y ago
Like IBM and Intel?
throwawaykf05 11y ago
It's a fallacy that you cannot support both open source and software patents. Religious opinions aside, they are both simply different forms of IP, each effective for different things.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  IBM and Intel are two good examples of it.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> Honestly, I am a little tired of all the articles (edit: I meant posts) claiming MS is suddenly in the Open Source camp. Okay...but this isn't one nor is it really an "article". It's simply the page about Xamarin being opened source. That's it. It's MIT licensed and opened sourced. Did you not read the page or did you just want to rant about the same things people complain about with Microsoft in almost every HN thread about their open source efforts? I'm not saying some of these are not issues but when they're unrelated and don't add anything to the context of the content I don't get the point.
anonymfus 11y ago
"To truly support Open Source" MS should open the source of their main products like Windows and Office.

by jeswin 11y ago

Aldo_MX 11y ago

I honestly disagree with your stance against patents, disregarding dull patents and the issues they bring like patent trolls, I really believe that the industry needs patents to prevent unfair competition. The issue is the length of patents, the Software industry doesn't need 20 year-long patents, it's too much time, at most a patent should be valid for 5 years... And well, we also need mechanisms to punish people who abuse the patent system with dull patents.

Tenhundfeld 11y ago
I don't understand exactly what you mean by "dull patents". Is that a standard term? I'm not well versed in this space, but Google's not returning much for that phrase. I'm guessing you mean overly broad or generic patents, i.e., not sharp and specific. I'm thinking something like a patent for adding an item to a virtual shopping cart. Am I inferring correctly?
- Aldo_MX 11y ago
  I used `dull patent` as a synonym of `stupid patent`[1], so you are right with the meaning you inferred. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month
incepted 11y ago
Agree that software patents but to me, the issue is patent trolls. Patents should only be applicable if the company can show it's actually working in a domain that will apply this patent. With rules like this, patent trolls would cease to exist and software patents would go back to being extremely useful to software innovation, like they were designed to be.

sremani 11y ago

A project under MIT license and accepting PR is good enough for me and is an open source project by definition. No one is taking away your right to hate Microsoft, but picking OSS as bull-work of your argument is not there any more. edit: bull-work(tm)

treehau5 11y ago
> A project under MIT license and accepting PR is good enough for me He is not pretending to be an arbiter but speaking generally to what many people, including myself, believe. And in any case, you attempted to refute what you reduced down to his own subjective opinion, with your own subjective opinion. Working against software patents is part of the larger essence of OSS, and it was just a specific example of it. If you are for software patents, and somehow magically "for" open source, then you aren't really "Open Source" you are just hiding behind that facade so you can now accept free labor when it serves your purposes. So, in that regard, it isn't difficult to see where the negative sentiment is coming from in regard's to the recent media blast of the "new Microsoft."
- sremani 11y ago
  Lets agree there are levels of open-ness and not being a Gnu-level or RedHat level OSS does not mean the contributions are not worth it nor should not be acknowledged.
  - treehau5 11y ago
    Well I will most certainly agree there is "publicly accessible" source, which is essentially what Microsoft, Facebook, and the likes have, where you can view the code, but getting a pull request accepted requires signing a CLA (with varying levels of avarice) and conforming to the goals of the organization, rather than the project. (Actually I will defend facebook by saying their CLA is not that egregious, and according to most, the version of react that is open sourced is actually different than the version they use internally), but calling that "Open Source Software" is disingenuous at best.

nivla 11y ago

>Honestly, say what you will about Google, but I can't imagine them ever threatening another software company with software patents. That is a naive fanboy outlook towards a company. Its a well known fact that Google bought Motorola only for the patents. Google has also managed to use the patents to sue other companies including Microsoft. Although I still believe it is the game that is flawed and not the players. Google has also done things that could hold back the Windows Phone ecosystem. However, none of that should discount how much Google has contributed to betterment of the web just like Facebook or Microsoft. Open-Source is open source, the only thing that matters is license here and it is as liberal as it could get MIT.

jeswin 11y ago
I am not a Google fanboy, I am merely saying they abide by the spirit of Open Source. I just used them as an example. RedHat is another example. > Google has also managed to use the patents to sue other companies including Microsoft. Can you post a link to Google suing Microsoft first (not in retaliation)? Google was way behind in the patent game until they got hurt. Google bought Motorola to have a defensive patent portfolio. Also, see their Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ > Open-Source is open source, the only thing that matters is license here and it is as liberal as it could get MIT. Open Source is where it is today from the decades of hard work by many, many people (in the early days, just for the love of it with no pay). MS is doing Open Source today because it really has no choice. There is no comparison between these two. Open Source can welcome MS, but it should demonstrate a willingness to work towards the best interests of the movement. There are bigger goals here.
- ifdefdebug 11y ago
  > MS is doing Open Source today because it really has no choice And that's a good thing. It shows the strength of open source. MS is a company. Just as Google. Companies will "work towards the best interests of the movement" as long as those interests converge with theirs: make money. AFAIK large portions of Google's core business are closed source. They are not in open source for love.

munificent 11y ago

> To truly support Open Source, they should show a willingness to work against Software Patents. See: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-microsoft-settle-long-running-patent-feud/ http://www.cnet.com/news/google-microsoft-settle-long-runnin... It is very hard for large software companies to unilaterally work against software patents because it puts them at a competitive disadvantage, at least temporarily. It's sort of like arms limitation talks where you can't put down your nukes before anyone else does or it's an open invitation to attack.

pjmlp 11y ago

Like IBM and Intel?

throwawaykf05 11y ago

It's a fallacy that you cannot support both open source and software patents. Religious opinions aside, they are both simply different forms of IP, each effective for different things.

pjmlp 11y ago
IBM and Intel are two good examples of it.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

> Honestly, I am a little tired of all the articles (edit: I meant posts) claiming MS is suddenly in the Open Source camp. Okay...but this isn't one nor is it really an "article". It's simply the page about Xamarin being opened source. That's it. It's MIT licensed and opened sourced. Did you not read the page or did you just want to rant about the same things people complain about with Microsoft in almost every HN thread about their open source efforts? I'm not saying some of these are not issues but when they're unrelated and don't add anything to the context of the content I don't get the point.

anonymfus 11y ago

"To truly support Open Source" MS should open the source of their main products like Windows and Office.