9 ms·

>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American". (from the "Suggestio

by Zhyl 7y ago

>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American". (from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section) This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endorse or support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products for the foreseeable. They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. I don't think those things were appropriate at the time and they really should at the very least be acknowledged as part of the "Microsoft heart Linux" initiative. Part of me, though, thinks that Microsoft's recent adventures in Linux have been more 'Black Friday' than 'Good Friday'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...

Iv 7y ago
I do believe we are coming in an age where reputation is going to be increasingly important to companies. Those that change their opinions based on the hype and the short term profits are going to only have features and price as sales arguments whereas a company with a strong reputation and clear values will be able to charge a premium. I have no doubt that Microsoft is in the first category, but a company that would be in the second one would understand the importance of making public excuses for past stances.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  Microsoft also used to be a company whose growth depended on maintaining the Windows monopoly over the PC market, so everything they did helped underscore that. Now they are trying to compete in the cloud, and the dynamics are different. They know Windows servers aren't going to beat out Linux servers. They need to use honey instead of vinegar to win people over. It's a different company with different revenue streams, thus a different approach.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Microsoft has always been very sweet and very competent when it was the underdog. It then seeks to establish dominant and becomes one of the worst players. In the cloud, it is dwarfed by other companies so it needs to play the OSS game well to win over devs. But I have no reason to think that their main ethos has changed.
dhruvmittal 7y ago
> They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. Especially since we're still suffering from it. There are enough project & program managers who see the words "open source" on an engineering document & send us back to build or buy some alternative.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  I can understand their perspective, especially if they're non technical. Much of the time they see open source as some ragtag community project that has no real support so they believe in terms of risk, it can seem lower to build or buy.
  - jupp0r 7y ago
    If they don’t even know enough about open source (and are resistent to being enlightened), they shouldn’t be making this decision.
    - falcolas 7y ago
      Devil’s Advocate - it’s not their job to educate themselves about the vagrancies of open source, it’s the developer’s (or more accurately tech lead’s) job to educate them about the particulars of a project, to prove that the project is healthy with good support today and will be healthy with good support tomorrow. Without those assurances, and without investigating the project myself, I’d probably turn it down too.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    Are they that wrong? What real support does an npm module have?
    - isostatic 7y ago
      What support do you get by buying a non-open source module?
Jedd 7y ago
> They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. Or, as rms went to some lengths to explain here and elsewhere, free software. Paying attention is important in this particular case.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. Not just free software (although that did seem to get the full brunt of their ire).
  - Jedd 7y ago
    > But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. This may or may not be the case, insofar as an organisation can be said to have a position on a vague notion. As per the article, rms is seeking that: "Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer"." I suspect rms doesn't care terribly much if MS were 'against all things open source' since no one really did, or does, know what that might mean.
    - jraph 7y ago
      This is all about sending a message and clarify a position. When someone in a marketing team of a company sends a message, they usually speak for the company, not for themself, except otherwise explicitly stated. So indeed, we can't expect a huge company like Microsoft have a uniform opinion on all things, but Microsoft as an entity stills sends a more or less coherent message if they take care of their communication. And I would not blame someone understanding a statement from Ballmer for Microsoft's official stand if the statement was made when he was the head of the company and the company did not issue an apology or a clarification after the fact.
      - Jedd 7y ago
        I think we agree in principle, however the point I made originally was that it's not hurtful, false, and/or spurious claims about 'open source' that rms seeks remedy for, it's 'free software'.
dhd415 7y ago
Frankly, I think that is a situation where Microsoft just voiced what was common practice in many places in the industry. I've worked on a variety of both commercial and widely-used open source software projects and in all cases, GPL-licensed code was forbidden after consultation with counsel because of the limitations it would have imposed either on the company itself or on the users of our software.
- arminiusreturns 7y ago
  This is more due to bad lawyers not understanding things than gpl itself, especially considering agpl, apache2 etc. Usually because nobody takes the time to explain it to them. Using RedHat as an example tends to be the most productive with legal and the C's in my experience.
dwighttk 7y ago
Making money rather than crucifying a savior?
- ndespres 7y ago
  A reference to the Good Friday Agreement, a pivotal development in the UK/Republic of Ireland peace talks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
  - dwighttk 7y ago
    (Thanks)
youdontknowtho 7y ago
"support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products" They ship the Linux kernel as part of Windows now. They ship updates for it through Windows update. It's in beta, but will be released this quarter, I think?
richard_todd 7y ago
Earlier he had said that we shouldn’t keep old grudges, so I was surprised he then turned around and asked for them to renounce statements from 20+ years ago, made by people that aren’t even there anymore. In my mind, .net core and vs code and countless smaller projects are a complete renunciation of their previous public statements. Maybe Stallman can’t see that because they MIT license those things, but why ask for more talk when you are already getting action? Edit: here’s Ballmer turning around in public on the cancer thing. https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linux-a-cancer-but-now-i-love-it/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linu... so I really don’t see what more Stallman wants.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. When it suited him Linux was a cancer, and when it no longer suited him he 'loved Linux'. If the wind should ever change Linux will for sure be a cancer again.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. You say that as if it were a condemnation. Everybody who runs a business is an opportunist, pure and simple.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      To a coarse approximation, yes. But very few people would go to the lengths that Ballmer was prepared to go to. In a more just society these guys would be behind bars rather than pretending to be philanthropists.
      - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > But very few people would go to the lengths that Ballmer was prepared to go to. Larry Ellison? Scott McNealy? I'm sure I could think of others if I had the time. Ballmer was merely the most visible because MS was at the top of the food chain at the time.
jacquesm 7y ago
I'd be happy with a donation to the FSF roughly equivalent to all the money they made by scare tactics against Linux on the server, including their backhanded funding of the SCO lawsuit.
- feb 7y ago
  And the money to "standardize" the ISO docx format.
jccalhoun 7y ago
I still have a creative commons communist shirt I bought when I saw it on BoingBoing https://boingboing.net/2005/01/06/more-gates-creative.html https://boingboing.net/2005/01/06/more-gates-creative.html They were created in response to Bill Gates comment that people who want to weaken or eliminate intellectual property laws were "some new modern-day sort of communists" https://boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill-gates-free-cult.html https://boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill-gates-free-cult.html
UserIsUnused 7y ago
Ballmer was more specifically referring to governmental funding going to free software, his competitors.
lunchables 7y ago
That's my problem with "Microsoft [heart] Linux" - there was never any apology. They attacked linux and open source for years and now suddenly they want to be best friends. I need to see some real contrition and proof that they understand all the things they did were wrong so I can be convinced they won't repeat the same behavior. Otherwise it just sounds like an abusive partner begging you to take them back.

by Zhyl 7y ago

Iv 7y ago

I do believe we are coming in an age where reputation is going to be increasingly important to companies. Those that change their opinions based on the hype and the short term profits are going to only have features and price as sales arguments whereas a company with a strong reputation and clear values will be able to charge a premium. I have no doubt that Microsoft is in the first category, but a company that would be in the second one would understand the importance of making public excuses for past stances.

asdfman123 7y ago
Microsoft also used to be a company whose growth depended on maintaining the Windows monopoly over the PC market, so everything they did helped underscore that. Now they are trying to compete in the cloud, and the dynamics are different. They know Windows servers aren't going to beat out Linux servers. They need to use honey instead of vinegar to win people over. It's a different company with different revenue streams, thus a different approach.
- Iv 7y ago
  Microsoft has always been very sweet and very competent when it was the underdog. It then seeks to establish dominant and becomes one of the worst players. In the cloud, it is dwarfed by other companies so it needs to play the OSS game well to win over devs. But I have no reason to think that their main ethos has changed.

dhruvmittal 7y ago

> They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. Especially since we're still suffering from it. There are enough project & program managers who see the words "open source" on an engineering document & send us back to build or buy some alternative.

cameronbrown 7y ago
I can understand their perspective, especially if they're non technical. Much of the time they see open source as some ragtag community project that has no real support so they believe in terms of risk, it can seem lower to build or buy.
- jupp0r 7y ago
  If they don’t even know enough about open source (and are resistent to being enlightened), they shouldn’t be making this decision.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    Devil’s Advocate - it’s not their job to educate themselves about the vagrancies of open source, it’s the developer’s (or more accurately tech lead’s) job to educate them about the particulars of a project, to prove that the project is healthy with good support today and will be healthy with good support tomorrow. Without those assurances, and without investigating the project myself, I’d probably turn it down too.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Are they that wrong? What real support does an npm module have?
  - isostatic 7y ago
    What support do you get by buying a non-open source module?

Jedd 7y ago

> They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. Or, as rms went to some lengths to explain here and elsewhere, free software. Paying attention is important in this particular case.

ChrisSD 7y ago
But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. Not just free software (although that did seem to get the full brunt of their ire).
- Jedd 7y ago
  > But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. This may or may not be the case, insofar as an organisation can be said to have a position on a vague notion. As per the article, rms is seeking that: "Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer"." I suspect rms doesn't care terribly much if MS were 'against all things open source' since no one really did, or does, know what that might mean.
  - jraph 7y ago
    This is all about sending a message and clarify a position. When someone in a marketing team of a company sends a message, they usually speak for the company, not for themself, except otherwise explicitly stated. So indeed, we can't expect a huge company like Microsoft have a uniform opinion on all things, but Microsoft as an entity stills sends a more or less coherent message if they take care of their communication. And I would not blame someone understanding a statement from Ballmer for Microsoft's official stand if the statement was made when he was the head of the company and the company did not issue an apology or a clarification after the fact.
    - Jedd 7y ago
      I think we agree in principle, however the point I made originally was that it's not hurtful, false, and/or spurious claims about 'open source' that rms seeks remedy for, it's 'free software'.

dhd415 7y ago

Frankly, I think that is a situation where Microsoft just voiced what was common practice in many places in the industry. I've worked on a variety of both commercial and widely-used open source software projects and in all cases, GPL-licensed code was forbidden after consultation with counsel because of the limitations it would have imposed either on the company itself or on the users of our software.

arminiusreturns 7y ago
This is more due to bad lawyers not understanding things than gpl itself, especially considering agpl, apache2 etc. Usually because nobody takes the time to explain it to them. Using RedHat as an example tends to be the most productive with legal and the C's in my experience.

dwighttk 7y ago

Making money rather than crucifying a savior?

ndespres 7y ago
A reference to the Good Friday Agreement, a pivotal development in the UK/Republic of Ireland peace talks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
- dwighttk 7y ago
  (Thanks)

youdontknowtho 7y ago

"support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products" They ship the Linux kernel as part of Windows now. They ship updates for it through Windows update. It's in beta, but will be released this quarter, I think?

richard_todd 7y ago

Earlier he had said that we shouldn’t keep old grudges, so I was surprised he then turned around and asked for them to renounce statements from 20+ years ago, made by people that aren’t even there anymore. In my mind, .net core and vs code and countless smaller projects are a complete renunciation of their previous public statements. Maybe Stallman can’t see that because they MIT license those things, but why ask for more talk when you are already getting action? Edit: here’s Ballmer turning around in public on the cancer thing. https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linux-a-cancer-but-now-i-love-it/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linu... so I really don’t see what more Stallman wants.

jacquesm 7y ago
Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. When it suited him Linux was a cancer, and when it no longer suited him he 'loved Linux'. If the wind should ever change Linux will for sure be a cancer again.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. You say that as if it were a condemnation. Everybody who runs a business is an opportunist, pure and simple.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    To a coarse approximation, yes. But very few people would go to the lengths that Ballmer was prepared to go to. In a more just society these guys would be behind bars rather than pretending to be philanthropists.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > But very few people would go to the lengths that Ballmer was prepared to go to. Larry Ellison? Scott McNealy? I'm sure I could think of others if I had the time. Ballmer was merely the most visible because MS was at the top of the food chain at the time.

jacquesm 7y ago

I'd be happy with a donation to the FSF roughly equivalent to all the money they made by scare tactics against Linux on the server, including their backhanded funding of the SCO lawsuit.

feb 7y ago
And the money to "standardize" the ISO docx format.

jccalhoun 7y ago

I still have a creative commons communist shirt I bought when I saw it on BoingBoing https://boingboing.net/2005/01/06/more-gates-creative.html https://boingboing.net/2005/01/06/more-gates-creative.html They were created in response to Bill Gates comment that people who want to weaken or eliminate intellectual property laws were "some new modern-day sort of communists" https://boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill-gates-free-cult.html https://boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill-gates-free-cult.html

UserIsUnused 7y ago

Ballmer was more specifically referring to governmental funding going to free software, his competitors.

lunchables 7y ago

That's my problem with "Microsoft [heart] Linux" - there was never any apology. They attacked linux and open source for years and now suddenly they want to be best friends. I need to see some real contrition and proof that they understand all the things they did were wrong so I can be convinced they won't repeat the same behavior. Otherwise it just sounds like an abusive partner begging you to take them back.