Also from siliconvalley.com...
Just read your bit regarding Microsoft and open source, and fear that many may be condemning what Microsoft says because of the, er, source.
Open source is clearly a public benefit. However, software licensed under the GNU General Public License, or GPL, is not truly open source. (The GPL violates the non-discrimination clause of the Open Software Definition -- that's Clause 6 at opensource.org/docs/definition.html
-- because it allows use of code by end users but not by programmers. In fact, it is intended, specifically, to prevent programmers from being rewarded for their labors.)
Microsoft is not arguing against the sharing or giving away of code, but rather against the GPL, which is intended to turn shared code into a weapon against the interests of legitimate software businesses and even the programmers who wrote it.
Those who have read my writings know that I seldom side with Microsoft on any issue, but in this case it happens to be correct. Programmers are duped, by the misleading rhetoric in the GPL and on the FSF's Web site, into destroying their own markets and hurting their own prospects of reaping a just reward for their efforts. And the GPL has, indeed, caused businesses with worthy ideas and good technology to fail. Many of these might well have posed threats to Microsoft's dominance.
Both the "Free" Software Foundation (which actually promotes software that is heavily encumbered by a complex license and is NOT "free") and Microsoft appear to have grandiose dreams of world domination. As a result, these rivals are capable of serving as watchdogs when it comes to one another's actions! When one debunks the other, it may actually be telling the truth, even if it is in the habit of not doing so in other circumstances. That's what's happening in this case.
2/3rds down the page:
siliconvalley.com
Mundie's speach:
microsoft.com |
