More on Microsoft vs the Free World

I had a great comment from Jason on my previous Microsoft vs. World post.

I'll work on using losing and not loosing. I actually checked that I had the right word, but I guess I forgot to update it. I've never claimed perfection in that area, lots of room for improvement.

Despite Microsoft's claims of 40 million copies of Vista shipped, I see signs like Dell offering Ubuntu and XP instead of Vista, based on customer demands, as a sign Microsoft is losing (see, I can be taught!) there totalitarian grip on the desktop. I also read a lot of blogs, mostly of developers, and a surprising number have rolled back from Vista to XP, or jumped ship to Linux all together. No hard numbers there, just a perceived trend.

I am well aware of the differences of patents and copyrights. If you read the GPL it does cover patent indemnification as well as copyrights. In the paragraph 7 of the preamble it states:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Read the rest, especially section 7 on Patents.

From what I was reading in Fortune's Microsoft takes on the Free World, this specific patent coverage in the GPL is why Microsoft is offering certificates and not offering SUSE directly. But I was only skimming at that point while I was in the airport.

I actually do understand the GPL fairly well for not being a lawyer, but I do appreciate Jason's concern. However I may have misstated things. I was saying that the idea behind open source is that users can change or add to the code - that is one of the the basic freedoms of open source. The GPL says that if the user does distribute the changed version, then their changes are also covered by the GPL. This is referred to as Copyleft. Free software was originally designed as a developer to developer (including administrators, etc.) system since they were the only ones using computers. The Open Source definition (which came after the GPL) says you cannot discriminate (point 5) users. As the users of computers and open source software has expanded to non-developers, now they are covered under the GPL even though they have no inclination to modify the code. Not sure if you were aware of it or not, but Microsoft actually offers their own copyleft license similar to the GPL, called the Microsoft Community License. Obviously calling it community would indicate the idea that a community would use and contribute to the code, but as you stated it, they are not required to contribute to use. It also covers patents similar to the GPL. Basically Microsoft made their own GPL so they can still call Stallman evil.

As far as my Tax law reference, Jason was correct. The copyright law defines the financial gain that a license is offered for ". . includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works." For some reason I was thinking I read that in the tax law because it says "financial gain". Oops, my bad.

Thanks again for the great comment Jason!

Microsoft vs. The World

Everyone knew it was coming, despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary. . . .

In the past, resorting to seeking revenue through patent infringement against consumers is a sign a company is going under or getting desperate. It is only when a company is losing customers at a very fast rate do they resort to assaulting consumers directly. I guess Microsoft has finally realized they are becoming irrelevant and loosing the battle to open source.

According to Bloomberg news, Microsoft "wants makers of [open source] software to pay royalties." Now InformationWeek is stating that instead of litigating or just demanding royalties, "Microsoft wants to create more arrangements that mirror the company's deal with Linux distributor Novell." But my question is what if they don't want to enter such a deal? Then does Microsoft litigate?

Contrary to popular belief, trademarks are the only intellectual property that in unenforced is lost. So you are not compelled to enforce a patent. If you were then most of the patents Microsoft owns, as well as most of the other software patents out there, would be invalidated.

Microsoft claims they only want to reach licensing agreements, but I want to know how are those arrangements that much different then the arrangement provided by the GPL (which essentially provides a reciprocal license of code in exchange for use of the combined result.) If Microsoft wants to use and contribute to Linux then they would in effect be in that kind of arrangement with every other user and contributor of Linux. That is what the GPL does.

First of all, I think they should explicitly cite the patents and the infringement, which they refuse to do. Their refusal to do that reminds me of SCO and their fishing for people to charge royalties.

Now I am a big fan of capitalism, and companies making money - that is where many jobs come from, including mine.

What Microsoft is threatening to undertake is similar to what the RIAA, SCO, and other "intellectual property holding companies" have done in the past. These companies realize that their best source of revenue is to attack consumers. It is amazing that Microsoft has decided they are in that position.

Patent law actually allows a patent holder to attack the user of an unlicensed patent. This is different then trademark or copyright law. So the fact that Microsoft "wants makers of such software to pay royalties" is an indication that they want to go after consumers. Sure they are dressing it up with "license over litigation" claims, but the fact remains they are going after consumers.

Now I am sure you are about to say "Wait, they say they are going after makers, not consumers! This is just like Apple vs. Microsoft, etc." That is where the issue of open source comes into play. Open source (specifically the GPL) is a license where by the user is allowed a license in exchange for their contributions to the code. Interestingly this license arrangement is pretty much explicitly allowed for in the US Tax law. So by saying they are going after makers of open source they are actually going after consumers, and leaving it open to go after pretty much anyone involved. I know I have contributed to some open source projects. Have any of you made your code available for the use of others? If so, then your code may have been incorporated into one of these monstrosities that are robing poor Microsoft of their revenue and they may come after you!

Since they won't tell anyone exactly what parts are infringing, and with what patents, it is obvious they would rather extract a toll then work something out. The open source community, especially Linux, has specifically said if anyone pointed out where and how they were unknowingly infringing they would be glad to correct the situation.

Technorati Tags: [Programming] [Software] [GPL] [Licenses] [Microsoft] [Open Source] [Patents]