EU regulators cool on Microsoft open-source move

TalkBack 47 of 48:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Where is the Beef?

Don't feed me a bunch of Hogwash. Show me!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080221184924826

Promises, Promises from Microsoft. Again.
Thursday, February 21 2008 @ 07:21 PM EST

Nobody is buying it. Well. Employees,
maybe. Microsoft is once again promising
interoperability and adherence to standards,
but its own version of each.
Interoperability that is safe only for
noncommercial software excludes Microsoft's
number one competitor, Linux. It is
noncommercial and commercial, depending on
who is using it. So, right there it tells
you that this is a promise to do nothing
that matters. Microsoft is currently being
investigated by the EU Commission regarding
the same two issues, interoperability and
its behavior pushing MSOOXML as
a "standard". This is a promise to remain
incompatible with the GPL, as far as I can
make out.
Here's the response from the EU Commission.
They totally get that this promise is
insufficient. They've heard it before, at
least four times. And it doesn't wipe the
slate clean regarding past violations, even
if they meant it. ECIS's Thomas Vinje also
issued a statement [PDF] pointing out that
the proof is in the pudding, that Microsoft
doesn't get to define interoperability
unilaterally, and as for standards, if it
meant it, it would support ODF. What the
world needs, he says, is "a permanent change
in Microsoft's behavior, not just another
announcement." ECIS' members include Adobe,
Corel, IBM, Nokia, Opera, Oracle,
RealNetworks, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems.
Here's Red Hat's statement. Here's Andy
Updegrove's take. Todd Bishop's coverage on
Seattle PI. And here's the video and
transcript of Microsoft's conference call,
with Steve Ballmer, Brad Smith, Bob Muglia,
and Ray Ozzie. Look at Ozzie's expression in
the photo on this page.

And yet they are still not interoperable.
Even the OSP, Microsoft's patent promise
regarding MSOOXML, excludes GPL programmers,
so far as I can understand their promise.
And they've been selling interoperability to
folks like Novell for money on terms that
clash with GPLv3. So I'd say we still have a
way to go. What the world needs is true
interoperability, including with GPL code,
so the artificial barriers to smooth
interoperability come down and we have a
fair playing field for everyone.

As you can see, you still have to pay to be
interoperable, and if you are Linux or any
commercial FOSS project, they can sue you to
the moon over patents if you don't pay
them -- terms that are incompatible with the
GPL. This is for patents that may or may not
be valid, that have not been court-tested
and approved. Nice work if you can get it.
And that doesn't even reach the issue of
whether any of the patents are actually
needed. Let me remind you that when
Microsoft presented its list of patents to
Samba, they didn't need a single one on that
long list. Yet Microsoft wants to be paid
for patents like this?
In short, they still want to be in the
driver's seat. I believe one calls that
benefitting from a monopoly, unless I am
very much mistaken. And they refuse to be
compatible with the GPL on its terms. I just
hope the EU doesn't fall for the patent
hustle this time.
Stephen Shankland very accurately describes
this latest promise as "just the latest
refinement of the company's ambivalence"
toward FOSS:

He goes on to trace, back to 1998,
Microsoft's long history of open-source
acrimony, as he puts it. The thing is, this
is a promise to interoperate with
old-fashioned competitors. It doesn't enable
interoperability with the GPL, which is not
compatible with patent licenses, and that is
Microsoft's true competition. Forgive me if
I conclude that this is a deliberate
exclusion. People aren't as dumb as
Microsoft needs them to be.

There you are, Microsoft, 2008. For the
right fee you can interoperate. Otherwise
you can't. Nothing new about that. And as
best as I can figure, they are selling
patent licenses to patents Samba says it
didn't need. They could work around them.
And by the way, Novell is cited as a fine
example of Microsoft's efforts to be
interoperable. But Novell has yet to ship
any GPLv3 code. Because it can't, without
consequences. So how is that
interoperability?

MORE SLOP, ANYONE?

Posted by: Ole Man   Posted on: 02/23/08 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now