Replying to my own message...
Thus saith the misguided Craig Mundie (poor guy):
"(Supporters of the GPL) ask software developers to give away
for free the very thing they create that is of greatest value, in the
hope that, somehow, they'll make money selling something else,"
Somewhere in a talkback it was mentioned that Internet Explorer was
given away for free...maybe the difference here is the "somehow" part,
as in, M$ knew how they were going to make money, by taking away
Netscape's ability to make it. You can't compete with Free, M$ told
Netscape (in the M$ sense, of course -- basically this means Free with
Purchase of M$ Windows 95/98). Perhaps now M$ is just getting a taste of
its own medicine and is finding out that you can't compete with Free (in
the GPL sense)
Russell
PS You like my new .sig? If it needs fixing, let me know!
> ____________________________________________________
> Without the Internet, there would be no sharing
> Without sharing, there would be no Internet
> Share your code, share your source
> -- Let's build something as great as the Internet!
> ----------
-----------------------
I don't care if you're going nowhere,
Just take good care of the world.
-- Depeche Mode
----------
>From: "Russell Hires" <rhires@earthlink.net>
>To: slug@nks.net
>Subject: Re: [SLUG] Some thoughts on "The Speech"
>Date: Fri, May 4, 2001, 8:00
>
> Hmmm...anyone else notice that lately the only apologists for M$ are M$
> people? If there is someone else out there defending M$, where would I
> find that kind of thing out?
>
> Russell
>
>>From: Paul M Foster <paulf@quillandmouse.com>
>>To: slug@nks.net
>>Subject: Re: [SLUG] Some thoughts on "The Speech"
>>Date: Thu, May 3, 2001, 23:50
>>
>
>> On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:56:26PM -0400, Russell Hires wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going through Craig Mundie's speech
>>> (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp),
>>> and I'm thinking okay, here's a scenario: What if MS wants their code to
>>> get out, not officially, but they release it to certain companies
>>> (partners, what-have-you), and someone in those companies leaks the
>>> source to the outside world, either genuinely on accident, or
>>> "accidentally on purpose", or on purpose, but it's not MS's direct
>>> doing.
>>>
>>> What do you think would happen? I can hear the hackles now as many an
>>> Open Source developer laughs at M$'s code. The shreiks of criticism
>>> sound loudly. People say, "I can't believe they did that!" or "Why don't
>>> they do this, instead?" Then M$ quietly incorporates this stuff. Very
>>> subtle.
>>>
>>> I think they see the power of Open Source, but can't bring themselves to
>>> admit it. Or their stockholders can't. One of the two. Maybe they're
>>> realizing ESR's arguments from the book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"
>>> about the logical end of the proprietary software life-cycle vis a vis
>>> the Open Source software life-cycle which is continually open to new
>>> ideas. Maybe M$ is just hard up for ideas...
>>>
>>
>> We are on Microsoft's radar in a bigger way than we realize because they
>> fear us. We're actually convincing people that Linux is the way to go,
>> because it's high quality software and it's more stable and secure than
>> anything Microsoft puts out. Microsoft's had _no_ competition in the OS
>> market for so long, and this scares them.
>>
>> Microsoft does not believe in, care for or like OSS, and their "shared
>> source" hoohah is lip service. It's a way to try to co-opt people
>> leaning toward OSS. The article is also a subtle warning to Microsoft's
>> customers to stay away from OSS because of the "viral" nature of the
>> GPL.
>>
>> As a university student, Bill Gates railed against other students who
>> attempted to share code he'd written for a BASIC interpreter. His answer
>> to them was a diatribe about intellectual property and business. That
>> incident defines how Bill Gates thinks about software, and how the
>> company he founded operates. To Gates and Microsoft, OSS is a 60's
>> hippie idea that is nutty at best. People create software to make money,
>> after all. Doing it for any other reason is just misguided or psychotic.
>>
>> OSS people are a lot like Apple people: iconoclastic, passionate and
>> stubborn. Add to that that we're dedicated, talented and pragmatic. That
>> combination scares Microsoft, just like our software does. It's not that
>> they know we're right. They think we're wrong. The problem is that other
>> people listen to us, which could mean less business for Microsoft.
>>
>> Microsoft could have done all right if they hadn't become arrogant. But
>> rather than spend money building their software correctly in the first
>> place, they got it out the door to feed the revenue stream, and coerced
>> people and companies into buying it. People built up resentment, and the
>> government finally caught up with them. Now people won't upgrade and
>> they're looking for alternatives.
>>
>> And Microsoft's stuck. With millions of stockholders and a philosophy
>> based on Bill Gates' university experiences, they have no choice but to
>> continue on the road they've built for themselves. We represent an
>> obstacle. So they're dusting off their rhetoric and propaganda, their
>> new licensing schemes, their police (the BSA), their lobbying
>> organizations, and their tried-and-true subversion tactics ("embrace and
>> extend"), and going after us, hammer and tongs. It's gonna get bloody.
>>
>>
>> I love the smell of silicon in the morning!
>>
>>
>> Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:29 EDT