|
Linus on MS, Shared Source and Security |
|
Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:14 AM EDT
|
I thought you'd enjoy a contrast with the Bill Gates interview in the last article. Here is an interview with Linus in the Seattle Times, in their Business and Technology section, and as usual, it's charming and refreshing. He says Microsoft has a PR problem ("Largely deservedly, I would say.") and he finds their Find the Facts campaign "pretty amusing." But the most interesting part, to me, is what he says about the shared source program and about security. He contrasts shared source with real open source.
I recommend you read the entire article, but here is that one segment: Q. What do you think about Microsoft's "shared source" program and similar programs offering some access to its code to engage developers?
A. I think they are fundamentally flawed, because there is no way their "shared source" thing can ever really engage a developer. It's like showing somebody the goods and telling them that they can play with all the cool toys, but that they can never really be part of it, and whatever they create will be owned and controlled by Microsoft.
That doesn't "engage" anybody. You're still clearly an outsider and you don't actually end up having any rights.
In real open source, you have the right to control your own destiny. When you play with it, mommy isn't going to tell you what you can and can not do, and not going to take your toy away from you when she thinks you are done. You're an adult, and you can make your own choices. That is when you get engaged.
Q. How can Linux avoid the security problems that have affected Windows?
A. Better design and actually caring about them. Having the guts to really fixing fundamental design mistakes, rather than trying to work around them. I also enjoyed reading his answer to where the biggest growth in Linux will be next. Basically, he says anywhere anybody wants. Linux has no niche. It can go anywhere. Here's my question to the business types who think software patents are necessary because they stimulate innovation. What about Linux? There are no patents. Why is it, then, that it is taking over the world? Would you consider the possibility that software not only doesn't need patents, it thrives best without them?
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
And "links" means clickable, please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
Please do not provide the obvious links. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spuluka on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
"Largedly ---first paragraph
---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
Here's my question to the business types who think software patents
are necessary because they stimulate innovation. What about Linux? There are no
patents. Why is it, then, that it is taking over the world? Would you consider
the possibility that software not only doesn't need patents, it thrives best
without them?
Actually, I'd like to see Linux stakeholders acquire
some patents and license them under a GPL-like arrangement where they could only
be used for free software. This would greatly reduce the risk of Microsoft/etc.
slapping a massive patent suit against Linux because they would be infringers
too.
Even though many don't believe in copyright, the GPL uses copyright law to
protect free software. I think it should do the same with patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dobbo on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
Here's my question to the business types who think software patents
are necessary because they stimulate innovation. What about Linux? There are no
patents. Why is it, then, that it is taking over the world? Would you consider
the possibility that software not only doesn't need patents, it thrives best
without them?
PJ, please first get them to prove that patents
stimulate
innovation. My research has show that patents have always
been used
to block innovation.
Watt used his patents to block other inventors
from
making improvements to his steam engine that in the
long run proved far more
significant than Watt's own
invention.
I'm hoping that I can use this
historic evidence from my
countries own past to help block the EU from adopting
Software Patents. Well I can dream can't I?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
MS topic again - open standards anyone? Story here. [slashdot.org] --- "When we speak of free
software, we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
"...Here's my question to the business types who think software patents are
necessary because they stimulate innovation. What about Linux? There are no
patents. Why is it, then, that it is taking over the world? Would you consider
the possibility that software not only doesn't need patents, it thrives best
without them?..."
I wonder what the world would be like today if the earliest street 'rappers'
from New York City had not only written down their new musical techniques, but
patented them as well. After all hip hop, and all written music, is just the
codified form of an idea. After writing, this written musical 'source code' must
still be processed by either an electronic or biological interface to the device
that will produce the auditory notes. In the case of a piece of sheet music,
this interface might be the young lady sitting at the piano or a Memphis
gentelman on a stage with a saxophone, or even a highly specialized OCR device
designed to read sheet music and play it electronically as 'Haus' or what have
you.
I argue that there is no real difference between written sheet music and written
software. If written music were patentable, the world would indeed be a much
sadder, much poorer place - as it will be with the increasing proliferation of
software patents.
In the future, perhaps Stephen King should patent the horror genre, Dean R.
Koontz should patent his brand of fiction and Grisham patent the legal novel.
While this might enrich a few individuals, it clearly will not enrich our lives
or the world in which we live.
The damage inherent in software patents is incalculable.
Software must be liberated from the tyranny of patents. Software must live free,
protected by our tried and true copyright system and licensed for use by others.
Richard Stallman has given us the GPL, a license that is appreciated and loved
by most Open Source coders and only despised by those would unjustly profit from
the labor of programmers they have not paid.
Some are saying that the elimination of copyrights is raising the bar too high,
that our community can never make our elected representatives understand the
complexities of this issue, that we must settle for compromise, that we must
settle for reform of the software patent system.
I believe that we must argue for what is right and just. Only the complete
elimination of software patents will free us from the tyranny of patents on
ideas and concepts.
We must not settle for less.
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
$ echo "Darl" | sed "s/arl/ick/"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
...who has been in action again, alas, saying this time: "We Are
Under Attack From...Hurricane Linux" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
> Here's my question to the business types who think software
> patents are necessary because they stimulate innovation.
Like most people they don't know what innovation is and don't care. They think
patents are necessary because they stimulate (their) profits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IrisScan on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
I'm looking for the text of that Bill Gates quote about software patents in
which he said the following :
"The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no
patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to
impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in
excluding future competitors."
The above is what appears in the quote database but someone posted a fuller
version . Has anybody any idea where it is ?
Thanks .[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: drh on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
./rant on
Patents stimulate money, not innovation. They allow fewer
businesses to take in more money.
Software is copyrightable, not patentable.
The GPL guarantees not only the present, but the future of
code by allowing the present code to be reused in the
future. If you to be immortal, write good code and
distribute it under the GPL.
Patents do not generate innovation, they generate
litigation.
./rant off
Three instances have turned me off patents of all kinds.
One was the John Moore case where the Supreme Court
decided that you no longer own your own body. The second
was a case I believe in Texas where a man was prevented
from giving a life saving transfusion because a company
had patented something in his blood (can't seem to Google
this one). Finally was the situation in Brasil where the
drug companies refused to allow their AIDS medication to
be produced there because they were afraid the patent
would be stolen, and tried to force the (broke) Brasilian
government to pay absurdly high prices for the treatments.
I applaud the Brasilian government for breaking the
patents to save the lives of their people.
./rant on -again
Patents kill. People, software, innovation, it does not
matter. They kill.
./rant off -again
---
Just another day...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
"Here's my question to the business types who think software
patents
are necessary because they stimulate innovation. What about Linux?
There
are no patents. Why is it, then, that it is taking over the world?
Would
you consider the possibility that software not only doesn't need
patents,
it thrives best without them?"
"What about Linux?" It's about
13 or more years later than Windows in
providing a viable desktop for the
masses. A lot of economic damage
would have resulted from the 13 year void,
which is exactly what "other
side" is concerned about.
"Why is it, then,
that it is taking over the world?" This assumes
facts not in evidence. But, even
assuming that it is, I would say it's
because the OS business has finally gotten
to the commodity stage. That
doesn't show that the Linux/open source model works
well in the rapid
growth/high innovation stage (I'm not referring to
Microsoft
innovation here, but market product innovation, including
hardware).
"Would you consider that software doesn't need patents?" Yes. I
would
absolutely agree with you on that one. But Linux is not the "proof"
of
that hypothesis.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Observer on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
One of the supposed advantages of the "Shared Source" initiative, at least from
the perspective of national governments outside of the US (for example, China),
is that they can look at the code and see if there are any "back doors" or other
security flaws that they might consider to be a threat to either their national
security or to the integrity of the data they are responsible for.
Of
course, in spite of what MS might tell you, it's a meaningless promise. Since
there is no way to actually validate that the binaries you are running
were actually built from the source you are being shown, there is no way to tell
if MS is simply showing you a sanitized version of the code, one with all the
"secrets" carefully removed. With Open Source, you can actually build your
system from scratch from the code you just inspected. It might not be easy, but
if it's important enough to you, it can be done.
--- The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
>> Here's my question to the business types who think software patents are
necessary because they stimulate innovation. What about Linux? There are no
patents. Why is it, then, that it is taking over the world? <<
PJ, there *are* patents on Linux. Only they're called a GPL.
The GPL protects the creators from being ripped off in a similar way to how
patents (are supposed to) work. Your argument is an argument *for*
protectionism.
You can protect your hard work & ideas through trade secrets, or through
patents, or through the GPL. Linux simply uses the GPL.
OK?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
If I recall properly, for years the Artificial Intelligence people tried
algorithmic approaches to AI, and this approach was flawed and has never really
created true AI
Then there's the preceptron folks who created AI systems that were self
organizing. As far as I recall the high quality voice and text recognition
systems we have today are based on this principal.
I see Linux and M$ as a similar pattern, one self organizing (by multitudes of
programmers input) and the other controlled rigidly by a few designers.
BTW Preceptrons go way back in the AI field, but the people who recommended who
got funded were the "algorithmic" folks, who quashed funding for the
preceptron folks. Rightly or wrongly NO ONE in power EVER willingly gives that
power up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 01:04 AM EDT |
I would argue that Linux, as software, is <i>not</i>
particularly innovative. Sure, it has some interesting
fine-detail tricks, but mostly it's a new design built on
well-established ideas many or most of which were pioneered
elsewhere. It's well engineered, it's often engineered
differently, but most of it is just well implemented tried
and true ideas. That's part of the attraction, after all -
we already know it works, and it's fairly consistent and
compatible with other software.
Contrast this to, say, Plan 9. Plan 9 was an innovative
operating system, doing genuinely new and different things.
Of course, it went nowhere, probably largely because of
limited compatibility with other software.
The Linux software development process is where the real
innovation lies - Linux is pushing the bounds of
Internet-driven open source collaboration in new and
interesting ways.
I really think people need to get a better handle on the
meaning of the word "innovation". People like MS (and most
other software companies) like to abuse, bend, and mangle
it so much that it's hard to remember what it really means. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Innovation - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 03:28 AM EDT
- Innovation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:59 AM EDT
|
Authored by: graylion on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:25 AM EDT |
"Why is it, then, that it is taking over the world?"
is it now? at the moment it is experiencing an upsurge, yes. But according to my
webserver, 87% of the hits are Windows. with 63% being IE. OK, this doesn't
account for servers, but still "taking over the world" is a bit much.
It may very well be a flash in the pan. I don't think so, but it is entirely
possible. Let's curb our entusiasm a bit ... Comments like this are not helpful
when trying to argue with business types.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|