decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache - Updated 2 Xs
Friday, July 25 2008 @ 03:23 PM EDT

Microsoft has updated its Open Specification Promise page as of July 25, and it now says in the FAQ that the GPL is covered, including commercial:
Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Open Specification Promise apply to me?

A: Absolutely, yes. The OSP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The OSP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the OSP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

This is a major change. I haven't had time to figure out if there are any gotchas. None leap off the page. OOXML is under the OSP. And Sam Ramji has announced also that Microsoft has become a sponsor of the Apache Foundation. And they took the money. Andy Oliver confirms. Microsoft Associate General Counsel Richard Wilder explains a tweak to the OSP for Apache. Are pigs flying, or what?

Ramji:

Open Specification Promise: Microsoft is putting a wide range of protocols that were formerly in the Communications Protocol Program under the Open Specification Promise (OSP). This guarantees their freedom from any patent claims from Microsoft now or in the future, and includes both Microsoft-developed and industry-developed protocols.

We have established a clarification to the OSP that guarantees developer rights to build software of any kind and for any purpose using these specifications, including commercial use.

I am grateful to Andy Oliver, the creator and maintainer of Apache POI, for contacting me back in June with a hope that Microsoft could supply the necessary rights for POI. These include: rights for Office Binary document formats; Open XML; and the right to intentionally subset, have partial implementations, or defects in implementation of these specification. Andy offered his thoughts here.

Apache Software Foundation: Microsoft is becoming a sponsor of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). This sponsorship will enable the ASF to pay administrators and other support staff so that ASF developers can focus on writing great software.

Jim Jagielski, Chairman of the ASF, had this to say about the sponsorship:

"We thank Microsoft for their generous sponsorship that goes towards supporting The Apache Software Foundation and the over 60 top level projects in use and development within the ASF," said ASF Chairman Jim Jagielski. "The ASF Sponsorship program is an excellent way for companies and organizations to show their commitment and enthusiasm towards the ASF and The Apache Way, and helps to ensure that highly innovative, freely-available and community-based/consensus-developed software can continue to flourish and thrive within one of the most successful and respected communities in Open Source. Microsoft's sponsorship makes it clear that Microsoft 'gets it' regarding the ASF."

Elizabeth Montalbano has details on PCWorld, including that the amount given to Apache was $100,000:

Microsoft on Friday expanded its support for the open-source community by giving money to the Apache Software Foundation, the first time it has given money to the long-standing open-source project.

Microsoft also said it is contributing code to support a PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor) project and committing to offer royalty-free specifications for Windows Server and .NET Framework protocols as part of its expanded support for the open-source community. The company announced its plans at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON) now being held in Portland, Oregon.

Ryan Paul interviewed Apache Software Foundation (ASF) president Justin Erenkrantz, for ars technica:

Erenkrantz told me that Microsoft has been moving in this direction for quite some time. The company recently invited several Apache contributors to visit its Redmond headquarters for informal interoperability talks. Microsoft's recognition of the role that open source software will play in enterprise infrastructure comes directly from the top, he says, and isn't just confined to rogue elements within the company.

Microsoft's history of antagonism to and mixed messages on open source software will likely lead some critics to see the move as a potential trap. Prudence and scrutiny are certainly justifiable wherever Microsoft is involved, but it seems unlikely that there is any possible mischief in this arrangement; the governance model of the ASF just doesn't leave room for abuse.

Update: The Microsoft money is, of course, mentioned on Planet Apache, and here's a relevant comment:

Nick Kew — Apache: sponsorship vs membership

It seems Microsoft’s sponsorship of the ASF is being mis-reported as membership, for example here.

That is not merely wrong: it’s impossible. ASF members are not corporations, we’re individuals. We earn membership by what we do, not what we pay[1]. So while it’s entirely possible for Microsoft employees to become members[2], the idea of the company doing so is a non sequiter.

The idea that this gives Microsoft any kind of influence in Apache projects is also nonsense. Apache projects are managed by individuals who leave behind any corporate affiliations when we don the Apache hat. The most a company can get is an indirect stake in an Apache project by employing or contracting with key developers, and (AFAIK) the nearest Microsoft has come to that is in their joint project with SourceSense.

[1] Membership of the ASF costs nothing, just as contributing to ASF projects doesn’t pay.

[2] At least, as far as the ASF is concerned, though Microsoft’s attitude towards the common good may have to come quite a lot further. The biggest shift may come if they want badly enough to hire someone who insists on their right to participate in opensource projects.

Update 2: Bruce Perens reminds us of some history, Microsoft's 2002 Plan to Sue Apache:

Lest we forget, below is the memo detailing Microsoft's past plan to bring lawsuits against the developers of popular Open Source software, including Apache, Sendmail, Samba, and Linux. This came out while I was still at HP, but of course I was under NDA. It was a particular hardship for me: there was never any question when I was hired at HP that I was an Open Source representative first, and an HP employee second. And then I got stuck with keeping the secret of Microsoft's plans to bring suit against Open Source developers, for years. All of that time, I felt that I was being disloyal to my own community. This finally came out after I was long gone from HP.

Microsoft backed SCO's lawsuit after releasing this information to HP.

Linux.com article containing HP memo.

And before we get too dewey-eyed, let's not forget Software Freedom Law Center's analysis of the OSP.


  


Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache - Updated 2 Xs | 314 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 03:35 PM EDT
Off topic news and views here, please.

---
I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers:

delta alpha victor echo at foxtrot echo november dash november echo tango dot
delta echo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick comments
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Please mention the newspick in the subject so we know what you are talking
about. A link to the article would be nice too.

---
I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers:

delta alpha victor echo at foxtrot echo november dash november echo tango dot
delta echo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 03:38 PM EDT
Found a misteak? Let us kno!

---
I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers:

delta alpha victor echo at foxtrot echo november dash november echo tango dot
delta echo

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS and GPL
Authored by: nola on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 03:43 PM EDT
Heck - pigs *are* flying. Next thing we know, MS will host virtual Windows on
top of Linux to try to get some security into Vista.

No, wait -- that's Windows7

[ Reply to This | # ]

News from the Porcine Aviation Dept.
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 03:45 PM EDT
I'm not surprised about the OOXML promise - they're been taking quite a bit of
heat over that, and it doesn't cost them anything now that they've all but
abandoned OOXML anyway.

The donation to Apache is a bolt from the blue though. I wondier if that's where
the next version of IIS is coming from?

And finally - I'm sure that cute piggy picture wasn't there when I first read
the story.

---
I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers:

delta alpha victor echo at foxtrot echo november dash november echo tango dot
delta echo

[ Reply to This | # ]

embrace, extend extinguish?
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:06 PM EDT
Since they are simultaneously embracing (cash) and extending their own work
(into apache), should we not be suspicious as to what else is going on behind
the scenes here pre-extinguish to set up the "extinguish"?

Most notably is their acquision of VNC I believe it was, or some other
hypervisor/virtualization related company.

My skepticism radar needle has broken for today's purposes in this regard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Are pigs flying, or what?"
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:07 PM EDT
I think the flying chairs proved to be a failure, along with Vista, and this is a desperate ploy to restore their credibility.

But too little, too late. Someone predicted the other day that M$ will be gone in 10 years. I have been expecting the final downturn to begin about now, plus or minus a couple of years, but I am now sure that it began when the Vista development was reorganised, if not before, as it is now clear that they have no ability whatsoever to manage complex software projects.

They will try some devious tricks to monetize GPL, but as they understand the GPL even less than the first principles of software engineering, it will fail.

But their plan will be cunning, devious, and as always, blatantly dishonest, so I expect some serious irritation to FOSS in their dying years. A super-SCO, perhaps.....

This is a trap, but one that will fail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

embrace
Authored by: sumzero on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:08 PM EDT
this is the embrace phase.

ms will continue joining and/or providing financial support to as many big name,
commercial [because commercial targets are easier for ms], open source related
entities as it can.

does anyone expect this to end well? i am thinking about those fun new
categories in the sourceforge awards atm...

expect extend to follow soon.

sum.zero

---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

alan j perlis

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe? But then again, maybe not.
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:11 PM EDT
Perhaps MS is beginning to "get it"? Or they are just becoming more
clever? I hope it is the former. I reserve judgment. But, then again, it won't
alter what I run. I have learned to almost love Linux. Nice system. Very
affordable. And I learn a lot from it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pigs
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:15 PM EDT
This memorable quote from RFC 1925 may or may not apply:

"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and
it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:39 PM EDT
Anything from the FSF on this? I am sure they have their own view on whether
this is GPL compatible. I have my suspicions on the matter, since it doesn't
appear I could take an infringing portion of GPL implementation of a covered
specification, incorporate it into a GPL program that doesn't implement a
covered specification, and distribute that program.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:47 PM EDT
Pardon me. Perhaps later I'll be able to comment on this more coherently, but
for the moment I'm quite busy retrieving my lower mandible from the floor.


---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Saner Heads Prevail
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:50 PM EDT
My hope is that Micro$oft is finally coming to understand where the value in the
marketplace is. Much as they may want to dominate standards and the market,
they have missed too many emerging, transformational trends to sit in that
favored position any longer. Responsible business must understand that they are
in business to provide value to owners (shareholders), behavior antagonistic to
that purpose is actionable.

In today's market, FOSS is a reality in the server room as much as Redmond was
the reality a decade ago. Fighting that market shift will prove fatal to any
corporation. Micro$oft must coexist with FOSS to survive. Any rational MBA or
marketing exec should be able to see that. Let us hope that this is a sign that
Micro$oft is willing to start behaving like a grown up company. If it is, I
wish them well. It would be detrimental to have only a single OS for the
market, we have seen how well that works.

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's not be too cynical about Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:53 PM EDT

"Prudence and scrutiny are certainly justifiable wherever Microsoft is involved," as Justin Erenkrantz is quoted as saying.

The history justifies a whole lot of prudence and scrutiny, combined with a good amount of scepticism.

But let's not prejudge Microsoft's initiative completely. Companies and people do change. For example, I think it's fair to say that Sun changed for the better. Of course, Microsoft has a far longer and deeper history of evil than Sun ever had, but any signs of reform should be encouraged, not treated as the famous Sli vka/Gates email suggested Java should be treated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: tredman on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:54 PM EDT
Quite frankly, none of this really surprises me. The only lingering question
that remains is whether or not the patent promise really is that air-tight in
terms of the GPL, or are they just saying that in the FAQ to allay fears by
their already-large development community.

I don't see this as some kind of epiphany moment for Microsoft, nor do I see
this as some wide-ranging conspiracy by Ballmer et al. When it comes down to
it, this is simply a sound business decision by Microsoft, especially
considering how they've alienated outsiders in the past few years. They're
extending the olive branch, but not to benefit you or me. They're doing it for
their own bottom line and that of their shareholders. When you're a publicly
traded company, that's how things work. Nothing sinister to see here.

Besides, there's really not much of a chance to embrace, extend and extinguish
here, at least in terms of the battle between IIS and Apache. Apache's not
exactly an "also ran" in the web server community. As long as the
httpd daemon is out there and open-sourced, the best IIS can hope to be is
Apache's ugly stepsister.

---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 05:01 PM EDT
M$ must please and keep its financial bigwigs happy. Finance is going OSS.
Nobody trusts closed source anymore.
M$ must expand big time to take on google. Open source community has major
power and influence, M$ is buying into this. EEE, or someother game.
A web squeeze is coming, along with a serious cyberwar. Think what 9/11 did to
USA, well IT might go down same roads. Then again, it might not, can not fool
all the people all the time.
M$ a dangerous enemy, however is also dangerous to all its partners who LIVE and
DIE by their IT.
M$, '...you will have a corner in hell.' < those who know the movie, do,
those who don't well, toughluck. Thanks M$ and crew!

*BSD, it works. It is sane compared to M$.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Promise
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 05:23 PM EDT

I recall once reading a MS upper level manager making the comment:

    Their first mistake was that they trusted us!
Looking back over MS' history, that certainly rings true in a lot of business partnerships MS got involved in.

MS: You've just stated that you promise not to sue over any patents with regards OOXML. While examination into the OSP is occurring, I'd like you to provide a couple things:

  1. Identification of which patents are even partially reflected in the OOXML specification.
  2. Clear documented specifications covering all those areas of OOXML that are not publicly available such as the documentation covering: "auto space like word 95".
If you provide that documentation, then I'll start giving you the benefit of doubt that you have changed - with a healthy does of skepticism of course. For now, I'll keep looking for the "catch".

It's too bad Apache has joined the list of companies one must be cautious with.

My expectations:

    A) The promise is not actually as clean as the FAQ indicates it is. Once MS Legal gets done with the OSP, legal traps still exist.
    B) Apache will continue researching and building advancements. Now that MS "has their foot in the door", MS will be kept informed of what those advancements are. That's on one hand. On the other hand, they will be trying to subvert the Apache code base with their own code. The hope will be to get their own product out the door with the advancements before Apache can release theirs.
With regards A, I'm sure that will be clarified whether or not MS has provided such protection or not soon enough. For example, I expect the MS promise to include the line:
    MS reserves the right to change the promise at any time and any changes being made retro-actively.
A nice little Legal trap. MS may ultimately loose such a battle in court but why end up in court in the first place?

With regards B, if that truly is MS' plan, good luck with those efforts.

First: As the work is in the open, it won't be so easy for MS to donate bad code without someone recognizing that. MS is entering a whole new world where there's going to be a lot of peer scrutiny applied to code they provide Apache. Unless they manage to convince Apache to change their license and become a lot less transparent.

Second: So long as MS keeps the political anti-consumer games going, there's no way they'll be able to produce any product features prior to Apache. Just as they can't keep up with the OS development pace of Linux, they won't be able to keep up with the Web Server pace set by Apache. However, Apache should be very cautious and enter agreements with MS with regards the knowledge shared and how Patents are applied. It would not be beyond MS to take the knowledge of research Apache is sharing and apply for patents without letting Apache know they are doing so. In short: subversion of Apache technology so MS "owns" it.

Words of Wisdom: Exercise extreme caution Apache team. Learn from MS' past tactics and take steps to protect yourselves from those tactics.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: hsmyers on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 05:55 PM EDT
Bug in Vista internal calender routines leave every day as April 1st. Slightly
more likely than pigs with wings...

--hsm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 06:18 PM EDT
IBM used to be a monster of a company, but they grew up when they realized they
could make money hand-over-fist by being nicer to the rest of the industry.
They're not perfect (they still file and get more patents per year than any
other company), but they're not a monster anymore. Here's hoping that Microsoft
is finally growing up and getting out from under the shadow of Bill.

Microsoft employs a lot of good people who do not subscribe to the idiocy of the
past. It will be good when Ballmer retires and one of those more pragmatic types
gets to run the company. Then they will make more money by bringing better and
more interoperable products to market, not crudware like Vista.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On IBM, Microsoft and Apache
Authored by: ChrisP on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 06:20 PM EDT
In recent years IBM has made significant contributions of code (I don't know
about money) to the Apache foundation, and in turn has used Apache licensed code
in its commercial software like the Websphere Application Server. This works for
IBM because the Apache license is friendly towards proprietary products.

It's not really surprising to me that MS has finally seen the light and realised
they can do the same thing profitably too. Of course you would want to watch
them like a hawk.

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What does this mean (from the FAQ)?
Authored by: bbaston on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 06:28 PM EDT
The OSP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specification(s).
from the third FAQ item, appearing about 10 pages down after following the link.

Legally, are the FAQ Q&A's part of the "Promise"?

Methinks we'd best wait for legal analysis from community leadership.

---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

The OSP and RFCs
Authored by: ChrisP on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 06:36 PM EDT
Now some of the specifications MS are applying the OSP to are clearly written
and designed by MS and may require MS patented technology to implement. But what
about some of the early RFCs and other (WS-) items in the list for instance.

Take RFC792, ICMP, written by J. Postel in September 1981 for the DARPA
Internet. Are MS saying you can't implement ICMP without using MS technology?
What about the RFCs not in the list?

It seems to me that MS are making a land-grab on the whole functioning of the
Internet, then appearing to be nice and releasing some of it under the OSP.
There's the hidden threat that any RFC you might implement that's not in the
list could result in a letter from MS lawyers.

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Three or Four loopholes
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 06:39 PM EDT
I can think of three or four loopholes, or vulnerabilities.

It's only on the web. MS has changed it (OSP) once already.
What guarantee have we that MS will not change it again.
And when they do, how can we prove what the promise
had previously been? And even if you might ultimately
prevail, MS could easily make you go broke before you
could afford to win. Maybe this isn't the most dangerous.

The "Necessary Claims" are only those needed to implement
the 'required portions' of the "Covered Specifications".
There is no guarantee that there may not be patents lurking
that are needed for the non-required portions.

MS is also not making any assurances about any third parties.
This means that MS has a perfect loophole --- sell a patent
that is needed to implement something to a third party, then
that third party is free to sue. This makes it look like MS is
not being a bad guy or a bully, but that it is the fault of someone
else for being litigious.

The other dodge available to MS is to change the covered
specification, to remove something that really is needed
from the 'required portion' of that specification. Whatever
this thing is, it could remain in the specification, but just
no longer be 'required', even though it really is required.
It would be a lie, but then this would be nothing new for MS.

So there are at least FOUR different loopholes that MS may
use to at some point in time attack open source that dares
to implement anything that might be covered here.

So basically, this is just a dodge to make the kool-aid
look good, taste good and smell good, while still allowing
it to be poisonous. Oh, by the way, the poison is slow-acting.
Plenty of people will drink and enjoy the kool-aid, they will
be seen by others to appear to remain well. It is only some
time after many have indulged, that the adverse effects will
begin to be felt.

I think if MS was really serious about co-existing with open source
and not trying to kill it, MS would explicitly give irrevocable
and non-expiring free licenses to an explicit list of patents
(hopefully ALL MS SW patents) that cover said technologies,
to any and all open-source projects.

MS may have fooled yet again, many people with this new OSP.
For me, MS will have to act decently for at least as long as
they have been criminal, before I will ever even BEGIN to
trust MS again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Glory Days
Authored by: kozmcrae on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 07:00 PM EDT
"Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company
for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or
voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against
Microsoft"

Or, "We will trample your copyrights until you are compelled to sue
us". What ever you've invested in Microsoft's Open Specification Promise
will be in jeopardy if not lost entirely.

Getting close with Microsoft may supercharge some projects but those projects
will get there anyway, it will just take a little longer. Taking the short cut
will create more problems down the road when Microsoft tries to relive its glory
days.

Richard


---
It all started with Lynda Carter playing Wonder Woman in the '70s. Now I'm a
Heroine addict.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 07:20 PM EDT

This should teach you to be careful on what you wish, for it might once come true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are all problems fixed now?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 07:30 PM EDT
Does this FAQ entry resolve all the issues that the Software Freedom Law Center found with the previous version of the Open Specification Promise? http://www.sof twarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html

Is there a diff available between the old and new OSP text?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Applicable Latin
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 09:12 PM EDT
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS will try to sneak in GPL-incompatible stuff . . .
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 09:29 PM EDT

. . . into other open-source licenses.

Don't trust Microsoft until you start seeing them release stuff in GPL3.
That's the core test.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft is trying to avoid running off the runway
Authored by: imjustabigcat on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 10:27 PM EDT
Pigs aren't flying, at least not yet. Microsoft has realized that it is in deep
trouble, long term. The Microsoft airliner is aborting a takeoff after
spreading the guts of both engines all over the runway, and is trying to stop
before the pavement ends.

Microsoft has relied on Windows to provide a way to push other vendors out of
the market. Now that desktop Linux distributions are easier to install and
there are viable replacements for Microsoft productivity apps (OpenOffice),
Microsoft doesn't have the clout it used to. Your data used to be hostage to
Microsoft; that's no longer true.

As a closed-source company, Microsoft has to react to every new engineering
breakthrough or market shift by altering its core product, and that means hiring
a lot of programmers and spending a lot of money. Microsoft's internal
development practices are broken (observe the Vista debacle), so it's a lot
harder to react than one would reasonably expect. By contrast, anyone can
recompile a modified Linux kernel as needed to test something.

As an example of what Microsoft is up against, consider the sudden interest in
energy-efficient computers, which has caught Microsoft completely flat-footed.
Microsoft has nothing to offer this market; every version of Windows has
demanded ever greater amounts of CPU power, memory and storage. Windows CE and
Windows Mobile are just not viable choices due to architectural and license
issues. In contrast, take a look at the number of Linux-based energy efficient
designs that hobbyists are building everywhere. Ironically, the same thing is
happening on the other end of the scale with large parallel-processing systems.
Watch Microsoft scramble when CPUs that have hundreds of cores are introduced --
it's not as far off as you might think.

Microsoft also has not had much success outside of the Windows and Office
product lines. If MSN was a success, why the sudden interest in Yahoo! (and
specifically, the search and advertising portion of the company)? The Xbox
division is still losing money, while Nintendo outsells the Xbox 3 to 1 and
makes money on each hardware unit.

Microsoft has always been a market follower. It's suddenly interested in open
source because it may be the way out the proprietary hole that has been dug.
Microsoft has watched leaders like IBM, Novell, Red Hat and others make a
growing business out of open source. Microsoft is betting that if it does the
same thing as the other open-source leaders, it will somehow succeed. But, no
one trusts Microsoft. Not customers, not governments, not developers, not
employees, not media companies. Microsoft has no way to force the issue.

Leadership is not bullying, as Microsoft may discover.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2008 @ 11:23 PM EDT
Hello

Didn't Mr Ballmer say "its the developers stupid"... and Microsoft
sees the developers are all using open source development tools eg PHP / Apache.
Microsoft may realise that developers are moving away from their products, and
they have alternative other than to try and get involved.

IBM's reputation was as bad as Microsoft once upon a time. Who knows Microsoft
could change as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bruce Perens, Prescient with an old picture
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 02:01 AM EDT
http://technocrat.net/d/2008/7/25/46596

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's new anti-GPL strategy
Authored by: barbacana on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 02:43 AM EDT

The reason Microsoft is giving $ to Apache is that Apache is released under a non-GPL license. The Apache license does not require someone who incorporates Apache code into a product to release source code. In this, it's like the Berkeley license.

Microsoft can take Apache code, modify it, and incorporate it into their products, without giving the modified code back to the community. That's why I, personally, would never release any work under the Apache license. The GPL is designed to protect against this.

Microsoft would just love to see Apache-style licenses replace the GPL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They are merely getting smarter...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:18 AM EDT
The one thing that takes the edge off a 500lbs Gorilla is when you are sure of
its heading.

Microsoft is a force to be reckoned with. It is easy to ban the bull from the
china shop as long as you don't get to glimpse into its billfold.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Three options
Authored by: Peter Baker on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:24 AM EDT
It simply boils down to three options:

(1) MS has decided to fight the competition from the inside. Could be, and only
time will tell. From past history this would not come as a total surprise, but
it would take the diversion of an awful lot of eyeballs to start sneaking in
Intellectual Property under the radar without anyone noticing.

(2) MS management has gone through the figures of last year and had an aha
moment a la Louis Gerstner. So there may be a second dancing elephant on its
way (read Louis Gerstner's book "Who says elephants can't dance"). I
personally don't see this as something that fits into Ballmer's style, so I'm
presently left wondering just where that would come from.

Customers as well as Microsoft have everything to GAIN from going the Open
Source route - not by giving it all away (come on, be realistic) but at least by
trying to ensure some interoperability possible. I can see a Linux version of
the Office suite, for instance, positively fly off the shelves although that
would sink the MS Windows franchise. Looks like some segregation might be in
order.

(3) This is a temporary measure to get past the increasing threat of the EU
Commission taking measures that reach beyond mere fines. I remind you of events
preceeding their huge fine where also grand announcements and statements where
made (which suggests to me that the EU Commission should start looking at their
security, they appear to have an MS friendly on the inside - but I digress).
Yes, they dropped a wad of $$ on Apache, but how does that compare with sterner
EU measures? Could be small change in comparison - a standard marketing
campaign costs more.

I'm not going to get terribly excited about this. Maybe in a few months when I
see what is really going on.

The usual: IMHO, IANAL, and no VAT or batteries included.



---

= P =

[ Reply to This | # ]

BEWARE !!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:32 AM EDT
Microsoft main threat is Linux. Their next strategy is to hijack everything off
Linux stack.

They are using this as a bait to woo people off the Linux stack. They want
applications to work on Windows and not on Linux. They are willing to sacrifice
few things to get that. Its the same lock-in as before.

BEWARE ALL OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPERS !!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • BEWARE !! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 05:09 AM EDT
Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:38 AM EDT
Some of us noticed this change in behaviour well before now - like when the deal
with Novell was signed....We saw that as a sign of things to come - it's good to
finally have that view vindicated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Vindicated? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 01:13 PM EDT
Microsoft cherry-picking open licenses for funding?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 11:00 AM EDT

Today Apache. Tomorrow BSD? Anything but GPL3.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Two FAQ's
Authored by: mattflaschen on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 12:52 PM EDT
I think this is likely temporary and will decline to propose a cynical
explanation, but I find the two GPL FAQ's are funny:

"Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL?
[...]

Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same
way by everyone, we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language
relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses,[...]"

"I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the
GPL, does the Open Specification Promise apply to me?

Absolutely, yes. [...]"

[ Reply to This | # ]

The OSP applies to...
Authored by: NickFortune on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 03:14 PM EDT
Call me paranoid, but saying the OSP "applies" to GPL developers does
that mean that they are included in the group for whom the promise applies. Or
could it apply to them in the sense that they were specifically excluded by the
OSP?

Just a thought...

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is up with the EU right now?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 08:39 PM EDT
Because the Clayton's nature of the OSP promise seems to be an issue for the EU
regulators. We havn't heard anything onthe EU front for a while, but my bet
would be that Microsoft is trying to head of a very bad outcome for them from
the EU regulators by making their OSP less GPL hostile.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache - Updated
Authored by: electron on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 03:17 AM EDT
> The idea that this gives Microsoft any kind of influence
> in Apache projects is also nonsense. Apache projects are
> managed by individuals who leave behind any corporate
> affiliations when we don the Apache hat. The most a
> company can get is an indirect stake in an Apache project
> by employing or contracting with key developers, and
> (AFAIK) the nearest Microsoft has come to that is in their
> joint project with SourceSense.

Microsoft's influence will be in proportion to the number of its employees that
have become members of the ASF. Microsoft _will_ hold them accountable for all
IT related activities that they do.

Why else do you think so very many of Microsoft's employees represented it at
the Ballot Resolution Meeting for MSOOXML?


---
Electron

"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

it was updated ages ago
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 03:25 AM EDT
or may even have been that way from the start. Certainly as of 27/02/08 09:38. I
had a discussion with one of Microsoft's lawyers who had been sent to monitor
proceedings at the Open Forum Europe conference in Geneva in February. I asked
why the language of the OSP was so woolly and didn't mention the GPL by name. He
pointed out to me the paragraph above (which isn't actually in the OSP, but in
the FAQ) and he sent me an email with the text of that paragraph. I still
wouldn't touch it myself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the $$$$
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 03:03 AM EDT
Now...what about the money ASF accepted ? Should that be returned ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The *GNU* GPL
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 07:50 AM EDT
They appear to say "GPL", not "GNU GPL".

While I had my eyes bulging on seeing this article's headline,
I can't help but wonder.
Am I being too used to their tricks not to see a real opening ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corporations aren't People
Authored by: Observer on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT
I think that this is a reminder that we need to treat corporations as aggregates, and not as monolithic entities. Of course, corporations TRY to present a unified face to the rest of the world--some kind of consistent message, but the reality is there are often different factions with different ideas on issues and questions that come up. Look at how Sun kept going back and forth on the whole FOSS/GPL question. Some people said they were being two-faced. My response was, "And... you are SURPRISED by this?" It looks like Sun, as a corporation, has finally figured out the GPL, and how they can work with it rather than seeing it as a threat, but it was a really bumpy ride for a while there.

Microsoft has tried very hard to be internally consistent, but the reality is that their "message" is falling apart. There are still plenty of people there who really think that the GPL is a cancer, and will fight to the death, but I think there are more and more people internal to MS who see that, if the company is to survive, they are going to have to change their tune.

They did it once with the Internet. Maybe they will pull it off again with Open Source.

---
The Observer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Updates Open Specification Promise to Include GPL/Gives $$ to Apache - Updated 2 Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT
A FAQ is nice, like the AT&T thing saying that people that develop their own
code does not belong to AT&T, but lets remember the four corners of the
contract, which we've heard plenty about.

No question, Microsoft wants to look like it is playing nice with Open Source.
But are looks more than skin deep.

Please forgive me for being skeptical. What is the term, trust but verify?

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds