Bill Gates On the GPL — "We Disagree"

Dionysius, God of Wine, writes with a link to an Ars Technica story, quoting Bill Gates: "'There's free software and then there's open source' he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, 'there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.' Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,' he claimed, bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and business. (Yes, Linux fans, we're aware of how distorted this definition is.) He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."

Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[smellsofbikes (890263)]

Nothing wrong with greedy. Just, when you're competing with 'free' you better bring a lot to the table.

Weird disjoint

[by Anonymous Coward]

the GP post never mentioned wanting tesco to give away food.

However, if you have a back garden, you can grow potatoes for ... wait for it ... FREE! So do you think it right that tesco tell you you CAN'T produce food from your own garden and either use it yourself or give it to friends?

Re:Weird disjoint

[cyphercell (843398)]

Tesco disagrees with home gardening, they think people should be able to charge for their vegetables.

Re:Weird disjoint

[bcat24 (914105)]

Home gardening is killing produce?

Re:Weird disjoint

[metamatic (202216)]

Home gardening is killing produce?

Home fucking is killing prostitution.

Re:Weird disjoint

[timeOday (582209)]

when did Microsoft ever tell you that you CAN'T produce open-source software?

Microsoft did pay SCO to argue against the validity of the GPL in court (Link [theinquirer.net]).

Re:Weird disjoint

[Darby (84953)]

Even if it were, arguing against the validity of the license in court is several steps removed from telling you that you can't use it

No, it is no steps removed from that. That's exactly what it is.

It's also true that they have no authority to *enforce* their ridiculous demand but that's the entire point of arguing against it in court. So, if you replace what you said with something else you can move it back one single step, but not several steps.

Nice try though, although you shouldn't make yourself look silly by slagging the logical skills of others while in the middle of failing at it yourself.

Re:Weird disjoint

[tonyreadsnews (1134939)]

Gardening isn't really free. It's just grown the way you want it. That's the benifit. If you equated the time it requires to garden, plus seeds/plants, fertilizer and pesticides (if you choose). You'll find that gardening does cost you, even though you don't have to pull out your wallet at harvest time.

Re:Weird disjoint

[Pogue Mahone (265053)]

To paraphrase a sig from groklaw: "It isn't the food that's free: it's you"

Re:Weird disjoint

[WebCowboy (196209)]

Gardening isn't really free. It's just grown the way you want it.

Free (libre) software isn't really free (gratis). It's just developed the way you want it.

If you equated the time it requires to garden, plus seeds/plants, fertilizer and pesticides (if you choose). You'll find that gardening does cost you

If you equate the time it requires to code, plus hardware/backup media, caffeinated beverages and dependencies closed libraries/drivers/dev tools (if you choose), you'll find that Free software does cost.

I'm not sure if BillG really does misunderstand the concept of free software as much as is suggested by the content of his speech, or if he is deliberately spreading misinformation (such as that you cannot charge money for applications built using GPLed code). He also seems to mix up open source and Free software, which is a specific type of open source. GPL is open source but it is actually a particular form of Free software. conversely, Microsoft has released a lot of open source that is in fact not Free (you may see the code but you may not redistribute derivative works, etc).

The real whopper lie he tells (knowingly or not) is that open source (inferring the GPL) prevents people from improving software, which is exactly opposite. It is Microsoft who has created open source licenses that made modification illegal. GPL *protects* the right of others to modify, improve and re-distribute.

The real problem for BillG, I think, is that GPL, and other Free licenses that have similar terms of use, are a "poison pill" that severely hinders one's ability to establish a monopoly.

Re:Weird disjoint

[tonyreadsnews (1134939)]

I think the issue for BillG is that he doesn't see where the competitive advantage is. His (previous) business model is completely focused on producing and maintaining a certain type of advantage over its competition.

For him, having to give any improvements back to the community negates any competitive advantage of producing that improvement so I'm guessing that's why he considers it not viable for business.

I think, however, that he does not realize that the other possible business models can be just as viable as his 'sustained competitive advantage' model.

I don't think he believes that nobody can improve the software (and the original context isn't available anywhere), just that it doesn't fit into his idea of doing business.

Re:Weird disjoint

[mr_mischief (456295)]

His problem is he doesn't understand "customization", "support", or "good documentation" as competitive advantages, but anyone who's been a long-time customer of Microsoft should be able to tell you that.

Re:Weird disjoint

[Bobartig (61456)]

Bull shit. You must have some self-maintaining garden, or otherwise your figures are WAY off. There are a lot of private farms that handle their own distribution on a subscription model, grow small quantities so storage is not an issue, and charge a hefty premium for all-organic, locally grown produce. Their economy of scale is much better than yours, and their margins do not resemble what you are describing at all.

Bring a lot to the table

[symbolset (646467)]

You are sooo right.

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,'

Because if somebody else invents better drugs to give away for free, you're sunk.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[by Anonymous Coward]

Because if somebody else invents better drugs to give away for free, you're sunk.

Nah, you just give out enough free coffee cups and iPods to the doctors that they prescribe your expensive version anyway - after all, it's not them that's paying for it.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[pclminion (145572)]

Wouldn't it be great if the patient had at least SOME degree of control over what is prescribed? Obviously, lay persons should not prescribe drugs for themselves, but if there are three drugs A, B, and C which are all considered roughly equivalent, appropriate treatments for some condition, the patient should be able to decide for him/herself which of the drugs to use.

If I know there is a cheap alternative, and I am willing to take responsibility for my decision, I should be able to request that the alternative be used instead of a more expensive one. Patients can already request a generic substitute, but why not take this just a small step farther and allow them to choose between a set of different, but roughly equivalent drugs.

Yes, and in Bill Gates' world

[Phil Urich (841393)]

there would be no evil profit-killing generic drugs. Yay Closed Source!

No, seriously, Gates chose probably the worst analogy he could possibly make. I mean, comparing closed source software developers to the kinds of companies which gouge people in need as much as they can? The kinds of corporations directly responsible for things such as the lack of proper medications in the poorer countries in the world? (because although there's often enough money to manufacture the drugs they have patents and hence international monopolies, which means even if they give the drugs away for free there's a limited supply since no one else is allowed to make them)

Basically our esteemed William used the worst possible example of the dirty side of Capitalism to characterize Closed Source software. Oops!

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

If someone wants to deny you life saving drugs because you're broke, and you'll die if you don't get them, can any action you take to get those drugs be wrong?

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[metlin (258108)]

Except for the fact that the amount of resources required to conduct research (particularly pharma research) is over the top.

You can't just hire a bunch of folks who spent 10 years going to school and ask them to produce something for "free". Also, that electron microscope or that gene sequencer does not grow on a tree.

Software is a little different, but even then, programmers aren't the same as computer scientists. And while being paid for a service is great, I still do not mind paying for good technology because it pays for someone who loves technology.

I am all for making everything available freely, but I believe that the market should determine if that is feasible. Viva la Laissez-faire!

Re:Make something for free

[dhavleak (912889)]

Some jackass moded you -1 offtopic. It's pretty clear nobody bothered to read BillG's speech and understand the context. But then, this is slashdot.

The relevant parts:

He also pointed to one specific problem that he'd like to take a shot at: getting pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for the infectious diseases that plague billions of people in the developing world. The track record is horrible, and familiar. While billions of dollars have yielded treatments for baldness and erectile dysfunction, Gates said, there's comparatively little on the shelf for malaria, tuberculosis or HIV.

Even the treatments that do pop up are more dumb luck than dedication. The anti-worm treatments that have proven so effective for humans against Guinea worm, for instance, were only developed because Americans and other first-worlders wanted a way to keep their dogs worm-free. "Luckily it worked for humans", too, Gates noted

The core problem seemed to intrigue Gates, who offered it as "a paradox": If a drug company ever invents a treatment for something like malaria, it'd be immediately beset by calls to give the drug away. "So they choose never to work in those areas," he noted sympathetically. "The current incentive system isn't doing it."

In other words, his point is, companies need to be profitable to exists. They need to be able to charge for their products, their IP, etc. They might want to do the right thing, but they can't do it at the expense of profits. Somebody needs to figure out how to bridge the disconnect between "doing the right thing/goodwill" and profitability.

And no, open source doesn't solve this problem. It has it's place, but this isn't it. Specifically, BillG was asked if he would consider open source uses in health research. It goes directly against his point that profit-making is the primary incentive for any company. If a company wants to provide healthcare solutions, and charge for the software, and keep their IP to themselves there's nothing wrong with that. Their whole incentive to be in the space is profits. They just need to figure out how to be profitable and do the right thing.

Of course, there are many companies with open source models that are profitable - but that still doesn't necessarily apply to the healthcare segment. For example, if you need to spend millions of dollars to create s/w to model protein folding, you want to be able to recover the investment. If you can't monetize the investment, your incentive to do the R&D is drastically reduced!

Forget about what?

[symbolset (646467)]

Then forget about doing meaningful research on viruses. After all, you can't see them in enough detail without an electron microscope.

How's that working out for you? Find a cure for HIV yet? Dengue? Marburg? Ebola? BSV? Malaria even?

Dr. Salk [wikipedia.org] managed to find a vaccine for Polio without these expensive toys. When asked about the patent for his vaccine, he is quoted as saying:

"There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Re:Forget about what?

[jsebrech (525647)]

The pharmaceutical industry isn't in the business of curing diseases, because that isn't as profitable as making drugs that you have to keep taking for the rest of your life.

Take HIV for example. They've invested a lot of money making drugs that let you "live with" HIV, at a staggering recurring yearly cost to the patient. If they made a cure, even if they charged through the nose for it, they would lose out on a lot of money. This is why if there is ever a cure for HIV developed, it will be in a publicly funded lab, not in a pharma company.

Re:Forget about what?

[RedShoeRider (658314)]

It's exactly that attitude from the general public that annoys the ever loving crap out of those of us in Pharma.

Look up a drug called Mectizan. Or Coartem. Two good examples of profits not being made on a drug. We would all LOVE to cure HIV. The company that pulled that stunt off would be the darling of the industry for the next 3 decades, and that image almost matters more than the profit itself. Remember the whole Vioxx mess? That wouldn't have been half as publicized had it not been Merck. For decades Merck was the gold standard of the industry, a reputation they well deserved. So when it came time for them to be dethroned, it was a big deal.

I'm not saying that they don't often go after diseases that are big money makers. All of diabetes treatments that are out there are indicators of that. But to make a blanket statement that "They won't cure a disease because of the bottom line" is just showing ignorance.

Re:Make something for free

[metlin (258108)]

My girlfriend is in starting premed and the fees are already over the top. After med-school, do I really see her working for free? Hell no.

Oh, working for a great cause sounds fantastic, but it is not realistic given the amount of debt that you are in, coming out of school.

Your argument on equipment is quite silly - and is a logical fallacy. Just because you have a couple of examples where people did not use them does not necessarily invalidate their use.

A lot may be achieved without the gear, but a lot more can be achieved with them. It's called progress.

Those people (doctors sans frontiers) are there for charity - and I've heard of enough heartbreak cases from them, as well.

Do you have a more coherent argument than bringing up examples of someone who did something contrary and saying that just because these people do, everyone else must?

If anything, I'm proud of capitalism. If I do something, why shouldn't I be expected to be rewarded for it? If I develop a cure, what is wrong in asking people to pay for it? If anything, the system promotes competition and ensures that the brightest rise to the top.

Now, there may be exceptions and there may be people who have done great things without any help. But even these people (like Mr. Torvalds) need a day job where they can get paid for what they do.

I do not understand your comment on quality people because quality people may find ways of expressing themselves, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't ask to be paid for it.

Except a good bit of the base research

[stabiesoft (733417)]

is paid for by taxpayers. NIH and universities do an awful lot of the research that big pharma repackages into drugs which we pay obscene amounts for. Also unfortunately, big pharma commissions lots of study's and only publishes the ones that are favorable. How many times do I have to read about a new drug that had prior studing buried by NDA's that showed it was lethal, but the study wasn't shown to the FDA. I appreciate the drug companies do some good work. It's a pity it is clouded by all the bad things they have done. I'd also like to prescription drugs prohibited from advertising on TV/web.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Hatta (162192)]

Most GPL code is written by people paid for their work. Especially most of the code from the most popular projects. There's no reason you can't pay people for drug research and then open the results. Seeing as the public is paying for ALL drug research anyway (whether through grants, tax-breaks, or just the purchase price of the drug), why not fund drug research publicly and give away the results?

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[by Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! There is nothing in the GPL that forces anyone to give anything away for free (money). It explicitly says you may charge a fee for the distribution of the software. And as far as your analogy goes, it doesn't put a burden on the users (owners who use the building) except if they decide to go and build another building based on the first for someone else, they would have to release all the specs of the building.

Anyway, this analogy is ridiculous. Just to put it simply, GPL affects you if you distribute and/or modify the code. Go read the GPL, you can charge a billion dollars for your software, if no one buys it than it's just the market rejecting that price. I'm sick of people who want to spread misinformation because their business model is becoming harder to sustain.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

There is nothing in the GPL that forces anyone to give anything away for free (money).

See, that's what I thought too.

I'm a little bit confused by Mr. Gates assertions that somehow there is some gun to the heads of everyone who uses the GPL.

This reminds me of the new standard that CEOs are using for suing their competitors. According to them, if they have a competitor that has cut into their profits, they have a "fiduciary responsibility" to their shareholders to sue the competitor in order to "protect the interests of the shareholders". Even when there is no reasonable cause of action - no damage, no harm, no violation of patent or trademark. Even if there isn't a reasonable expectation of winning the suit, a suit is brought to cover the ass of the CEO for letting the competitor make headway.

I get the feeling that Gates is sort of doing the same thing. Even though he knows his charges are completely bogus, he feels he has to bring them anyway because something he considers "competition" has appeared in his rear-view mirror.

Nice system these "free markets", huh?

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[mapsjanhere (1130359)]

There is one grain of truth in it; while you're able to ask for any amount of money, you are in fact limited by two factors:
- you can only sell one of each item to any one customer, since the customer can freely copy it
- your fee is capped by how much money it costs to have a competent guy take your source code and get it running on the customers system without giving you a penny
So it's very hard for you to make any "real" (Bill Gates type) money with GPL compared to lets say a proprietary CAD program that can charge $1000/seat/year.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

So it's very hard for you to make any "real" (Bill Gates type) money with GPL compared to lets say a proprietary CAD program that can charge $1000/seat/year.

The next question is whether anybody should be making "Bill Gates type" money.

There are both moral and ethical limits to desire for wealth.

Re:Bring a lot to the table

[Snowmit (704081)]

He's the classic Ebenezer Scrooge. He's made so much money that he doesn't know how to spend it or really have the inclination to spend it. It's a sort of waste really.

WHAT [gatesfoundation.org]

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[ZephyrXero (750822)]

Wanting to make a profit is not evil. However, lies still are. Saying that nobody can improve (read innovate) in open source is a flat out lie, and he knows it.

Also, if he really cared about making a profit he wouldn't still be clinging to his short sided, quick buck mentalities he started the company with decades ago...

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[pressman (182919)]

Improvement and innovation are two different ideas. Innovate implies a radical change from the status quo, whereas improvement is gradual change to the status quo resulting in a better product.

Photoshop was a huge innovation originally over traditional darkroom techniques. Early non-linear digital video editors were a huge innovation over linear tape-based and traditional film editing techniques, so Avid qualifies as an innovator.

(I'm a video editor and photographer, hence the analogies)

Since version 3, nothing in Photoshop has been terribly innovative though the program has seen numerous improvements.

Direct-to-disk video recording is a huge innovation over tape based recording and it's accompanying tape-based offline workflow. Panasonic, Sony and Red have shown some innovation there, but most everyone else has just improved upon existing technologies and work flows.

Linux, when it was released was a highly innovative OS and method of distribution. Now, however, most of what goes on in the OSS world (as it applies to Linux) is a matter of improvement rather than innovation.

The idea of innovation has become so diluted that it's now meaningless and people simply equate it with "getting stuff done", no matter how small the change.

Innovation isn't so much an active process as it is the result of inspired genius that strikes occasionally. Improvement is an active process of evaluation and execution. Innovation comes in spurts and then the innovations are improved upon and evolve.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[CowboyNealOption (1262194)]

Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software'

I think Bill must live in opposite land, because the meaning he is associating with the word "nobody" is the one I associate with the word "everybody".

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[hardburn (141468)]

The Internet? UNIX?

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[BlueStraggler (765543)]

Linux and GNU did not invent OSS. They were, in fact, a counter-revolution (OSS v2), in response to the revolution of proprietary software that overthrew OSS v1 in the early 1980s. Proprietary licensing took off with the rise of personal workstations and PCs and the subsequent rise in the portability of software. The GNU philosophy is that the old way of doing things was better, and cleverly co-opted the software licensing model to try and turn the ship around. Unix arose in the OSS v1 world, but right around the time that proprietary software was getting a foothold. As a consequence, it got caught up in the heart of the OSS/proprietary schism, and became embroiled in intellectual property lawsuits, which is why a Linux became necessary. But Linux didn't invent this approach to Unix; it simply capitalized on the fact that BSD was locked down in court battles for years. TCP/IP arose much earlier, before proprietary licensing was a significant force at all, so it is very much a creature of the OSS v1 world. If it wasn't, we either would not be using it today, or we'd be paying a hell of a lot more for it.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[hardburn (141468)]

It wasn't called either OSS or Free Software yet, but early efforts on UNIX and the Internet fit into the modern definitions of the terms. All the critical bits of Internet infrastructure software (bind, sendmail, the BSD TCP/IP stack, etc.) were developed in an open source fashion. UNIX was given away by AT&T for the cost of the media, and was improved on by many others (most notably BSD), who often gave away their own changes, too.

FOSS is a lot more than just Linux and GNU.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[WebCowboy (196209)]

Are you stupid or something?

No, he's actually more informed than you are.

The Internet came from ARPANET, a project of the Department of Defense ...the protocols of which were non-proprietary and declassified so educational and research institutions could participate in its development and growth.

and UNIX was invented by AT&T

UNIX was NOT invented by AT&T. It was invented by a team of computer scientists led by Ken Thompson and Dennis Richie at Bell Labs. Bell Labs was not wholly owned by AT&T until the 1980s, long after UNIX was invented. The "official" UNIX was not truly owned by AT&T until then, when Bell Labe became a wholly owned unit of AT&T.

Neither had anything to do with OSS.

The internet, and ESPECIALLY UNIX, had EVERYTHING to do with OSS. UNIX was indeed open source (but it wasn't fully Free)--when you got good ol' UNIX for your PDP-11 or whatever you got full access to the source. Also, most drivers and apps were distributed in source form back in the day.

Stallman really got the Free (libre) software movement going when vendors started removing the source code from their distributions, and he and others became frustrated when buggy software would crash their systems and they had lost the ability to patch and recompile their software to work with their specific setups. So, UNIX is in fact a very major reason open source exists today, because a one quite open ecosystem was becoming increasingly closed, and GNU was established to create open source software that would be protected from a similar fate.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[BasharTeg (71923)]

You're right that his "improve" on OSS argument is empty, because I think what he was trying to say by "nobody can improve on it" is "no business can improve on it." But most importantly, I think OP really dicked up what he was saying. Notice how the word OSS falls outside of the quote. Notice how they were referring to GPL software. Bill Gates is saying he has a problem with the GPL, and the OP's obvious GPL bias translated that into ALL open source software. Bill's point was that businesses can't take GPL software and improve upon it or link proprietary software to it without the viral nature of the GPL taking over. His arguments are against the GPL, not more liberal open source licenses like BSD or MIT.

The proof is in the pudding, they made use of a BSD based TCP/IP stack and TCP tools for many years before they rewrote them. Obviously they don't have a problem with BSD licensed software, only GPL licensed software. Yet OP feels the need to tag the quoted subject of "OSS" rather than "GPL licensed software" into the tiny micro-quote of Gate's words.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

You're right that his "improve" on OSS argument is empty, because I think what he was trying to say by "nobody can improve on it" is "no business can improve on it."

Businesses improve on GPL products all the time; IBM, Sun, even Apple. They do it for profit too.

Bill's point was that businesses can't take GPL software and improve upon it or link proprietary software to it without the viral nature of the GPL taking over.

Yeah, that sure is a problem for him. Also, I can't take Stephen king's novels, improve on them and resell them without the viral nature of copyright laws taking over. Gates is just being two-faced. He wants to make a profit selling copyrighted software, but he doesn't want to pay the people developing copyrighted GPL software their required fee (any code added and distributed in future).

The proof is in the pudding, they made use of a BSD based TCP/IP stack and TCP tools for many years before they rewrote them. Obviously they don't have a problem with BSD licensed software, only GPL licensed software.

Microsoft's business model and entire culture is based upon locking in users and making it hard to switch to competing products. Pretty much everything they make includes such a component. They don't like GPL software because it makes this sort of lock in impossible and forces companies using it to constantly offer the best product all the time or lose out to competitors. Actually keeping their products competitive based upon real features and merits is not as profitable.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[PitaBred (632671)]

So... you're saying that he's upset that he can't just take software like he did with the BSD TCP/IP stack and wrap it up and sell it for his own profit? Poor guy.

The "viral nature" of the GPL ONLY takes effect if you want the benefits that come with getting the free step-up that the GPL software provides. By all means, use free software to develop your closed source stuff... that just means you have to develop it from the ground up and not try to take any shortcuts by including other people's code that they generously allowed you to use. Unless you want to be as generous as they are.

It's basically a legal stick saying "don't be a douchebag". Which is apparently necessary because there are so many douchebags like BillyG out there.

Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy.

[Nursie (632944)]

Err, what?

FOSS does some of the most innovative stuff on the planet, as compared with MS.

Who had a 3d desktop extension system first? Hmmm... was it compiz?
Who had 64 bit support for x86 way ahead of the game? I think it was Linux.

Bittorrent took off under the auspices of open source. Firefox.

The list is endless.

Charge for drugs?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

Isn't this the same guy who says that when they cure cancer, he'll buy enough of the cure to distribute it to everyone in the world for free?

Re:Charge for drugs?

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

That's ok - as long as rich people with lots of money are the ones who decide what is handed out and what isn't. When the hoi polloi start making those kind of decisions, we have a problem.

More drug analogies

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

He must know a lot about the drug business. If you get them hooked on a free sample, you can charge whatever you want, and your users end up "stealing" to get their fix in the end!

And this is...

[fishthegeek (943099)]

news why? Seriously did we really need to be told that?

Re:And this is...

[ZephyrXero (750822)]

Well, with all Bill Gates philanthropy stuff he does today...sometimes we need to be reminded he's still evil ;)

What do you expect considering that....

[tgatliff (311583)]

OSS typically goes after mature late life cycle applications, such as OS's, Office suites, etc.. If Microsoft was truly on the cutting edge of innovation, I dont think they would care either way....

Meaning, people can say what they like, but in my opinion OSS is capitalism's way of preventing companies from profiting on a product the developed indefinitely... And this is a good thing, in my opinion.. :)

Open Source does innovate and is innovative.

[xzvf (924443)]

On the desktop FOSS does go after a mature established market. On the server and appliance side it is very innovative. Xen and KVM are innovators in virtualization. Linux and BSD are innovators in appliance and embedded space. JeOS is an innovative idea. FOSS has spawned some innovative business models that wouldn't have been considered a decade ago. Business have innovated on top of FOSS to create billions of dollars in revenue and tons of high paying jobs.

Poorly worded

[Fred_A (10934)]

"If you steal drugs, you should be able to charge for them".

There, much better.

Drugs...

[onion2k (203094)]

He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."

What if you invent diseases?

Well, viruses.

Well, a platform that viruses thrive on.

Re:Drugs...

[Shakrai (717556)]

Well, a platform that viruses thrive on.

Human beings? ;)

Interesting...

[AndyCR (1091663)]

Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,

It's pretty amazing that anything gets done, since what he describes as impossible is almost the only way Open Source software improves.

Re:Interesting...

[orclevegam (940336)]

He can't seem to fathom the concept of people developing software because they enjoy it rather than because they want money in return.

That's because he's never done software because he enjoyed it. In fact, I'd say he was never really a programmer. He's always been a business guy that just happened to have an interest in computers. Gates isn't a geek, he's a suit, and we would do well to remember that. He's less concerned with the programs than he is in how they can be leveraged for profit. Had he developed an interest in something besides computers, like say construction, he might not be as successful as he is now, but I'm sure he'd still have done quite well, he'd just be sitting at the top of a company specializing in construction instead.

Definition of "nobody"

[g2devi (898503)]

Actually, his definition of "nobody" is pretty simple. Anyone who doesn't contribute to Microsoft's bottom line is a nobody.
Ballmer has made that clear, by committing to the end of life for Windows XP even though, Vista in his words is "a work in progress". Moving everyone to Vista contributes to Microsoft's bottom line and nobody important (i.e. anyone outside of Microsoft that doesn't contribute to their bottom line) disagrees.

His example with the pharmaceutical companies points exactly to this mindset. Most of the new drugs created today are "lifestyle drugs" instead of drugs that actually cure your illness. In the former, you're on the hook for multiple payments for years. In the later, you just pay once. Universities or University Hospitals that actually focus on finding a cure tend to follow the collaboration model since reputation gives you tons of benefits, and it gives society tons of benefits. For profit pharmaceutical companies care more about lock-in to squeeze as much out of their clients as possible for as long as possible and use various techniques (like patenting a minor variation once the original patent expires) to extend the life of the patent. Without Generic Pharma, the "nobody"s of the world would be on the hook forever and without both them and University Hospitals, no actual improvement in the pharmaceuticals would happen because any improvement that lowers costs or reduces the need for the pharmaceuticals would hurt the bottom line, even though it would benefit society.

Similarly, no-one can improve Windows XP except for Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to kill Windows XP and move you to Vista and you have no choice but to use Windows. It sucks to be you. You or anyone other that Microsoft (e.g. Sun, Apple, IBM, etc) can improve Windows XP with any feature that you need from Vista (if there is such a thing) or Linux or Mac OSX.

Move over Chewbacca...

[PinkyDead (862370)]

Cos this makes no sense. It makes no sense.

And we all know what that means.

Flamebait

[CheckeredShirt (944734)]

This sort of "article" is just flame bait. It doesn't provide any new information nor does it push any sort of point with facts or clarity.

Re:Drug development != Software development

[Rycross (836649)]

Open source does not have a corporate cost associated with it.

Yes it does. The biggest contributors to Open Source and Free Software are large corporations like Red Hat, IBM, Novell, and Sun. They do it because they don't make their money on that software specifically, but products and services based on it. By sharing contributions, they also receive contributions in return, and are able to make a better product, and more money.

Companies do pay for it. They pay for it because they get value in return.

don't forget marketing

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

That's one area where (commercial) software development and pharma are a bit closer. Most pharama companies spend significantly more on marketing than on R&D - Merck, for example spent $7.6 billion on marketing vs $4.9 billion on R & D, according to their 2007 10-K filing. Microsoft, similarly, spent $11.5 billion on marketing and $7.1 billion on R & D.

You can think of open source software as being mostly the other way around. There's significantly more spent on development (in terms of donated time, resources, etc) than on marketing.

Drugs

[DoofusOfDeath (636671)]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,'

Sure, but he has a problem with some people choosing to not charge for them?

Re:Drugs

[AndyCR (1091663)]

I think his point was that if you choose Open Source software to modify and base your commercial software on and it is under the GPL, you must also Open Source your commercial software. He is arguing that that prevents proprietary improvements, and that that is wrong. What he can't seem to understand is that it -isn't their work to make proprietary in the first place-, and you can't base a commercial project off of Microsoft's code unless they specifically allow you to either. He's completely missing the fact that it's no different with the software he himself produces.

You're free to use GPL's tools to write proprietary software (John Carmack used the GNU toolset to write Quake on NEXT, and later donated $20,000 to the FSF as thanks for use of their tools), but you can't take a GPL'ed program, add a few lines of code, and sell it as a proprietary package. Bill Gates sees this as wrong, but somehow doesn't see that not being able to get the source code for Windows, add a few lines, and sell it as a new OS is the same darned thing.

Re:Drugs

[jimicus (737525)]

Sure, but he has a problem with some people choosing to not charge for them?

I think it's fair to assume that if there ever comes a time when it is possible for an organisation to come along and create and distribute drugs for free to anyone who wants them, the incumbent drugs companies would fight tooth and nail against it.

Oh really?

[FinchWorld (845331)]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them'

Yes, and as such those who can't afford the drugs may die. Perfect system huh?

Conversely ...

[gstoddart (321705)]

I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them

Conversely, if you basically steal the idea that other people have come up with, and implement them in a proprietary manner, you shouldn't go around claiming you invented it.

The list of things that MS basically borrowed or copied from Xerox, UNIX, Apple, and general computing research is basically ... everything Microsoft makes. Other than implementation specifics (and, I guess MS Bob) I'm hard pressed to think of a single instance of a technology which they completely invented from scratch.

Mostly I just remember things like Kerberos being hijacked, made incompatible, and claimed as their own invention. Fuck, they'd pretend to have invented TCP/IP if they'd been successful in forcing everyone else to adopt their version of it.

Not to Bill Gates: We disagree too.

Cheers

He said it

[orclevegam (940336)]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said

And remember, the first one is always free.

That explains it!

[dreamchaser (49529)]

'Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software'

I've been using Linux since pre kernel 1.0 days. This explains why there is still no IDE support and I am stuck with that damn A.OUT executable format. I really wish they'd at least add support for more than VGA graphics. I know it's asking a lot, but I'd also like DVD and USB support.

Obvious statement?

[TheRedSeven (1234758)]

"Bill Gates says that all things being equal, he'd prefer to continue making money."

There's a shocker ya.

Of course Gates is going to support M$ and its business model. To do otherwise would be harmful to the company's shareholders, including himself.

Their argument...

[i kan reed (749298)]

Their argument is based off a strictly capitalist view. If you consider the notion that there is no way to claim your work as your own once it is under the GPL and generate a profit directly from it, in this world view, it's a waste. They see GPL as a trap where once entered, there is no escape.
This view is flawed because it assumes there is no such thing as altruism, and that shared benefit from availability can't outweigh the potential benefit of carefully planned and limited sharing. This kind of idea comes from Economists who take the tragedy of the commons and the failures of universal communism to ridiculous extremes, making rules out of specific observations. Society is created from compromises and sharing, and open source is about developing a healthy society amongst developers.
That said, I do personally like to be able to release closed source versions of things, and allow others to do the same. The BSD and Eclipse licenses appeal to me more than the GPL.

Re:Their argument...

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

Their argument is based off a strictly capitalist view.

I think you have that exactly backwards. Microsoft and a few other lumbering dinosaurs really, really wish these upstart punks would quit competing with them. They don't want a free market; they want someone to tell you that you have to buy their products.

Red Hat, IBM, Sun, and other new and old companies that "get it" see this as an opportunity to become more efficient capitalists by competing in real markets, not just ones that temporarily exist due to artificial scarcity.

No, I think you got the roles reversed. Microsoft thinks that you owe them because, darn it, they've tried so hard! If Gates and Ballmer would spend as much time actually writing cool stuff that customers want to buy as they do bitching that everyone else is doing exactly that, then maybe they'd have something better to show than Vista. Competition is too hard, though, so now they're begging for the cozy straitjacket of government protection. Capitalists? I don't think so.

Nobody can improve the software?

[Rik Sweeney (471717)]

Can I improve Windows? Unlikely. Not without getting a job there and spending several years moving up the ranks to be in a position where I can fix* things.

Can I improve Linux? Yes*

Why? Because the source code is there for me to play with and fix the bugs* in the software. I can't do this with Windows. I can file a bug report and perhaps they might fix it in a service pack or just write back and say it's intentional.

*Granted, what I think is an improvement might be a step back in someone else's opinion, but at least I have the choice. Like Neo [wikipedia.org] did.

Troll

[Tom (822)]

Mod Gates -1: Troll.

Also note that he re-defined Free Software, confusing it wizh Freeware. He's either dumb or malicious, and considering his track record, I'm inclined to say that doesn't have to be an xor.

Great Analogy Bill!

[brunes69 (86786)]

He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."

Sure, so who cares if a few million die [cnn.com] as a result. You made your money!

Bill hates competition

[N1ck0 (803359)]

Ask most successful business men about if they would rather own something completely or have a market where there is healthy competition, and most will tell you that they will do anything to block competitors.

So if we look at the GPL and many other open source licenses we have a problem where the intellectual property can not be completely controlled. Now in a market where you can make money by fairly offering support and ancillary services why would they view this as bad?

If you own the intellectual property behind a product you have the ability to 'strike out'. You can screw up marketing, sales, development, etc and still be protected from someone else doing the same thing better. But if you sell services for GPL/Open products you have to conduct business the 'proper way', and deliver a better product then your competitors.

I'm not trying to bash the windows here, as if you look at Bill's investment work outside of Microsoft he tends to do the same thing; look for something that he can take 100% ownership of a marketplace. And I doubt you will find too many CEOs of large companies who would not take the chance to do the exact same thing. Even though most of these people have business/economics knowledge of how capitalism should work with healthy competition & innovation; they would much rather be unmerciful and dominate to make more money now, and find a way to be charitable, or 'play nice' later. Basically if they can own it, they will, and if something stands in their way they will try to crush it, denounce it, or produce FUD against it.

Oh wow, a THIRD definition of free software...

[argent (18001)]

Or is it the fourth?

First, free software was basically open source, and it was published in source code in magazines and on user group tapes and places like that.

Then there was freeware, which was binary only. I don't know if this counts as some kind of free software or a separate term.

Then RMS said that "free software" was software that couldn't be made non-free. A lot of people thought that was a bit over the top and 10 or 15 years later the term "open source" was settled on.

So we have GPLed "free software" and MIT/BSD/CC/... "open source" software.

Now we have this:

"There's free software and then there's open source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries.

What he's calling "free software" means "free samples", not even freeware. And I'm sure that RMS will disagree with his identification of the GPL with "open source".

Sheesh.

Good Grief

[MightyMartian (840721)]

He sits there with that eight hundred pound disaster known as Vista and then thinks he has still has some position in the community to poo-poo another development model? Well, at least he's not calling the FOSS community communists any more, and for all that "squandering" it's pretty amazing just where you'll find open source, including on Windows boxes.

WTF? Did he just say that?

[zappepcs (820751)]

Did Gates just compare Windows to drugs? huh?

So all the jokes about MS giving software to schools cheaply like a drug dealer are right?

After that, I can't think straight....

the limited viewpoint of a businessman

[v1 (525388)]

Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software

That is an incomplete statement. How about we add a little bit to it: Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software to make money off the original work they got for free

There, that's more like it. When you realize that's the "complete sentence" that's running through his head, it makes sense. Fortunately, not everyone thinks that way. Just because you can't improve GPL'd software to make a profit, does not mean you cannot improve it.

Re:the limited viewpoint of a businessman

[Enderandrew (866215)]

That's incorrect.

You can take my GPL program, improve it, fork it, and make money off it. What do you think Red Hat is doing? Do you think they wrote every line of code in the Linux distro they sell support contracts for?

You can make money off my GPL code, but you can't take my code and include it in a closed-source project.

No Improvements?

[Hellad (691810)]

Well considering that he considers Vista an improvement to XP, I am certainly happy that GPL prevents people from "improving" the software...

Drug Analogy

[Perl-Pusher (555592)]

'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."

Well if I invent the cure for AIDs then I can't give it away? And I can't license my drug patent so that it can't be used unless you plan on giving it away. I realize that selfless acts do seem radical to him. The tax write benefits and goodwill generated by any company agreeing to the terms would be priceless. They would go down in history as the company that saved Africa. Bill Gates is being either a short sighted idiot, or a greedy lying sob. I can't decide which.

Family Guy reference

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just seeing the title reminded me of the family guy episode with the drive by arguments

*while driving*
Bill G: 'Hey Steve, that looks like that young upstart Stallman who's been touting the benefits of open source software'
Steve B: 'oh yes, lets get him!'
Bill Gates: 'Oh Richard!.... WE DISAGREE!'
*speeds off*

Disagreement is bad?

[redelm (54142)]

Of course Gates & MS disagree with the GPL. They have since the 1978 computer-club letter because it undermines their entire business model. MS wants to sell standard programs. They've made a large business of it.

But all businesses face competition, and the most devastating tends to be from competitors who follow different business models. Clones are much easier to see off.

The most interesting thing here is Gates acknowledges the competition and is starting to fight [more]. Entirely following Ghandi's script: "First they ignore you, then they laught at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Error in summary

[CSMatt (1175471)]

Proprietary software, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,

There. Fixed it for you.

Multi-License Software is Possible

[CodeBuster (516420)]

The GPL does not prevent you from negotiating a separate and different agreement with the copyright holders and operating under that agreement instead of the GPL. The MySQL project (which seems to have fallen out of favor [slashdot.org] recently here on Slashdot) is an example of such a licensing scheme. Now, in practice it may be difficult to track down and negotiate with each of the individual copyright holders who have contributed to a GPL project, but it is not impossible to do so if one really does not want to release improvements under an open source license such as the GPL.

there, fixed that for ya. =P

[deander2 (26173)]

"Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that anybody can improve the software,"

there, fixed that for ya. =P

Philanthropy

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

It's strange, isn't it? That a man who spends his time currently as a philanthropist cannot understand people donating their time to free software.

Apparently it's only charity if you can spend it.

It's like that anti-drug commercial . . .

[walterbyrd (182728)]

Billy Gate:
What's this? What this? Documentury?
Man right here, this is my business, you know? Sueing, scamming, whatever . .
It's slow, you know? Business is off, sales are down.
Seems like half my customers . . they don't even need me anymore.
They;re getting software free, off the web.
How am I supposed to compete with that?
Got IT? Well next time something works, don't blame Microsoft!
We didn't do it!
I wish we did . . .

Browser Wars

[AnalogDiehard (199128)]

During the browser wars of the late 90s, M$ beat out Netscape by offering Internet Explorer free of charge.

Now there is GPL and open license, and M$ complains of competing with free software.

Hurts to wear the shoe on the other foot, doesn't it?