Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft GNU is Not Unix

Bill Gates On the GPL — "We Disagree" 778

Posted by timothy
from the doesn't-that-mean-disagreeing-with-copyright dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill Gates On the GPL — "We Disagree"

Comments Filter:
  • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:37AM (#23183838) Journal
    Nothing wrong with greedy. Just, when you're competing with 'free' you better bring a lot to the table.
    • by symbolset (646467) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:43AM (#23183990) Journal

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:51AM (#23184178)

        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.
        • by pclminion (145572) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:30PM (#23186090)

          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.

          • by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @01:09PM (#23186808) Journal
            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?
      • by metlin (258108) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:06AM (#23184472) Journal
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Instine (963303)
          I think that with pharms, there is a huge utilatarian/ethical issue. People are very demanding about mediacal ethics in trials. Yet once the trials are over the madness of restrictive competition (good for somethings, but not for all) is thrown in, and ethics are out th window.
          How about, you make 10 times your dev investment back, you then have to relinquish your patent?
          Still highly lucrative and incentivising, but does away with the awful restrictions placed, usually, most significantly, on the populat
        • by stabiesoft (733417) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:01PM (#23185570) Homepage
          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.
        • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:01PM (#23185572) Journal
          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by darjen (879890)

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

        But, that doesn't mean you have a moral right to claim it is intellectual property and forcibly prevent others from using their physical property rights to sell them.
    • 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...
      • by pressman (182919) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:16AM (#23184666) Homepage
        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.
      • by CowboyNealOption (1262194) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:23PM (#23185962) Journal
        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".

  • Charge for drugs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:38AM (#23183856)
    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?
  • And this is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fishthegeek (943099) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:38AM (#23183866) Journal
    news why? Seriously did we really need to be told that?
  • by tgatliff (311583) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:39AM (#23183882)
    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.. :)
    • by xzvf (924443) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:33AM (#23185020)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tgatliff (311583)
        I think you kind of missed the overall theme of what I was trying to say...

        I agree that there are a number of Linux and BSD innovations out there, and simply being OSS does not mean that you are "old" so to speak... My main point is that OSS is critical to the functioning capitalism marketplace because it forces balance. You can think of the technology industry as the same thing as building a wall of bricks. Each product (brick) that is built sits on top of another layer of bricks.

        If the XEN, KVM, and eve
  • Poorly worded (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fred_A (10934) <`fred' `at' `fredshome.org'> on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:41AM (#23183920) Homepage
    "If you steal drugs, you should be able to charge for them".

    There, much better.
  • Drugs... (Score:5, Funny)

    by onion2k (203094) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:41AM (#23183928) Homepage

    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.
  • Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyCR (1091663) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:42AM (#23183946) Homepage

    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.
    • by g2devi (898503) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:00PM (#23185548)
      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.

  • by PinkyDead (862370) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:43AM (#23183964) Journal
    Cos this makes no sense. It makes no sense.

    And we all know what that means.
  • Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CheckeredShirt (944734) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:43AM (#23183966)
    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.
  • Drugs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:43AM (#23183976)

    '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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AndyCR (1091663) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:55AM (#23184284) Homepage
      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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jimicus (737525) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:02AM (#23184420)

      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by somersault (912633)

        the incumbent drugs companies would fight tooth and nail against it
        They don't need to, the government already disapproves of the general public experimenting with drugs :P
  • Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FinchWorld (845331) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:43AM (#23183980) Homepage
    '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?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745)
      Too different things. your trying to create a strawman.

      There are organizations they buy the drugs and then distribute them free.

      I mean, really you can't expect someone who manufactures a product to be able to do it for free.

  • Conversely ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:43AM (#23183984) Homepage

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orclevegam (940336) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:43AM (#23183992) Journal

    '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! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dreamchaser (49529) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:45AM (#23184026) Homepage Journal
    '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? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheRedSeven (1234758) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:45AM (#23184028) Homepage
    "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... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by i kan reed (749298) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:46AM (#23184060) Homepage Journal
    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... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:30AM (#23184958) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:48AM (#23184110) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tom (822) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:48AM (#23184112) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@NospAm.keirstead.org> on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:49AM (#23184122) Homepage

    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!

  • by N1ck0 (803359) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:49AM (#23184148)
    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.
  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770)

      And I'm sure that RMS will disagree with his identification of the GPL with "open source".
      I'm sure he'll think it's not accurate enough, but GPL software is obviously OSI-compliant open source software. If you want to group them into one big bag then "open source" is entirely appropriate for all GPL/LGPL/BSD/CDDL/Apache/etc licensed code. Though it's not reversible, GNU/free software is open source, but open source is not necessarily free.
  • Good Grief (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:50AM (#23184160) Journal
    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.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:50AM (#23184170) Journal
    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....
  • by v1 (525388) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:53AM (#23184214) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Hellad (691810) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:54AM (#23184236)
    Well considering that he considers Vista an improvement to XP, I am certainly happy that GPL prevents people from "improving" the software...
  • Drug Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Perl-Pusher (555592) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:54AM (#23184240)
    '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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:55AM (#23184266)
    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*
  • by redelm (54142) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:57AM (#23184326) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CSMatt (1175471) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:16AM (#23184670)

    Proprietary software, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,
    There. Fixed it for you.
  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:31AM (#23184966)
    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.
  • by deander2 (26173) * <public&kered,org> on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:44AM (#23185272) Homepage
    "Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that anybody can improve the software,"

    there, fixed that for ya. =P
  • Philanthropy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:05PM (#23185632)

    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.

  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @01:45PM (#23187380)
    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 . . .

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten

Working...