ndogg writes "It's no secret that Stallman doesn't like Mono. Miguel, however, has been pretty quiet about those criticisms, until now. It seems he'll no longer be quiet. He's responded strongly to an article by Stallman that criticizes Codeplex about its aims due to its origin at Microsoft. Miguel says Stallman is fearmongering, and is missing an opportunity by his criticism."
Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.
Stallman is of course right to point out that he is a Microsoft apologist - he is a notorious one. It is beyond argument that Microsoft spends significant dollars in direct and "personal" attempts to crush free software development projects such as Linux through the most indefensible barratry. It's also widely known that this is only one of a multi-prong strategy that includes coopting competing projects, through many means, including hiring key team members, and PR efforts, including hiring astroturfing firms - some of which patronize this very site, and you will meet some of their employees (or contractors) today.:)
Miguel must chuckle at himself when he writes things like "Fear mongering is a vibrant industry." It is too rich in irony for him not to know it. Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software. It is easy to understand the lense through which we see codeplex even if they were to say nothing controversial. But apparently one of their goals is already clear - to throw another line of men at the front of the rhetorical "war" between free as in beer and free as in speech.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software. It's quite easy to understand - most people, when they give away their work, have a common moral compass, and they share certain values about how they would like to see that work go out into the world. i.e. They would rather some 3rd party not get paid for what they did for free. And they would rather others have the freedom to tinker, just as they did. Most ("important, widely used, active") open source software is free software for this reason. Of course, the "debate" will never end, either. But let's just keep it in perspective.
Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content, but at least he gets points for plugging "The Power of Nightmares." Just a few years too late, alas. From that and his Bush-based name calling, he may lose the conservative portion of the audience he is supposed to be reaching, but as I said, MS should get a refund.
Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally. A more fair analysis of his blog would be that Microsoft needs to be steered in the right direction and there are some good people on the inside trying to do this. He points out CodePlex as something he feels as a sign of progress. I'm not defending de Icaza's whole message but I think you're putting words into his mouth... no one in their right mind would say Steve Ballmer is an ally of open source. He may employ people who are proponents of free and open software but he himself is definitely against it. Also keep in mind that people -- and companies -- do change. This isn't the case with Microsoft... yet.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software.
If I may state the obvious, RMS is a hardliner with zero tolerance or forgiveness. Fine. This appeals quite well to many people (myself included). Now, de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder than a bridge burner and is looking for in roads into Microsoft. Perhaps you can see this as a catalyst to speed up the process to our desired end state or you can view this as aiding the enemy. Either way I think a lot of de Icaza's efforts are great experiments in seeing just how tolerant and truly open Microsoft's standards are. Right now, why don't we all just sit and watch before we become dependent on Moonlight? I appreciate both these people in different ways and it's a shame we got this drama or war of words internal to the open source movement.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday October 06, @09:06AM (#29656495)
Now, de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder than a bridge burner and is looking for in roads into Microsoft
Bridges work both ways. Microsoft cannot be trusted, their track record speaks for itself. Even today they'll FUD away or deliberately mislead people with their so-called "open" efforts. They only care about their bottom line and how to destroy competition. One day, they'll pull the rug from under Mono.
When Microsoft owned the market they could do that where ever and when ever they wished. Now that they are losing ground everyday on almost all fronts trying to do something like that would only give another reason for people who were thinking about using.NET to avoid it. In short, it would be suicide. Microsoft knows this and has already started to change their tune by supporting Mono and by making a very small but growing chunk of code open source. As you correctly stated, this was done solely because they know it will help them. The only way it could be more valuable for Microsoft to go back to their old ways would be if they owned the market again. So could they pull the rug out from under Mono? Yes. Would it ever look like a good idea even to the brain damaged 'we hate open source' higher ups? Unless there was a major disaster in the mac, linux AND unix that gave Microsoft unquestionable control over the OS market again. No.
> When Microsoft owned the market they could do that where ever and when ever they wished. Now that they are losing ground everyday on > almost all fronts trying to do something like that would only give another reason for people who were thinking about using.NET to avoid it. > In short, it would be suicide.
It didn't stop them in the Tom Tom lawsuit, it wouldn't stop them here. As I've said before, Tom Tom changed *everything*. Microsoft lost the moral high ground (and yes they did at least have that position over patents) of not being a patent aggressor but only using patents for defense, stopped the rhetoric and became a direct patent threat to Free Software/Open Source.
Since Tom Tom, nothing they say about patents in Mono/.NET can be trusted any more. Only a legally binding non-assert offer can change this now.
Your argument that the Mono case is different than the Tom Tom case doesn't stand up I'm afraid. Microsoft only wants developers to develop for Windows..NET is an attempt to provide an environment so compelling that people continue to use Windows to get access to it. Mono weakens that case for using Windows, so attacking Mono makes perfect sense. Remember, Microsoft loves Open Source code that runs on Windows. Mono isn't designed to run on Windows - Windows already has a perfectly good.NET environment, therefore Mono serves no purpose in Microsoft's eyes. Promoting threats around Mono forces people who want to use.NET to do it on the "One True Platform" (Windows). Attacking Mono forces.NET developers to move to Windows, it doesn't mean an exodus from.NET. Just like in Microsoft's mindset the Linux kernel has no business implementing a Microsoft proprietary technology (FAT32) when people should be buying the Windows implementation instead. The parallels are obvious.
He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.
I'm looking this article over top to bottom, and I don't really see him suggesting anything. There's a lot of namecalling, a parable where I'm right thank you very much (shoeless people in Africa? We have Java, as well as Python and various other languages on Linux for the niche Mono wants to fill.)
Seems to me like RMS gave a principled (and really fairly balanced) assessment of Mono, and Icaza responded by calling RMS a luddite, with absolutely no argument to back it up. Why did this even make Slashdot when Icaza says absolutely nothing to refute Stallman's argument?
"Apologist" often has a negative connotation, especially when paired with a subject that is widely considered not worthy of any such defense.
And in the target audience of these letters, Microsoft is widely and for very good reason considered unworthy of defending on the subject of Software Freedom (if not everything else).
RMS knows this, and he intended it as a pejorative. MdI knows this too, which is why he considers himself attacked, and denies the claim.
But therein lies the end of the argument for me. He simply can't claim Microsoft hasn't been a consistent and ongoing enemy of Free Software, but also claims they're safe to work with. Microsoft threatens Linux with hundreds of imaginary patent violations, but we're going to welcome a bunch of actual MS-patented tech into Linux on purpose and under MS' watchful eye? If you're going to tell me that isn't insanely stupid, you better at least be willing to be an apologist for Microsoft.
So the next time we meet, I will not fail. I will go up to the long bearded man and say, "Hello. My name is Miguel de Icaza. You killed my Mono. Prepare to die."
No, "apologist" in this context is clearly a reference to the fact that Miguel has fairly consistently defended the Microsoft position, that's what that word means. It's only a pejorative if you think Microsoft is bad. If you approve of Microsoft then you really should approve of Microsoft apologists, that's coming from a proud FSF apologist of course!
Despite all the mud that gets thrown at him, RMS is actually very honest about what he does and doesn't believe and why he believes it; anyone who's used to serious political debate (not what you read in the papers or see on TV) will find it quite easy to digest the polemical style of RMS and won't wind themselves up by reading personal attacks where there are none.
Also, I find it hilarious that Miguel links to an apology from RMS about an inaccurate claim he made regarding Mac OS X as proof that he "makes up facts". That's a clear show of intellectual dishonesty, and, dare I say, an astonishingly bold use of a classic trolling technique!
Given the context, it was supposed to be taken as one.
The context was Stallman noting it as (when viewed along with the fact that the background of other board members) a basis for wariness about CodePlex, but dismissing it as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad, before going on to focus on specific actions and statements of Microsoft and CodePlex are to point to areas where those statements, rather than the identities of its board members, were reasons for concern.
The paragraph referring to Icaza as an "apologist" is, in full:
Many in our community are suspicious of the CodePlex Foundation. With its board of directors dominated by Microsoft employees and ex-employees, plus apologist Miguel de Icaza, there is plenty of reason to be wary of the organization. But that doesn't prove its actions will be bad.
This is not a pejorative use. It is pointing to a relevant source of bias as a basis for concern that future actions might be tainted by that bias, and then also stating that that bias is not alone a basis for concluding that future actions by the biased actor will be bad.
It's also the only reference to de Icaza in the article; both Icaza's claim that the article is content free and his claim that it features are personal attack on him ring rather hollow. One might disagree with the importance of the Free Software philosophy that Stallman embraces, and (even if one does not) one might validly disagree with his painting of the particular actions cited in the article as reasons for concerns about Mirosoft/CodePlex's intentions with regard to Free Software, but it is ludicrous to paint the article as content free, and even more ludicrous to paint to the reference to the relationship of board members including Icaza to Microsoft as a "personal attack" on Icaza.
Such words might be effective against someone who doesn't read both articles, but it seems fairly clear RMS has important content, namely that codeplex's positioning seems designed to add confusion on software freedom issues, which is both dangerous and consistent with Microsoft's notorious predatory policies towards free software and its developers.
Only those without principles or with friends in perfect agreement all the time have the benefit of never "attacking their friends." Perhaps you are more concerned with relationships than principles.
If in your own post you pointed out all of the places where codeplex and Microsoft clearly do understand the open source and free software distinction, and make a clear effort to avoid confusion... If you had some possible explanation for Microsoft's massively ugly behavior towards linux, or open document standards bodies, etc...
But you have none. You seem to find the incidental, but correct observation of your widely-known status as a Microsoft apologist to be the greater issue, and you devote most of your words to denying that, along with some vague name calling, a few appeals to emotion by metaphor, and (probably ill-advised) political sniping.
It is your own writing that is quite clearly without content, and it's my professional opinion that you know it. Thus, the term "cynical hypocrisy."
I find your suggestion that Microsoft could be an ally (however much you deny you've made it, or if you even choose to) to be laughable.
I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.
Could you give a reference, please?
I read the OP, and I'm familiar with many (older) articles and essays written by RMS. I've never seen RMS make a *personal* attack. I have seen people react to his strong but very nuanced perspective on morals as if they were personal attacks. I've started to understand that other, reasonable, people can interpret his statements very personally, so if you feel attacked, I don't hold it against you.
I have not read anything written by you, so you are establishing a first impression (for me). You say that RMS has "makes up facts" but you link to what is primarily a retraction. Could you be more clear about which facts RMS has made up? I'd like to think that you can forgive a mistake, if it is admitted.
Lastly, you say that RMS attacks his own community, supporting this claim with a footnote about the distinction between "open source" and "free software" being a non-issue. It seems to me that RMS has been very clear that there is an issue, from his perspective. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html [gnu.org]
Now you may have a different perspective, as is your right. But since RMS has his perspective, and his preference is perfectly clear, I'd really hesitate to say that he attacks his own community on this issue. In my mind, his community is made up of the supporters of free software, and doesn't contain those who prefer open source.
In summary, RMS doesn't make personal attacks on anyone, much less his own community and he doesn't make up facts. If you think differently, I have an open mind, but I need more than your word.
It is not content free. It points out that CodePlex does not particularly care about freedom, is designed to whitewash a bad company's trojan horse technology, and is harmful to the open-source community.
Are there personal attacks? Only if you consider an attack on your life's work personal. Some time back (around when we first met at an O'Reilly Convention), you used to be involved in the production of software (like Gnumeric) that was unambiguously good for the community. Ever since you got into Microsoft's Java clone and its reimplementation, your actions have been not-so-clearly-good for the community - you encourage us to adopt patent-risky technologies that break greatly with Unix tradition, you strongarm the GNOME folk into adopting lousy technical decisions (we have a binary registry now? Oy) and continue to push them to making mono a required component of GNOME, and you keep telling us to cozy up with a company that has done its very best to undermine Linux, undermine Free Software, and drop legal and technical obstacles in our way. You want us to be technically just like them, and you want us to like them.
I don't see any criticism of you in your personal life - these are not personal criticisms, they are criticisms of the way you act in the community. You may have once done good for us, but you're certainly harmful now. For many of us, the best and most clear choice is to continue to try to avoid catching Mono, advocating its removal from our preferred distros and from GNOME, ideally removing you from any influence over GNOME as well. If you would simply go away, you would spare us the trouble.
Yes, For the most part the goals are not that different. Most of the Anti-Microsoft hatrid come from
Most of the hatred for MS comes from the fact that they have killed dozens of companies and technologies, and replaced them with inferior ones. The reason for the hate is the multitude of times when they "partner" with some other company, only to stab them in the back. The hatred comes from their repeated breaking of the law and abuse of the monopoly. The hatred comes from the fact that MS actively wants to kill Linux. The hatred for MS is not an irrational feeling, it's based on the actions of MS that has taken place over the course of the years.
Yet, we are supposed to "trust" Microsoft? Is this the fucking bizarro-world or something where black is white, and Microsoft is trustworthy company with good products?
Because a lot of it is good, really good, just because you are an open source zealot and don't want to see it doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't have good products.
I don't consider myself a "zealot": What I consider myself to be is a person capable of rational thinking. Microsoft has a long trail of blood behind them. How about "playsforsure"? A bit later MS stabbed it's partners in the back with a fucking Zune. Sendo would have lots of stories to tell about shenanigans Microsoft pulls, as does Apple. How about DR-DOS? Netscape? i4i? IBM?
Are we supposed to now think that "oh, THIS TIME it's going to be different! Honest!". Give me a fucking break! Has Microsoft changed in any way? I sure as hell don't see any changes!
Yes Microsoft would love to see Linux die
So why exactly should we trust them?
but they know that won't happen
No, but MS can push Linux in to a niche, while they keep on dominating.
Microsoft is very aggressive marketing however they can also be good partners.
Unless their partner happens to have some interesting technology or they start threatening Windows. Then Microsoft will crush them, it has happened every single time. Sendo had interesting technology, so MS crushed them. i4i had interesting technology, and MS stile it. Netscape started threatening Windows, and had to be killed. DR-DOS offered better product, so it had to be killed. OS/2 threatened Windows so it had to be killed. List goes on.
Some parts of it: Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is complian.... To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification.
Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies.
It is difficult to be as trusting of Microsoft and their intentions as Miguel obviously is. This is the company that worked to discredit the entire free software movement, and still refuses to acknowledge that there is even such a movement. This is the company that wrote the playbook for break compatibility for everyone else. Microsoft has a habit of poaching developers until their competitors fall apart.
Why would we ever want to write code for their platform on their terms? I will not have much trust for Microsoft until MS Office is GPLed (v3) and I can get it working on GNU.
Is there some 'sane' reason to include languages like C# for purpose of installing GNOME and other vital parts of the system ? I could not agree more with RMS here.
He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.
"I merely happen to have a different perspective on Microsoft than he has. I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.
At the end of the day, we both want to see free software succeed. But Richard, instead of opening new fronts to promote his causes, attacks his own allies for not being replicas of himself."
He suggested that either himself, or Microsoft, or both, was his "ally."
No. He said that Richard Stallman attacks his allies. The very next sentence of TFA reads: To him, ridiculous statements like Linus "does not believe in Freedom" are somewhat normal. He is clearly referring to Linus Torvalds as Richard Stallman's ally.
Please don't deliberately misinterpret people that you don't agree with.
You're simply rejecting the obvious and straightforward interpretation, for the more convoluted interpretation which agrees with your preconceptions. They aren't practicing marketing; you're practicing self-deception.
How many times have we seen Microsoft's shills come on out, try to make friends, tell everyone how Microsoft has changed, only to discover we've been lead down the garden path.
When Microsoft drops its patent growling over Linux, then maybe I'll be inclined to listen to Icaza. Until then, he's just another Microsoft whore.
"I'm sick and tired of the attacks on everyone who might go against the juvenile group-think on this website and actually feel some of the things microsoft produce have something to offer the world and would like to extend it."
Sorry, but after years of trying to undermine and bring an end to the free software and open source software movements, Microsoft needs to make the first move. Thus far, all they have done is contributed some drivers to Linux that make it easier to run Windows in a VM, and made it slightly easier for open source developers to develop software for Windows. Note their emphasis on running Windows. Note that Windows is more proprietary, more shackled than ever before.
Call me when Windows and/or MS Office have been GPLv3'ed.
I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is highly unlikely that Microsoft will seize any opportunity it gets to do annoying things specially to break open projects. Again.
Richard - "The first thing we see is that the organization ducks the issue of users' freedom; it uses the term "open source" and does not speak of "free software"."
Miguel - "The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. "
He and others written a useful, complex and (hopefully) well implemented set of software components through much in the way of blood, seat and tears.
So of course he's not going to agree that what he did was either a waste of time or evil. I'm not exactly sure which side of this debate I fall on. Doesn't affect me too much as a C programmer...
I didn't think it affected me either until I put a new copy of debian on a machine and did an "apt-get install gnome" and found a copy of mono being installed on my machine. What I want to know is WTF was debian even thinking when they did that? It's obvious they weren't thinking very well since they back-pedaled [h-online.com] and claimed that mono wasn't in the default install, by which they mean that it's only in the gnome metapackage and not the gnome-core or gnome-desktop. It's also equally obvious that anyone who wants to install gnome will first try apt-get install gnome rather than the non-intuitive gnome-core.
The point is that Mono is creeping into distributions through packages like Tomboy. I think that things like Mono shouldn't be in default packages or a dialog should be asked for things which are clearly offensive to at least some significant portion of the linux community. You don't see them doing that for NVIDIA drivers, I know the licenses are different and Mono at least claims to be open-source [wikipedia.org] but I guess there's a lot more people who want to avoid MS than people who want to avoid NVIDIA.
As a fellow Debian user, I too am incensed that Debian developers, without consulting the user base have taken a monumental leap away from the projects original stated goals and ideals.
What leap? Mono isn't DFSG compliant?
What else do you want from Debian - follow your personal agenda where it doesn't matter whether something is FLOSS or not, but so long as it has any relation to Microsoft, it's automatically evil?
A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man. You know where RMS stands on issues before he even comments on them because he's had a consistent message for a few decades now.
De Icaza's position seems to be that short-term convenience wins. Period. I just can't credit him with the same credibility or integrity as RMS. I mean, I guess he's at least consistent with his position, but I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter, and that doesn't win me any points.
If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd have to go with RMS. Some of his conclusions are a bit... out there... but he solidly argues them from solid principles and it's kind of hard to disagree with him. Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later. The Right to Read, anyone? When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy behind him, I'll start paying more attention to his words.
Stallman has not been able to present a logical argument showing that the legal situation around Mono is any worse than it is around Linux, March, GNU C, or numerous other FOSS projects.
There most definitely is a logical argument. In a word: patents.
Unlike GNU C, Linux, etc, which either implement published standards or have been OSS from the very beginning, Mono implements and relies on stuff patented by Microsoft. Patents that Microsoft has shown signs it wants to sell to patent trolls (with an understanding that they'd use those patents to sue). In other words, there's good reason to think MS wants to use Mono as a Trojan Horse to enable lawsuits against OSS organizations such as the FSF, Debian, and Ubuntu.
MS already tried one legal tack to go after OSS, namely the SCO lawsuit. There's no reason to think they wouldn't try another.
Yes, Stallman is a principled man. The problem with Stallman and Mono, however, is that his objections are based on fear and innuendo, not on principles or reason.
Wrong. Microsoft has offered a patent covenant that covers compatible re-implementations of.Net. If you want to make your own cut down or otherwise incompatible version of.Net - for whatever reason - then MS can still sue you. It also only covers the core.Net libraries and not all the libraries that actual real world.Net applications use.
Given those facts, it's easy to see how Mono /.Net remain incompatible with the principles of Free Software.
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of.NET that Mono relies on open and free.
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of.NET that Mono relies on open and free.
There were no software patents back then. Only copyright and very proprietary (read: expensive) software licenses. RMS started creating work alike and very often superior software. The software was written independent of any of the Unix source code to avoid any chance of it being tainted by that same source code. There was no chance of AT&T shutting down GNU software; because, they didn't have any legal leg to stand on.
Stallman's a fanatic, but on the other hand, Microsoft is Microsoft. Which is to say, it's probably difficult to be too paranoid about their intentions with respect to competition. Stallman's article isn't even particularly paranoid; it boils down to "we've seen similar groups do bad things before, so we should watch this group. Also, we disagree with some of their goals".
BTW, Miguel, George Bush did not invent "Good vs Evil". And while I've never seen anything that approaches pure Good, there's no shortage of "sufficiently evil".
Stallman and de Icaza have completely different goals, as do the larger Free Software and Open Source movements they are part of. There is unfortunately a tendency on the Open Source side to obscure this difference by claiming that Free Software is a subset of Open Source, often through the use of equivocation with the ambiguous English word "free", but Free Software is not a subset of Open Source.
The Free Software movement's position is essentially ideological, based on the philosophy that closed source is ethically and morally wrong. The Open Source position is essentially pragmatic, based on the theory that closed source (the cathedral) is less efficient than open source (the bazaar). Free Software is an ethical stance; Open Source is a high-level development methodology. The two sides end up shouting over each other's heads more often than not, as they are today, because they are using much of the same terminology to describe completely different things.
As such, de Icaza is wrong when he says that Stallman is missing an opportunity here. From the perspective of Free Software, especially given Microsoft's well-documented past behavior, cooperation with Microsoft is not an opportunity, it's a trap with a flashing neon TRAP sign above it. Conversely, it might well be an opportunity for Open Source, at least insofar as the literal issue of "open source" is concerned, though probably only in the short term.
Closed source software vendors ultimately make their money from artificial scarcity. Yes, it is possible to make money with open source, but the kind of money that Microsoft and most of its peers rake in comes only from closed source. To the extent that they are publicly-owned businesses, and therefore exist to make as much money as possible, they will only expend their assets -- including opening some of their source -- if they believe that it will lead to greater profits. Stallman is entirely correct to be wary of Microsoft here. Microsoft views the Free Software and Open Source movements as competitors, just as they view other conventional closed source companies as competitors. To expect them to behave in a genuinely cooperative fashion with groups that are, in an increasing number of areas, eating into their profits is to live in a utopian fantasy world.
"Since we only have a limited time on earth, I have decided to spend my time on earth as much as I can trying to be like the second salesman. Looking at opportunities where others see hopelessness"
Which begs the question as to why expend so much energy in duplicating dotNET onto the Linux platform. Isn't whole the MONO effort diverting developers from developing native Linux applications?
"The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. They have been working from within the company to change it. Working at CodePlex is a great way of helping steer Microsoft in the right direction"
What was wrong with SourceForge. If I was cynical and recalling Microsoft's past behaviour, including tthe NovoSOFT trojan.. er covenant, I would suspect this as yet another attempt to co-opt and control a technology they don't own. Why not contribute to SourceForge instead of creating and stacking their own organization. Same with the numerous Microsoft 'open source' licenses. It's very telling that GPL 3 is not one of the supported [codeplex.com] licenses on CodePlex.
And as an 'open source' supporter I fail to understand how you would recommend something called the LinuxHater's Blog [tirania.org]
'If you're a freetard, but you need to run Windows at work or something, I've got an idea for a utility that will keep you true to the cause'
'How many hours do I have to waste wading through the monument of shit known as the debian package repository?'
As for CodePlex: it turns out that there are two entities: CodePlex.ORG (owned by the Foundation) and CodePlex.Com (Owned by Microsoft, and has no affiliation with the foundation).
It is beyond unfortunate that the Foundation adopted the name from the hosting site. The logic apparently was "It is already a known brand". In my opinion, moving ahead with this name was a terrible decision as it is incredibly confusing, a point that I have raised with the board of directors.
The CodePlex foundation has no control over the contents of CodePlex.com.
I often wonder where your real motivations lie Miguel. Between your efforts on Gnome and Mono you seem to be a one man wrecking ball designed to destroy Linux on the desktop. In particular you were a prime mover in creating the fissure between KDE and GNOME, which has so fragmented the Linux desktop world its unlikely to ever compete against Windows and the Mac on the desktop. I've certainly given up on it ever mattering as a desktop OS, Now you are trying to infect Linux and Gnome with Microsoft patented technology which seems to be an even more overt and blatant attempt to wreck Linux to Microsoft's benefit.
In my attempt to fathom your motivations the only answers I come up with:
A. You actually think pushing.NET and C# in to Linux is a good idea, and you actually think Microsoft is a nice company. If so you are either naive or just not very bright because Microsoft has always been and still is one of the most ruthless of tech companies and its prime directive is and always has been to destroy all its competitors. Linux is a competitor, not their friend..NET and C# are quite interesting technologies but no one with any sense would think they are appropriate to introduce as a core technology in Linux.
or
B. Sometime ago you actually started working for Microsoft under the table and you have been working to destroy Linux from within, at their behest, by pretending to be a member of the open source community while you've pushed one agenda and then another designed to complete wreck Linux as a desktop OS.
Now its kind of tin foil hat to go with B) but when you think about it, Microsoft was faced with an existential threat from Linux and they couldn't use the same tactics to destroy it they used on more traditional incorporated competitors. Bill Gates is, if nothing else, smart with a heavy dose of ruthless, and to be honest Miguel, your whole agenda for years seems to be a perfect fit for the role of a mole Microsoft planted in the Linux community to destroy it from within. Planting a high profile mole is, when you think about it, the ideal strategy for a company like Microsoft to use to sabotage a community based threat like Linux.
Stallman is kind of abrasive and his religious purity can be annoying to no end, but I can be sure he is what he appears to be, his heart and mind are relatively pure and he does have a great track record for spotting snakes in the grass. By contrast I don't think I would ever trust your motives. It is impossible to tell where your heart really is and seem to bear a striking resemblance to one of those snakes in the grass Stallman is so good at spotting.
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or.NET.
Neither have I, but I know what they are.
He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR,.NET, and Mono is.
So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.
And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.
I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.
Don't be stupid. Again, it's OK to disagree with the man. Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything", because it's possible (in fact, certain) that he knows more about it than you do.
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or.NET. He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR,.NET, and Mono is...
That's preposterous -- it's like saying someone is in no position to judge whether or not the Nazis were evil... unless he speaks German.
Stallman's position is that anything built on Mono is built on a foundation of trust in Microsoft, which means a foundation made of sand.
You don't need to write any Mono code to judge whether or not his contention is true. All you need to know is that, time after time after time, Microsoft have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.
Stallman and the FSF have a history of just making shit up when they decide they don't like something. Look at some of the stuff they've written about trusted computing for examples of this. Miguel is right - the guy plays fast and loose with the facts repeatedly. I see lots of people praising his consistency in this discussion. Well guess what - it's easy to have a consistent position over a long period of time when you flatly refuse to accept factual reality.
The leadership of MS is on record as calling FOSS Un-American, a cancer, and other pejoratives. Their leadership has also been caught red-handed more than once attempting to sabotage FOSS. The recent nastiness with the anti-Linux patent package intended for troll use comes to mind. The actions of MS' leadership are far more relevant than the fact a few coders in cubicles don't bear FOSS any particular ill will. Now I don't hate MS but distrusting MS isn't in the least unreasonable.
There's only so many crimes against humanity anyone can commit before they can no longer be redeemed.
Holy shit Batman, do you hear what you are saying?
They ARE JUST A SOFTWARE COMPANY!
They can't actually ruin your life. They really can't FORCE you to do anything.
We're not talking about genocide here, lets keep things in some sort of sane perspective.
You can end MS "tyranny" very easy. Stop using their products. Period. Really, thats it. You don't actually have to have them to survive.
You can, in fact, never use a computer and still survive and function.
You have to be really fucking spoiled to make the comparison you just made, I'd hate to see you having to deal with an actual problem in your life.
You, from your statements, are completely out of touch with reality, just like Stallman himself. You've elevated crap like 'licensing agreements' to the same level as 'genocide'. You treat Microsoft as if they've detonated a nuclear bomb in the heart of a peaceful city.
You sir, need a tall glass of perspective and soda.
WRONG. Mixing GPL code and non-GPL code results in GPL code.
You are incorrect.
Mixing GPL code and non-GPL code results in code that cannot be distributed at all. One remedy is for the owner of the non-free code to GPL it. Another is for the owner of the GPL code to license it for distribution with the non-free code.
Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.
Stallman is of course right to point out that he is a Microsoft apologist - he is a notorious one. It is beyond argument that Microsoft spends significant dollars in direct and "personal" attempts to crush free software development projects such as Linux through the most indefensible barratry. It's also widely known that this is only one of a multi-prong strategy that includes coopting competing projects, through many means, including hiring key team members, and PR efforts, including hiring astroturfing firms - some of which patronize this very site, and you will meet some of their employees (or contractors) today. :)
Miguel must chuckle at himself when he writes things like "Fear mongering is a vibrant industry." It is too rich in irony for him not to know it. Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software. It is easy to understand the lense through which we see codeplex even if they were to say nothing controversial. But apparently one of their goals is already clear - to throw another line of men at the front of the rhetorical "war" between free as in beer and free as in speech.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software. It's quite easy to understand - most people, when they give away their work, have a common moral compass, and they share certain values about how they would like to see that work go out into the world. i.e. They would rather some 3rd party not get paid for what they did for free. And they would rather others have the freedom to tinker, just as they did. Most ("important, widely used, active") open source software is free software for this reason. Of course, the "debate" will never end, either. But let's just keep it in perspective.
Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content, but at least he gets points for plugging "The Power of Nightmares." Just a few years too late, alas. From that and his Bush-based name calling, he may lose the conservative portion of the audience he is supposed to be reaching, but as I said, MS should get a refund.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally. A more fair analysis of his blog would be that Microsoft needs to be steered in the right direction and there are some good people on the inside trying to do this. He points out CodePlex as something he feels as a sign of progress. I'm not defending de Icaza's whole message but I think you're putting words into his mouth ... no one in their right mind would say Steve Ballmer is an ally of open source. He may employ people who are proponents of free and open software but he himself is definitely against it. Also keep in mind that people -- and companies -- do change. This isn't the case with Microsoft ... yet.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software.
If I may state the obvious, RMS is a hardliner with zero tolerance or forgiveness. Fine. This appeals quite well to many people (myself included). Now, de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder than a bridge burner and is looking for in roads into Microsoft. Perhaps you can see this as a catalyst to speed up the process to our desired end state or you can view this as aiding the enemy. Either way I think a lot of de Icaza's efforts are great experiments in seeing just how tolerant and truly open Microsoft's standards are. Right now, why don't we all just sit and watch before we become dependent on Moonlight? I appreciate both these people in different ways and it's a shame we got this drama or war of words internal to the open source movement.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that de Icaza is "bridge builder", but unfortunately "the roads into Microsoft" are all one-way.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder than a bridge burner and is looking for in roads into Microsoft
Bridges work both ways. Microsoft cannot be trusted, their track record speaks for itself. Even today they'll FUD away or deliberately mislead people with their so-called "open" efforts. They only care about their bottom line and how to destroy competition. One day, they'll pull the rug from under Mono.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
When Microsoft owned the market they could do that where ever and when ever they wished. Now that they are losing ground everyday on almost all fronts trying to do something like that would only give another reason for people who were thinking about using .NET to avoid it. In short, it would be suicide. Microsoft knows this and has already started to change their tune by supporting Mono and by making a very small but growing chunk of code open source. As you correctly stated, this was done solely because they know it will help them. The only way it could be more valuable for Microsoft to go back to their old ways would be if they owned the market again. So could they pull the rug out from under Mono? Yes. Would it ever look like a good idea even to the brain damaged 'we hate open source' higher ups? Unless there was a major disaster in the mac, linux AND unix that gave Microsoft unquestionable control over the OS market again. No.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
AmaDaden wrote:
> When Microsoft owned the market they could do that where ever and when ever they wished. Now that they are losing ground everyday on .NET to avoid it.
> almost all fronts trying to do something like that would only give another reason for people who were thinking about using
> In short, it would be suicide.
It didn't stop them in the Tom Tom lawsuit, it wouldn't stop them here. As I've said before, Tom Tom changed *everything*. Microsoft lost the moral high ground (and yes they did at least have that position over patents) of not being a patent aggressor but only using patents for defense, stopped the rhetoric and became a direct patent threat to Free Software/Open Source.
Since Tom Tom, nothing they say about patents in Mono/.NET can be trusted any more. Only a legally binding non-assert offer can change this now.
Jeremy.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument that the Mono case is different than the Tom Tom case doesn't stand up I'm afraid. Microsoft only wants developers to develop for Windows. .NET is an attempt to provide an environment so compelling that people continue to use Windows to get access to it. Mono weakens that case for using Windows, so attacking Mono makes perfect sense. Remember, Microsoft loves Open Source code that runs on Windows. Mono isn't designed to run on Windows - Windows already has a perfectly good .NET environment, therefore Mono serves no purpose in Microsoft's eyes. Promoting threats around Mono forces people who want to use .NET to do it on the "One True Platform" (Windows). Attacking Mono forces .NET developers to move to Windows, it doesn't mean an exodus from .NET. Just like in Microsoft's mindset the Linux kernel has no business implementing a Microsoft proprietary technology (FAT32) when people should be buying the Windows implementation instead. The parallels are obvious.
Jeremy.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm looking this article over top to bottom, and I don't really see him suggesting anything. There's a lot of namecalling, a parable where I'm right thank you very much (shoeless people in Africa? We have Java, as well as Python and various other languages on Linux for the niche Mono wants to fill.)
Seems to me like RMS gave a principled (and really fairly balanced) assessment of Mono, and Icaza responded by calling RMS a luddite, with absolutely no argument to back it up. Why did this even make Slashdot when Icaza says absolutely nothing to refute Stallman's argument?
Parent
Are you not an 'apologist'? (Score:5, Informative)
apologist: a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
That's not a personal attack.
Regards.
Parent
Re:Are you not an 'apologist'? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a personal attack.
"Apologist" often has a negative connotation, especially when paired with a subject that is widely considered not worthy of any such defense.
And in the target audience of these letters, Microsoft is widely and for very good reason considered unworthy of defending on the subject of Software Freedom (if not everything else).
RMS knows this, and he intended it as a pejorative. MdI knows this too, which is why he considers himself attacked, and denies the claim.
But therein lies the end of the argument for me. He simply can't claim Microsoft hasn't been a consistent and ongoing enemy of Free Software, but also claims they're safe to work with. Microsoft threatens Linux with hundreds of imaginary patent violations, but we're going to welcome a bunch of actual MS-patented tech into Linux on purpose and under MS' watchful eye? If you're going to tell me that isn't insanely stupid, you better at least be willing to be an apologist for Microsoft.
Parent
Re:Are you not an 'apologist'? (Score:5, Funny)
So the next time we meet, I will not fail. I will go up to the long bearded man and say,
"Hello. My name is Miguel de Icaza. You killed my Mono. Prepare to die."
Parent
Re:Are you not an 'apologist'? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, "apologist" in this context is clearly a reference to the fact that Miguel has fairly consistently defended the Microsoft position, that's what that word means. It's only a pejorative if you think Microsoft is bad. If you approve of Microsoft then you really should approve of Microsoft apologists, that's coming from a proud FSF apologist of course!
Despite all the mud that gets thrown at him, RMS is actually very honest about what he does and doesn't believe and why he believes it; anyone who's used to serious political debate (not what you read in the papers or see on TV) will find it quite easy to digest the polemical style of RMS and won't wind themselves up by reading personal attacks where there are none.
Also, I find it hilarious that Miguel links to an apology from RMS about an inaccurate claim he made regarding Mac OS X as proof that he "makes up facts". That's a clear show of intellectual dishonesty, and, dare I say, an astonishingly bold use of a classic trolling technique!
Parent
Re:Are you not an 'apologist'? (Score:5, Insightful)
The context was Stallman noting it as (when viewed along with the fact that the background of other board members) a basis for wariness about CodePlex, but dismissing it as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad, before going on to focus on specific actions and statements of Microsoft and CodePlex are to point to areas where those statements, rather than the identities of its board members, were reasons for concern.
The paragraph referring to Icaza as an "apologist" is, in full:
This is not a pejorative use. It is pointing to a relevant source of bias as a basis for concern that future actions might be tainted by that bias, and then also stating that that bias is not alone a basis for concluding that future actions by the biased actor will be bad.
It's also the only reference to de Icaza in the article; both Icaza's claim that the article is content free and his claim that it features are personal attack on him ring rather hollow. One might disagree with the importance of the Free Software philosophy that Stallman embraces, and (even if one does not) one might validly disagree with his painting of the particular actions cited in the article as reasons for concerns about Mirosoft/CodePlex's intentions with regard to Free Software, but it is ludicrous to paint the article as content free, and even more ludicrous to paint to the reference to the relationship of board members including Icaza to Microsoft as a "personal attack" on Icaza.
Parent
Cynical Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Such words might be effective against someone who doesn't read both articles, but it seems fairly clear RMS has important content, namely that codeplex's positioning seems designed to add confusion on software freedom issues, which is both dangerous and consistent with Microsoft's notorious predatory policies towards free software and its developers.
Only those without principles or with friends in perfect agreement all the time have the benefit of never "attacking their friends." Perhaps you are more concerned with relationships than principles.
If in your own post you pointed out all of the places where codeplex and Microsoft clearly do understand the open source and free software distinction, and make a clear effort to avoid confusion... If you had some possible explanation for Microsoft's massively ugly behavior towards linux, or open document standards bodies, etc...
But you have none. You seem to find the incidental, but correct observation of your widely-known status as a Microsoft apologist to be the greater issue, and you devote most of your words to denying that, along with some vague name calling, a few appeals to emotion by metaphor, and (probably ill-advised) political sniping.
It is your own writing that is quite clearly without content, and it's my professional opinion that you know it. Thus, the term "cynical hypocrisy."
I find your suggestion that Microsoft could be an ally (however much you deny you've made it, or if you even choose to) to be laughable.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
>
I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.
Could you give a reference, please?
I read the OP, and I'm familiar with many (older) articles and essays written by RMS. I've never seen RMS make a *personal* attack. I have seen people react to his strong but very nuanced perspective on morals as if they were personal attacks. I've started to understand that other, reasonable, people can interpret his statements very personally, so if you feel attacked, I don't hold it against you.
I have not read anything written by you, so you are establishing a first impression (for me). You say that RMS has "makes up facts" but you link to what is primarily a retraction. Could you be more clear about which facts RMS has made up? I'd like to think that you can forgive a mistake, if it is admitted.
Lastly, you say that RMS attacks his own community, supporting this claim with a footnote about the distinction between "open source" and "free software" being a non-issue. It seems to me that RMS has been very clear that there is an issue, from his perspective. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html [gnu.org]
Now you may have a different perspective, as is your right. But since RMS has his perspective, and his preference is perfectly clear, I'd really hesitate to say that he attacks his own community on this issue. In my mind, his community is made up of the supporters of free software, and doesn't contain those who prefer open source.
In summary, RMS doesn't make personal attacks on anyone, much less his own community and he doesn't make up facts. If you think differently, I have an open mind, but I need more than your word.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not content free. It points out that CodePlex does not particularly care about freedom, is designed to whitewash a bad company's trojan horse technology, and is harmful to the open-source community.
Are there personal attacks? Only if you consider an attack on your life's work personal. Some time back (around when we first met at an O'Reilly Convention), you used to be involved in the production of software (like Gnumeric) that was unambiguously good for the community. Ever since you got into Microsoft's Java clone and its reimplementation, your actions have been not-so-clearly-good for the community - you encourage us to adopt patent-risky technologies that break greatly with Unix tradition, you strongarm the GNOME folk into adopting lousy technical decisions (we have a binary registry now? Oy) and continue to push them to making mono a required component of GNOME, and you keep telling us to cozy up with a company that has done its very best to undermine Linux, undermine Free Software, and drop legal and technical obstacles in our way. You want us to be technically just like them, and you want us to like them.
I don't see any criticism of you in your personal life - these are not personal criticisms, they are criticisms of the way you act in the community. You may have once done good for us, but you're certainly harmful now. For many of us, the best and most clear choice is to continue to try to avoid catching Mono, advocating its removal from our preferred distros and from GNOME, ideally removing you from any influence over GNOME as well. If you would simply go away, you would spare us the trouble.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, For the most part the goals are not that different. Most of the Anti-Microsoft hatrid come from
Most of the hatred for MS comes from the fact that they have killed dozens of companies and technologies, and replaced them with inferior ones. The reason for the hate is the multitude of times when they "partner" with some other company, only to stab them in the back. The hatred comes from their repeated breaking of the law and abuse of the monopoly. The hatred comes from the fact that MS actively wants to kill Linux. The hatred for MS is not an irrational feeling, it's based on the actions of MS that has taken place over the course of the years.
Yet, we are supposed to "trust" Microsoft? Is this the fucking bizarro-world or something where black is white, and Microsoft is trustworthy company with good products?
Because a lot of it is good, really good, just because you are an open source zealot and don't want to see it doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't have good products.
I don't consider myself a "zealot": What I consider myself to be is a person capable of rational thinking. Microsoft has a long trail of blood behind them. How about "playsforsure"? A bit later MS stabbed it's partners in the back with a fucking Zune. Sendo would have lots of stories to tell about shenanigans Microsoft pulls, as does Apple. How about DR-DOS? Netscape? i4i? IBM?
Are we supposed to now think that "oh, THIS TIME it's going to be different! Honest!". Give me a fucking break! Has Microsoft changed in any way? I sure as hell don't see any changes!
Yes Microsoft would love to see Linux die
So why exactly should we trust them?
but they know that won't happen
No, but MS can push Linux in to a niche, while they keep on dominating.
Microsoft is very aggressive marketing however they can also be good partners.
Unless their partner happens to have some interesting technology or they start threatening Windows. Then Microsoft will crush them, it has happened every single time. Sendo had interesting technology, so MS crushed them. i4i had interesting technology, and MS stile it. Netscape started threatening Windows, and had to be killed. DR-DOS offered better product, so it had to be killed. OS/2 threatened Windows so it had to be killed. List goes on.
And FWIW, the main OS I use these days is OS X.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Informative)
But why was this attack needed when Mono is trying to split itself into "Guaranteed, patent free components" and "Gray areas"?
The Patent Free parts are covered by the legally Binding Microsoft Community Promise [microsoft.com]
Some parts of it:
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is complian....
To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification.
Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Informative)
The Microsoft Community Promise is not good enough. See this legal analysis for details:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html [softwarefreedom.org]
Microsoft lawyers are good enough to produce a better document than this, they just chose not to. See this document:
http://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.html [samba.org]
for a better agreement and an analysis on why all the terms in it are needed (especially the "Patents" section).
Jeremy.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would we ever want to write code for their platform on their terms? I will not have much trust for Microsoft until MS Office is GPLed (v3) and I can get it working on GNU.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article = RMS is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Informative)
He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.
"I merely happen to have a different perspective on Microsoft than he has. I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.
At the end of the day, we both want to see free software succeed. But Richard, instead of opening new fronts to promote his causes, attacks his own allies for not being replicas of himself."
He suggested that either himself, or Microsoft, or both, was his "ally."
No. He said that Richard Stallman attacks his allies. The very next sentence of TFA reads: To him, ridiculous statements like Linus "does not believe in Freedom" are somewhat normal. He is clearly referring to Linus Torvalds as Richard Stallman's ally.
Please don't deliberately misinterpret people that you don't agree with.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have we seen Microsoft's shills come on out, try to make friends, tell everyone how Microsoft has changed, only to discover we've been lead down the garden path.
When Microsoft drops its patent growling over Linux, then maybe I'll be inclined to listen to Icaza. Until then, he's just another Microsoft whore.
Parent
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, in the end, they still work for Steve Ballmer. They will ultimately follow Ballmer's "intent", not their own.
Parent
Re:Oh change the record FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but after years of trying to undermine and bring an end to the free software and open source software movements, Microsoft needs to make the first move. Thus far, all they have done is contributed some drivers to Linux that make it easier to run Windows in a VM, and made it slightly easier for open source developers to develop software for Windows. Note their emphasis on running Windows. Note that Windows is more proprietary, more shackled than ever before.
Call me when Windows and/or MS Office have been GPLv3'ed.
Parent
Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
I agree wholeheartedly that it is highly unlikely that Microsoft will seize any opportunity it gets to do annoying things specially to break open projects. Again.
Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Richard - "The first thing we see is that the organization ducks the issue of users' freedom; it uses the term "open source" and does not speak of "free software"."
Miguel - "The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. "
Open source on whose terms?
Well of course he's annoyed (Score:5, Insightful)
He and others written a useful, complex and (hopefully) well implemented set of software components through much in the way of blood, seat and tears.
So of course he's not going to agree that what he did was either a waste of time or evil. I'm not exactly sure which side of this debate I fall on. Doesn't affect me too much as a C programmer...
Re:Well of course he's annoyed (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is that Mono is creeping into distributions through packages like Tomboy. I think that things like Mono shouldn't be in default packages or a dialog should be asked for things which are clearly offensive to at least some significant portion of the linux community. You don't see them doing that for NVIDIA drivers, I know the licenses are different and Mono at least claims to be open-source [wikipedia.org] but I guess there's a lot more people who want to avoid MS than people who want to avoid NVIDIA.
Parent
Re:Mono guard (Score:5, Insightful)
As a fellow Debian user, I too am incensed that Debian developers, without consulting the user base have taken a monumental leap away from the projects original stated goals and ideals.
What leap? Mono isn't DFSG compliant?
What else do you want from Debian - follow your personal agenda where it doesn't matter whether something is FLOSS or not, but so long as it has any relation to Microsoft, it's automatically evil?
Parent
Another side of the story (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090927151401988 [groklaw.net]
Here is an article that goes in-depth about the entire situation
it's not fearmongering.... (Score:4, Funny)
It's GNU/Fearmongering. Let's at least give credit where credit is due ;)
A matter of credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man. You know where RMS stands on issues before he even comments on them because he's had a consistent message for a few decades now.
De Icaza's position seems to be that short-term convenience wins. Period. I just can't credit him with the same credibility or integrity as RMS. I mean, I guess he's at least consistent with his position, but I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter, and that doesn't win me any points.
If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd have to go with RMS. Some of his conclusions are a bit... out there... but he solidly argues them from solid principles and it's kind of hard to disagree with him. Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later. The Right to Read, anyone? When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy behind him, I'll start paying more attention to his words.
Re:A matter of credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman has not been able to present a logical argument showing that the legal situation around Mono is any worse than it is around Linux, March, GNU C, or numerous other FOSS projects.
There most definitely is a logical argument. In a word: patents.
Unlike GNU C, Linux, etc, which either implement published standards or have been OSS from the very beginning, Mono implements and relies on stuff patented by Microsoft. Patents that Microsoft has shown signs it wants to sell to patent trolls (with an understanding that they'd use those patents to sue). In other words, there's good reason to think MS wants to use Mono as a Trojan Horse to enable lawsuits against OSS organizations such as the FSF, Debian, and Ubuntu.
MS already tried one legal tack to go after OSS, namely the SCO lawsuit. There's no reason to think they wouldn't try another.
Parent
Re:A matter of credibility (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Stallman is a principled man. The problem with Stallman and Mono, however, is that his objections are based on fear and innuendo, not on principles or reason.
Wrong. Microsoft has offered a patent covenant that covers compatible re-implementations of .Net. If you want to make your own cut down or otherwise incompatible version of .Net - for whatever reason - then MS can still sue you. It also only covers the core .Net libraries and not all the libraries that actual real world .Net applications use.
Given those facts, it's easy to see how Mono / .Net remain incompatible with the principles of Free Software.
Parent
Stallman seems to have lost his way (Score:5, Interesting)
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.
Re:Stallman seems to have lost his way (Score:5, Insightful)
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.
There were no software patents back then. Only copyright and very proprietary (read: expensive) software licenses. RMS started creating work alike and very often superior software. The software was written independent of any of the Unix source code to avoid any chance of it being tainted by that same source code. There was no chance of AT&T shutting down GNU software; because, they didn't have any legal leg to stand on.
Parent
When microsoft is involved (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman's a fanatic, but on the other hand, Microsoft is Microsoft. Which is to say, it's probably difficult to be too paranoid about their intentions with respect to competition. Stallman's article isn't even particularly paranoid; it boils down to "we've seen similar groups do bad things before, so we should watch this group. Also, we disagree with some of their goals".
BTW, Miguel, George Bush did not invent "Good vs Evil". And while I've never seen anything that approaches pure Good, there's no shortage of "sufficiently evil".
Impedance mismatch (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman and de Icaza have completely different goals, as do the larger Free Software and Open Source movements they are part of. There is unfortunately a tendency on the Open Source side to obscure this difference by claiming that Free Software is a subset of Open Source, often through the use of equivocation with the ambiguous English word "free", but Free Software is not a subset of Open Source.
The Free Software movement's position is essentially ideological, based on the philosophy that closed source is ethically and morally wrong. The Open Source position is essentially pragmatic, based on the theory that closed source (the cathedral) is less efficient than open source (the bazaar). Free Software is an ethical stance; Open Source is a high-level development methodology. The two sides end up shouting over each other's heads more often than not, as they are today, because they are using much of the same terminology to describe completely different things.
As such, de Icaza is wrong when he says that Stallman is missing an opportunity here. From the perspective of Free Software, especially given Microsoft's well-documented past behavior, cooperation with Microsoft is not an opportunity, it's a trap with a flashing neon TRAP sign above it. Conversely, it might well be an opportunity for Open Source, at least insofar as the literal issue of "open source" is concerned, though probably only in the short term.
Closed source software vendors ultimately make their money from artificial scarcity. Yes, it is possible to make money with open source, but the kind of money that Microsoft and most of its peers rake in comes only from closed source. To the extent that they are publicly-owned businesses, and therefore exist to make as much money as possible, they will only expend their assets -- including opening some of their source -- if they believe that it will lead to greater profits. Stallman is entirely correct to be wary of Microsoft here. Microsoft views the Free Software and Open Source movements as competitors, just as they view other conventional closed source companies as competitors. To expect them to behave in a genuinely cooperative fashion with groups that are, in an increasing number of areas, eating into their profits is to live in a utopian fantasy world.
spending time on opportunities ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which begs the question as to why expend so much energy in duplicating dotNET onto the Linux platform. Isn't whole the MONO effort diverting developers from developing native Linux applications?
"The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. They have been working from within the company to change it. Working at CodePlex is a great way of helping steer Microsoft in the right direction"
What was wrong with SourceForge. If I was cynical and recalling Microsoft's past behaviour, including tthe NovoSOFT trojan
And as an 'open source' supporter I fail to understand how you would recommend something called the LinuxHater's Blog [tirania.org]
'If you're a freetard, but you need to run Windows at work or something, I've got an idea for a utility that will keep you true to the cause'
'How many hours do I have to waste wading through the monument of shit known as the debian package repository?'
Re:spending time on opportunities ? (Score:5, Informative)
I work on Mono, because I like it. If you want to learn more about my goals, you can read this old post:
http://www.mono-project.com/Mailpost:longreply [mono-project.com]
As for CodePlex: it turns out that there are two entities: CodePlex.ORG (owned by the Foundation) and CodePlex.Com (Owned by Microsoft, and has no affiliation with the foundation).
It is beyond unfortunate that the Foundation adopted the name from the hosting site. The logic apparently was "It is already a known brand". In my opinion, moving ahead with this name was a terrible decision as it is incredibly confusing, a point that I have raised with the board of directors.
The CodePlex foundation has no control over the contents of CodePlex.com.
Parent
Re:spending time on opportunities ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I often wonder where your real motivations lie Miguel. Between your efforts on Gnome and Mono you seem to be a one man wrecking ball designed to destroy Linux on the desktop. In particular you were a prime mover in creating the fissure between KDE and GNOME, which has so fragmented the Linux desktop world its unlikely to ever compete against Windows and the Mac on the desktop. I've certainly given up on it ever mattering as a desktop OS, Now you are trying to infect Linux and Gnome with Microsoft patented technology which seems to be an even more overt and blatant attempt to wreck Linux to Microsoft's benefit.
In my attempt to fathom your motivations the only answers I come up with:
A. You actually think pushing .NET and C# in to Linux is a good idea, and you actually think Microsoft is a nice company. If so you are either naive or just not very bright because Microsoft has always been and still is one of the most ruthless of tech companies and its prime directive is and always has been to destroy all its competitors. Linux is a competitor, not their friend. .NET and C# are quite interesting technologies but no one with any sense would think they are appropriate to introduce as a core technology in Linux.
or
B. Sometime ago you actually started working for Microsoft under the table and you have been working to destroy Linux from within, at their behest, by pretending to be a member of the open source community while you've pushed one agenda and then another designed to complete wreck Linux as a desktop OS.
Now its kind of tin foil hat to go with B) but when you think about it, Microsoft was faced with an existential threat from Linux and they couldn't use the same tactics to destroy it they used on more traditional incorporated competitors. Bill Gates is, if nothing else, smart with a heavy dose of ruthless, and to be honest Miguel, your whole agenda for years seems to be a perfect fit for the role of a mole Microsoft planted in the Linux community to destroy it from within. Planting a high profile mole is, when you think about it, the ideal strategy for a company like Microsoft to use to sabotage a community based threat like Linux.
Stallman is kind of abrasive and his religious purity can be annoying to no end, but I can be sure he is what he appears to be, his heart and mind are relatively pure and he does have a great track record for spotting snakes in the grass. By contrast I don't think I would ever trust your motives. It is impossible to tell where your heart really is and seem to bear a striking resemblance to one of those snakes in the grass Stallman is so good at spotting.
Parent
Re:don't listen to Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET.
Neither have I, but I know what they are.
He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is.
So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.
And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.
I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.
Don't be stupid. Again, it's OK to disagree with the man. Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything", because it's possible (in fact, certain) that he knows more about it than you do.
Parent
Re:don't listen to Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET. He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is...
That's preposterous -- it's like saying someone is in no position to judge whether or not the Nazis were evil... unless he speaks German.
Stallman's position is that anything built on Mono is built on a foundation of trust in Microsoft, which means a foundation made of sand.
You don't need to write any Mono code to judge whether or not his contention is true. All you need to know is that, time after time after time, Microsoft have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.
Parent
Re:don't listen to Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:He's right (Score:5, Insightful)
The leadership of MS is on record as calling FOSS Un-American, a cancer, and other pejoratives. Their leadership has also been caught red-handed more than once attempting to sabotage FOSS. The recent nastiness with the anti-Linux patent package intended for troll use comes to mind. The actions of MS' leadership are far more relevant than the fact a few coders in cubicles don't bear FOSS any particular ill will. Now I don't hate MS but distrusting MS isn't in the least unreasonable.
Parent
Re:He's right (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit Batman, do you hear what you are saying?
They ARE JUST A SOFTWARE COMPANY!
They can't actually ruin your life. They really can't FORCE you to do anything.
We're not talking about genocide here, lets keep things in some sort of sane perspective.
You can end MS "tyranny" very easy. Stop using their products. Period. Really, thats it. You don't actually have to have them to survive.
You can, in fact, never use a computer and still survive and function.
You have to be really fucking spoiled to make the comparison you just made, I'd hate to see you having to deal with an actual problem in your life.
You, from your statements, are completely out of touch with reality, just like Stallman himself. You've elevated crap like 'licensing agreements' to the same level as 'genocide'. You treat Microsoft as if they've detonated a nuclear bomb in the heart of a peaceful city.
You sir, need a tall glass of perspective and soda.
Parent
Re:He's right (Score:5, Informative)
WRONG. Mixing GPL code and non-GPL code results in GPL code.
You are incorrect.
Mixing GPL code and non-GPL code results in code that cannot be distributed at all. One remedy is for the owner of the non-free code to GPL it. Another is for the owner of the GPL code to license it for distribution with the non-free code.
Parent