M$ and their wonderful Open Source policy!

[psyjax]

http://caffeine.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/aug01/speak.html

Submitted for your review  

[LukeHashJ]

What bastards. If open-source software was evil, the internet must be nothing-short of hell.

[Tux]

that was a tight article...

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Tux ]

[jtpenrod]

Macro$uck is really getting desperate.        They've been at this for quite awhile now, and the more they keep trying to hammer Open Source, the more foolish they look.        Up till now, they've been able to fool an awful lot of atehnological people into believing that products such as Win 98, Min ME, etc. were really an improvement over Win 95 (M$'s truly last good idea). Unfortunately for them, people are beginning to see this for the baloney it has always been. What were they thinking? The more they yammer on about Linux and Open Source, the more foolish they look, and the more free publicity Linux gets        

It's been said that the gods first drive mad those they would destroy. Seems to apply here, doesn't it?
_____________________________
Powered by Freedom and Mandrake Linux

Computers are like air comditioners: they can't do their jobs if you open windows.



[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]

[psyjax]

Win 95 (M$'s truly last good idea).


Actually it was Apples. M$ just "borrowd" it.

[Master of Reality]

those fucking dumb shits
M

[mskarl]

quote:Originally posted by LukeHashJ:
What bastards. If open-source software was evil, the internet must be nothing-short of hell.

Very True!!!

[Calum]

quote:An unnamed M$ writer said:
3. How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights?  

One of the most significant impacts of the GPL is its potential effect on your intellectual property rights.  The GPL is widely referred to as "viral" because it attempts to subject independently-created code (and associated intellectual property) to the terms of the GPL if it is used in certain ways together with GPL code (see Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL).  For example, a business that combines and distributes GPL code with its own proprietary code may be obligated to share with the rest of the world valuable intellectual property (including patent) rights in both code bases on a royalty free basis.  Other uses of GPL code may also create obligations for the user.  It is important to perform a careful legal and technical review of this issue before using GPL software.  

this is a bit desperate.
two things.

first, if M$ are so fond of credit where credit is due type intellectual property rights, then why do they make a habit of screwing over everybody that comes within arm's length by claiming others' work as their own? More noticably in some ways, how come i have yet to read a Microsoft article or help document which ACTUALLY CREDITS THE WRITER'S NAME?
All linux documentation i have seen so far has the writer's details fully credited.

second, if you think open source is so bad, don't develop for it. end of story. to the unnamed writer of this quote, i say, you have a CHOICE! remember what that is? develop a new program if you want to keep the intellectual rights. You cannot just modify somebody else's code and expect to have the right to royalties.

In conclusion, i reckon M$' official attitude to open source and the GPL sounds attractive... to greedy selfish money grabbing arseholes. And why not? their policy has been entirely drawn up by greedy selfish money grabbing arseholes, for other greedy selfish money grabbing arseholes. The reasoning is that if those arseholes have already grabbed all the money, all M$ needs to do is get them on side, and they'll hand over all the cash no questions asked. It's typical scaremongering M$ tactics. They fail to see that some people have minds of their own.

We'll see.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]