Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The FSF Wants Microsoft To Do More To Help Fight Software Patents

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kpedersen
    replied
    Originally posted by jacob View Post

    Of course MS makes a good move for themselves. And that's how it should be. All the other companies that are usually considered good participants in the FOSS community - RedHat, Canonical, IBM, Google etc. (which, by the way, never meant that they should do ONLY FOSS software) are doing it for themselves.
    Exactly, and we don't congratulate IBM, Google et al for doing so do we? So why should we for Microsoft?

    Leave a comment:


  • dpanter
    replied
    M$: "We did a good thing! Everybody happy now!"
    FSF: "What about all those times you were being a massive b*tch?"
    M$: "Uh..."
    FSF: "Maybe you should make amends now that you are 'good'."
    M$: "..."
    FSF: "Well?"

    To be continued... or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • jacob
    replied
    Originally posted by eidolon View Post
    For some in open-source development, I think nothing short of https://www.voscreen.com/life/13666/...556gzm4a46/en/ will suffice.

    It is possible for workplace culture to change, but that kind of culture generally takes a back seat to considerations of profitability. Time will tell if Microsoft can align its business interests with open source in a consistent manner (far beyond the open-source contributions Microsoft makes now). If it can, I don't think it will ever extend beyond a marriage of convenience to actual advocacy, but that doesn't mean something productive can't come of it all the same.

    With the exception of an oblivious minority within Microsoft, I think most people working for Microsoft anticipate that open-source communities will continue to be skeptical of Microsoft. Microsoft has earned that distrust over the years. If Microsoft truly manages to shed its historical antagonism, and really does turn over a new leaf during the next several years, I think then a fair number of onlookers will be willing to evolve their opinions of Microsoft, although some will never give Microsoft another chance. Also, changes in leadership at Microsoft could return it to old form in short order.

    For-profits that are much more in keeping with the spirit of open source like Red Hat and Canonical routinely come under fire in some quarters for actions deemed officious or divisive. If it wants to contribute to open source in a more meaningful way, Microsoft has a long road ahead of it, and it would really have to undergo a fundamental identity shift, as open source doesn't need another Oracle, one is enough.
    I think the prevailing distrust against Microsoft is really a result from the Gates-Ballmer era. These two were hardline ideologues who could never conceive an appeased coexistence with FOSS, let alone any sort of cooperation. The current management seems really different in that regard. As for the people working there, I don't personally know anyone within MS but I would bet that most of their developers and engineers understand FOSS perfectly well, use it, perhaps contribute to it in their spare time, and would be happy to see more of their products being open-sourced.

    At any rate, Microsoft doesn't "need" to do anything beyond their current contributions. They really don't owe us anything (just like we don't owe them anything either). Just being civil, not spreading any FUD or blatant lies like they used to do, stop their anti-competitive practices etc. will be nice, and they are make big strides in that direction. Beyond that, if they want to use Linux or other FOSS projects for their own purposes, they are very welcome as long as they abide by the licences, which they seem to be doing. And when they decide to joint the OIN or release some of their stuff under FOSS licences, like Powershell or ASP.NET, it's great both for them and for the FOSS community.

    Leave a comment:


  • eidolon
    replied
    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    The naysayers should be clear about what they want
    For some in open-source development, I think nothing short of https://www.voscreen.com/life/13666/...556gzm4a46/en/ will suffice.

    It is possible for workplace culture to change, but that kind of culture generally takes a back seat to considerations of profitability. Time will tell if Microsoft can align its business interests with open source in a consistent manner (far beyond the open-source contributions Microsoft makes now). If it can, I don't think it will ever extend beyond a marriage of convenience to actual advocacy, but that doesn't mean something productive can't come of it all the same.

    With the exception of an oblivious minority within Microsoft, I think most people working for Microsoft anticipate that open-source communities will continue to be skeptical of Microsoft. Microsoft has earned that distrust over the years. If Microsoft truly manages to shed its historical antagonism, and really does turn over a new leaf during the next several years, I think then a fair number of onlookers will be willing to evolve their opinions of Microsoft, although some will never give Microsoft another chance. Also, changes in leadership at Microsoft could return it to old form in short order.

    For-profits that are much more in keeping with the spirit of open source like Red Hat and Canonical routinely come under fire in some quarters for actions deemed officious or divisive. If it wants to contribute to open source in a more meaningful way, Microsoft has a long road ahead of it, and it would really have to undergo a fundamental identity shift, as open source doesn't need another Oracle, one is enough.
    Last edited by eidolon; 10-12-2018, 01:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • swoorup
    replied
    If you cant beat them join them.

    Leave a comment:


  • audir8
    replied
    FSF is basically asking for the right things here. Patent hordes are really only used as cover when needed and to prevent lawsuits. Who better to ask for help in reforming the system than the first large company to basically use their patent offensively against the open source community. The only problem is everyone needs to disarm at the same time, and the OIN is a good start, but it could go further.

    Leave a comment:


  • onicsis
    replied
    @Weasel

    I didn't quoted because it's a bad thing "abolition of all patents covering ideas in software", but impossible, not from a technical standpoint, because all of this it's a political factor, because corporations lobby it is more powerful than what organizations like FSF can do, to abolish the current system of software patents. IBM, Microsoft, Google etc have a huge influence on the US Congress or on the European Parliament.

    In some countries software is not patentable.
    Not only MS but IBM also it's on the same side
    On January 17, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted IBM a patent on an out-of-office email system. Yes, really.

    United States Patent No. 9,547,842 (the ’842 Patent),“Out-of-office electronic mail messaging system,” traces its history to an application filed back in 2010. That means it supposedly represents a new, non-obvious advance over technology from that time. But, as many office workers know, automated out-of-office messages were a “workplace staple” decades before IBM filed its application. The Patent Office is so out of touch that it conducted years of review of this application without ever discussing any real-world software
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...t-office-email
    Last edited by onicsis; 10-11-2018, 07:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    Of course MS makes a good move for themselves. And that's how it should be. All the other companies that are usually considered good participants in the FOSS community - RedHat, Canonical, IBM, Google etc. (which, by the way, never meant that they should do ONLY FOSS software) are doing it for themselves. They are not charities. The FOSS community is based on an idea of what makes for ethical software development and distribution, and it's open to anyone who thinks it's worth engaging in. This move seems to indicate that MS has finally decided to bury the hatchet, become part of the FOSS community and be better of for it, rather than trying to destroy our community. The naysayers should be clear about what they want: do they expect Microsoft to do something that would be clearly NOT in their interest? Why would MS do that? Why would we want that for? Or would they perhaps prefer MS to stick to their old ways and proceed with an updated Halloween strategy?
    They won't listen. But well said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by onicsis View Post
    I really like Microsoft become more trustworthy when in come open source, but their antecedents show something different

    Open Invention Network is a Proponent of Software Patents — Just Like Microsoft — and Microsoft Keeps Patents It Uses to Blackmail Linux Vendors

    Microsoft tactics (and not only) involve this software patent mafia system to control, hinder or harass others.
    I don't think you understand English if you think what you quoted is a bad thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • jacob
    replied
    Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

    Yes, but the key part here is that MS finally makes a good move *for themselves*.

    If we thanked them for it, we would end up just looking like gullible twats.
    As it stands the FSF just look ungreatful instead to the outside world. But it is important to keep letting people know that Microsoft are not benign.

    I say, we should all stay vigilant and see what Microsoft does next. It obviosuly won't be for the betterment of mankind but hopefully it wont hurt us either.

    I personally don't like it because it cheapens the idea of the Open Invention Network. It is almost like allowing a well known convicted rapist lead an anti-rape campaign.
    Of course MS makes a good move for themselves. And that's how it should be. All the other companies that are usually considered good participants in the FOSS community - RedHat, Canonical, IBM, Google etc. (which, by the way, never meant that they should do ONLY FOSS software) are doing it for themselves. They are not charities. The FOSS community is based on an idea of what makes for ethical software development and distribution, and it's open to anyone who thinks it's worth engaging in. This move seems to indicate that MS has finally decided to bury the hatchet, become part of the FOSS community and be better of for it, rather than trying to destroy our community. The naysayers should be clear about what they want: do they expect Microsoft to do something that would be clearly NOT in their interest? Why would MS do that? Why would we want that for? Or would they perhaps prefer MS to stick to their old ways and proceed with an updated Halloween strategy?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X