Microsoft Becomes A "Premium Sponsor" To The Open Source Initiative

[Luke_Wolf]

Let me tell YOU one more time.... MS is clearly in their -embrace- role. Duh.

That isn't an answer to the question: How can an Advocacy Group, not a coding organization, not a project management group, be subject to embrace, extend, extinguish?

However the answer is clearly that you don't know, because it's simply impossible, and thus you're just rambling about them embracing the OSI without any clear vision whatsoever for what you think the next stages actually look like. I get it.

I like how you retardedly equated forking open source projects as eee. It's kinda the whole fucking point.

That means you have no understanding of what EEE actually is. Oh yes, yes they were forks, but they were hostile forks that killed the original projects using EEE tactics. EEE does not mean, "Turn Proprietary". It means "Take the original product, fork it, and kill the competition so that everyone is reliant on you", which copyleft absolutely does not protect against.

[duby229]

That isn't an answer to the question: How can an Advocacy Group, not a coding organization, not a project management group, be subject to embrace, extend, extinguish?

However the answer is clearly that you don't know, because it's simply impossible, and thus you're just rambling about them embracing the OSI without any clear vision whatsoever for what you think the next stages actually look like. I get it.



That means you have no understanding of what EEE actually is. Oh yes, yes they were forks, but they were hostile forks that killed the original projects using EEE tactics. EEE does not mean, "Turn Proprietary". It means "Take the original product, fork it, and kill the competition so that everyone is reliant on you", which copyleft absolutely does not protect against.

Yes it absolutely does. Embrace -the- main advocacy group that helped define what open source means. Duh.

Nobody ever said that, least of all me. What -extend- means is to make incompatible. They can do that with BSD and similar licenses. That's what it means.

Tell me, exactly why do you think MS killed Nokia? Let me tell you honestly, it didn't have shit to do with cell phones.

[oooverclocker]

Whenever I read about Microsoft doing something positive with regards to open source can I not stop myself from thinking the worst.

"Microsoft is coming." - ...

Exactly. I don't like that and we should hurry more to get people away from Spy OS before they manage to get it stable, e.g. with a Linux kernel. That wouldn't be good for all people.

[Luke_Wolf]

Yes it absolutely does. Embrace -the- main advocacy group that helped define what open source means. Duh.

"Why.... Don't you see... They're embracing something... therefore they must be intending to extend and extinguish it... I'mma telling you this now it's definitely true. They can't extend it you say?... well don't you see? They're embracing it! therefore it must be EEE" - You basically.

Nobody ever said that, least of all me. What -extend- means is to make incompatible. They can do that with BSD and similar licenses. That's what it means.

Let's see now how can we make things incompatible with a fork of BSD software that's different from GPL software....
Break the ABI... nope can do that with both...
Break the API... nope can do that with both...
Rearchitecture/refactor the software.... nope can do that with both...
Add additional functionality to my fork that the original doesn't have and I won't upstream... nope can do that with both...
Remove Functionality... nope can do that with both
Literally any modification of the actual code itself... nope can do that with both

The only things that a BSD license allows over copyleft is proprietary forks (which qualifies for "extend") and opencore (which does not), so by exhaustion the only remaining option is running a proprietary fork of code, so yes... that's actually exactly what you said.

Tell me, exactly why do you think MS killed Nokia? Let me tell you honestly, it didn't have shit to do with cell phones.

Tell me, exactly why do you think this has any relevancy to the conversation at hand? Corporate murder, no matter how heinous, or what the reason, has nothing at all to do with EEE tactics even if it is a class of monopolistic tactics.

[duby229]

"Why.... Don't you see... They're embracing something... therefore they must be intending to extend and extinguish it... I'mma telling you this now it's definitely true. They can't extend it you say?... well don't you see? They're embracing it! therefore it must be EEE" - You basically.




Let's see now how can we make things incompatible with a fork of BSD software that's different from GPL software....
Break the ABI... nope can do that with both...
Break the API... nope can do that with both...
Rearchitecture/refactor the software.... nope can do that with both...
Add additional functionality to my fork that the original doesn't have and I won't upstream... nope can do that with both...
Remove Functionality... nope can do that with both
Literally any modification of the actual code itself... nope can do that with both

The only things that a BSD license allows over copyleft is proprietary forks (which qualifies for "extend") and opencore (which does not), so by exhaustion the only remaining option is running a proprietary fork of code, so yes... that's actually exactly what you said.



Tell me, exactly why do you think this has any relevancy to the conversation at hand? Corporate murder, no matter how heinous, or what the reason, has nothing at all to do with EEE tactics even if it is a class of monopolistic tactics.

Well, i guess I'm gonna chalk this one up to different world views. I think you -highly- underestimate MS. They don't have to make upstream sources proprietary, they just have to withhold any modifications they make. And MS -WILL- make their modifications such that it is incompatible with upstream. They can't do that with a copyleft.

You -really- need to research all that nokia lost during that ordeal. I seriously doubt you'll do it, And if I try to explain it to you, you'll blow it off. It's your loss though. Good night.

[RussianNeuroMancer]

sooner or later someone will come around and make something that is actually good.

Nobody cares about Desktop anyway. Why anyone will pump money here?

Workstations market on other hand is Ok right now, with Linux and OS X.

[Luke_Wolf]

Well, i guess I'm gonna chalk this one up to different world views. I think you -highly- underestimate MS. They don't have to make upstream sources proprietary, they just have to withhold any modifications they make. And MS -WILL- make their modifications such that it is incompatible with upstream. They can't do that with a copyleft.

This tactic still works under copyleft. There is no requirement whatsoever that you work with upstream or post your changes in the form of patches or a public VCS. A private internal repository that you then generate VCS-less source tarballs from to distribute with your binaries is an easy way to do just that, and for any realistically sized project that a company like Microsoft would be bothering to touch it would make it almost impossible to merge their changes into upstream.

Also see: Blink vs Webkit vs KHTML for a much less extreme but real world example of open source not really protecting against these kinds of games.

[L_A_G]

After funding the trash fire that was SCO's lawsuit spree against any company developing and/or using Linux, all the FUD they've put out over the years trying to scare people away from open source software in general, all the things the people running the company have said about Linux and open source along, the way they used to intentionally make the OS incompatible with third party software like Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect and the GEM desktop along with the scummy internal practices that have been brought up in lawsuits over the years I'm going to be a tad skeptical about this.

In all honesty, the whole thing is as if the United Klans of American (the lead KKK organization) came out and said that they're to become a supporting member of Back Lives Matter.

[GI_Jack]

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

The "core linux guys" don't really care about linux becoming a user-friendly operating system. They actually prefer it complex and off-putting because that requires their indispensable and well paid expertise. They seem to totally neglect the user aspect of the OS.

That is somewhat true. You're also adding "their not GUI people" either, as in they don't use or like using the heavy weight easy to use GUIs because they mostly use a GUI to manage web browsers and terminals anyway. They also have a very different work load than you.

Also, name me one industry that workers aren't going to protect themselves from de-skilling?

Here are my thoughts on the subject:
The "core linux guys" would be happy to pocket m$'s money, and they would be grateful for m$ to do some of the low level work for them as well, and in exchange, they would be expected to give m$ the only thing it cares about, it's sole motivation behind the platinum membership, which is... wait for it... to have the influence and control to make sure linux never ever gets to a point where it could threaten its monopoly on desktops.

None of the "core linux guys" want or need microsoft money, and really don't need them doing any "low level work". In fact, its the low level work which they excel at.

GUI's don't interest these people. They are not graphic artists nor designers. They are likely incapable and disinterested in designed a functioning UI. I've actually seen people say this. A faster file system, better symmetric multi-cpu support? yep. They'll do that.

Also none of these "core linux guys" aren't going to sell out linux. They have no reason to, and microsoft offers them nothing in return. None of them trust a paid microsoftee to write better code

[duby229]

This tactic still works under copyleft. There is no requirement whatsoever that you work with upstream or post your changes in the form of patches or a public VCS. A private internal repository that you then generate VCS-less source tarballs from to distribute with your binaries is an easy way to do just that, and for any realistically sized project that a company like Microsoft would be bothering to touch it would make it almost impossible to merge their changes into upstream.

Also see: Blink vs Webkit vs KHTML for a much less extreme but real world example of open source not really protecting against these kinds of games.

I'm absolutely convinced somebody from the OSS community would host it on their own repository. We aren't talking about some little mom and pop shop that nobody is aware of their project we're talking about MS.

You mention 3 web toolkits that are all open source, and were all forked with the best intentions of open source in mind. And all share their code publicly on huge industry repositories. I don't see in any way how they are the same situation.