On Mon, 7 May 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>> What they're complaining about, is that we are suggesting that their
>> property isn't worth what they are charging for it. The fact that they
>> bought or stole most of it is another issue. I find it amusing that they
>> even use the word intellectual.
>
> No, what they're complaining about is that they can't steal our property -
> they are expected to pay for it (with their changes to the code).
I suspect Microsoft doesn't really care a whole hell of a lot about our
code. Remember, Windows is the One True OS, and All Other Software is
Inferior. Resistance is Futile. Free Will is Irrelevant.
What Microsoft doesn't like about Free Software/Open Source is, in roughly
increasing order of importance:
1. It demonstrates how poorly written their own software is.
2. It encourages end users to think their opinion matters.
3. It brings to light the fact that one does not have to charge for
software licenses ("intellectual property").
Item 1 is becoming more and more obvious every day. The poor quality of
Microsoft software has become a running joke, even amongst generally clueless
users. Microsoft jokes are like Yugo jokes these days. It is really hard to
demand thousands of dollars for software that doesn't work when the
competition offers a frequently better product for free.
Item 2 is dangerous to Microsoft. Their design strategy has always been to
tell people what was best for them. (Likewise IBM through the mid-1980s.)
You don't need this feature, or that protocol, or some silly standard.
Listen to Papa Microsoft, because we know best. If their customers actually
start expecting something for the money they pay, Microsoft could be in
serious trouble.
Item 3 is the real killer, though. Microsoft's whole business model depends
on the single idea that one should have to pay for software licenses. They
call it "intellectual property", but they are really talking about licenses.
(A great way to dodge a question is to start redefining terms.) Take away
license revenue, and Microsoft starves to death. This is the single biggest
short- and medium-term threat Open Source presents to Microsoft. Their
customers might start thinking, "If Red Hat doesn't charge for using their
software, why does Microsoft?"
Ironically, this speech may back-fire on them when it comes to Item 3.
Many of the popular responses have highlighted contributors in science and
technology (Einstein, Newton, Galileo) who gave freely. The fact that the
Internet has been built on open code and protocols -- "not because but despite
of Intellectual Property" as Linus puts it, or "rough consensus and working
code" to quote the IETF -- really puts a hole in their argument. If the
Internet is the key to everything, as Microsoft now says it is, how can they
justify their proprietary stance?
> Having said the above, anyone at Concord who saw my presentation on Open
> Source will have noted that I didn't mention MS once. Because it doesn't
> matter.
Dead on.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or |
| organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
