Comment by rmc
9 years ago
> a quite decent improvement from the era when
Or the era of "Linux is a cancer"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...
9 years ago
> a quite decent improvement from the era when
Or the era of "Linux is a cancer"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...
Yeah, now they're just engaging in racketeering against Linux and Android using their patents.
The "Scroogled" era wasn't that long ago either. Unbelievably embarrassing.
Nor the stealing of Google's search results.
I'm not ready to bless Microsoft yet.
How long do they have to pay for their past mistakes before they've done enough to placate people?
4 replies →
Or, asserting their legal right to protect their investment in R&D that latecomers like Linux and Android simply ripped off. Just a matter of perspective, really. Is just that given open source is the dominant religion around these parts, that perspective is in the minority.
Honest question, what do you think was ripped off from Microsoft? I wouldn't think Linux or Android took much from them, really. (When I think of innovation at MS I think of developer tools, research on programming languages and distributed systems, and stuff like Photosync.)
4 replies →
Are they presently making any legal moves against Linux? Or just Android?
This isn't 2001.
Most Microsoft shops in my area are now at least 25% Linux these days on Azure.
What does that have to do with their racketeering?
1 reply →
Well, to be fair, he was trying to refer to the fact that GPL is viral (turning other licenses into its own). That is a valid critique of GPL (it reduces developer freedom) and that is why it has been in steady decline compared to more liberal licenses (as a percent of FOSS licenses).
No he wasn't. He was trying to disparage and insult a perceived threat. "Cancer" is an inflammatory and negative thing to call something no matter how you spin it.
Ballmer wasn't stupid he could have been nuanced and precise if he wanted, he certainly knew the difference between a kernel and a license. He wanted to convince people to not use a given technology stack because he was invested in another. If that is not convincing enough at the time there was already a more accurate but still negative sounding phrase "The GPL is Viral", but that wasn't offensive enough and didn't attack the perceived enemy OS.
It's in decline because it's based on an absolutist philosophy, rather than being another tool in the toolbox.
And it's an invaluable tool. For the indie dev that can't hire a team of lawyers copyleft can be a powerful legal strategy as relates to their IP. It has built entire communities.
The GPL reduces developer freedom
Does it?
> The GPL reduces developer freedom. Does it?
The GPL increases the user's freedom by forcing developers to contribute back, ie limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down).
Likewise, BSD and MIT type licences increase developer freedom at the cost of end users.
You have got to keep these two roles clearly separated when thinking about licences, even though in lots of cases the actual users will be developers (but of other products).
If you do, there's nothing controversial about that statement.
7 replies →
Yes, it restricts you from integrating with proprietary software (and some others). Here is a breakdown of license compatibility:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility
Note that more permissive licenses (MIT/BSD) allow more freedom for the developer.
3 replies →
while gpl does spread. It also protect the owner. With a more permissive license a bigger player can steal your work, user base and make it proparitary closed source. Why do u think M chose MIT instead of GPL ?