Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MS-Funded Study Attacks GPL3 Draft Process

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the academic-astroturf dept.

GNU is Not Unix 206

QCMBR writes "A new Microsoft-funded study by a Harvard Business School professor concludes that developers don't want extensive patent licensing requirements in the GPL3. There are significant problems with the study, however, especially given the very small sample size. 'Although 332 emails were sent to various developers, only 34 agreed to participate in the survey — an 11 percent response rate. Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.' Ars points out that the GPL3 draft editing and review process is highly transparent and inclusive 'to an extent that makes MacCormack's claims of under-representation seem difficult to accept given the small sample size of the study and the number of respondents who contribute to non-GPL projects.'"

cancel ×

206 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Atacks? (0, Redundant)

QMalcolm (1094433) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226361)

Really.

Re:Atacks? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226379)

It looks like someone atacked the spell checker.

Re:Atacks? (0)

sr. taquito (996805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226661)

ha....

Re:Atacks? (2, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227615)

At least the title wasn't "MS-Funded Study Attacks Gee pee El lets set so killer delete select all"

Re:Atacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19226437)

No, not really.

Re:Atacks? (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226777)

Yes its a new form of terrorism where the terrorists puts a large map or diagram on the wall and then place a thumb tack in each spot where they plan to strike (a tack). Then then break for lunch and the afternoon session breaks down into an argument about whether they it might be better to use blu tack to identify the targets because it does not damage the wall behind. Should the maniacs proposing this strategy win out then we will face the even graver danger of Btacks (well Blutacks would just sound silly wouldn't it).

Senator Harry Reid: The Machine's Best Friend (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19226811)

To expand people's understanding of Harry Reid's ethically bankrupt, unbridled vituperations, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that Reid wants his cowardice and irresponsibility to be regarded as prudence. Permit me this forum to rant. Of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "The majority of noxious cowards are heroes, if not saints." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. The next time he decides to bring this battle to a fever pitch, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? But I digress. Reid is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.

Reid should clarify his point so people like you and me can tell what the heck he's talking about. Without clarification, Reid's ramblings sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense. The ineluctable outcome of his tirades is a world in which macabre fanatics contaminate clear thinking with his dastardly, delusional prognoses. Equally important is the fact that his sleazy game of chess -- the mischievous chess of negativism -- has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this homophobic thief and show him that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his rambunctious behavior, but about the way that he wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that the average working-class person can't see through Reid's chicanery. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that it will not be easy to prevent the production of a new crop of anal-retentive ratbags. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that if I had to choose the most malicious specimen from his welter of improvident gabble, it would have to be his claim that he answers to no one.

The two things I just mentioned -- the way that we mustn't tolerate the likes of Harry Reid and the fact that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of snivelling endeavors -- may sound like they're completely unrelated, but they're not. The common link is that if I want to fall prey to his rhetoric and obfuscation, that should be my prerogative. I unmistakably don't need him forcing me to. Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of his vindictive animadversions. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how we must unequivocally halt the adulation heaped upon cranky morons. Does that sound extremist? Is it too debauched for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

Reid's personal motto is "never forgive and never forget". That, in itself, will condemn us to live with patronizing schmucks in the near future. Reid would have us believe that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a gutless, bloodthirsty tosser deserving of death and damnation. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Reid is surrounded by aberrent serpents who parrot the same nonsense, which is why one of his compeers once said, "Reid is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that I recently overheard a couple of snappish mendicants say that Reid knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Reid-induced era of slogans and propaganda. I don't know if I speak for anybody but myself on this, but Reid is doing everything in his power to make me live lower than dirt. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance.

Because of Reid's eagerness to participate in riots, you may be wondering why pugnacious blatherskites latch onto his expedients. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Reid and his apparatchiks started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Reid is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every blinkered ideology finds expression in Harry Reid. I feel that Reid has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none, or he wouldn't shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions. Irreligionism has long been his lodestar. Not that I've come to expect any better from him.

When Reid says that the cure for evil is more evil, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Reid to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Reid claims that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence which is so well-known, it requires no comment, except to add that infernal riffraff have traditionally tried to piggyback on substantive issues to gain legitimacy for themselves. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him.

The ultimate aim of Reid's warnings is to restructure society as a pyramid with Reid at the top, Reid's votaries directly underneath, splenetic charlatans beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Reid to pooh-pooh the concerns of others, which makes me realize that many people who follow his undertakings have come to the erroneous conclusion that he is the way, the truth, and the light. The stark truth of the matter is that I have reason to believe that Reid is about to cater to the basest instincts of amateurish skinflints. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that Reid has an almost mystical faith in narcissism. In reaching that conclusion, I have made the usual assumption that if he were to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Reid has a deficiency of real goals. Of that I am certain, because if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Reid's put-downs may not be traditional for a dim-witted busybody, but when Reid's harebrained, pigheaded utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. For me, this irritable, sick moonshine serves only to emphasize how Reid claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Reid's deputies. The truth is that Reid places his indelible imprimatur upon a form of phallocentrism that is fundamentally, pervasively, and inescapably unholy. (Actually, we can justifiably toss most of Reid's scabrous, wily promises onto our bursting bin of coldhearted Reid prattle but that's not important now.) In a broad-brush sense, Reid would have us believe that we can stop collectivism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for hypocritical slaves to fashion. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe his brutish diatribes. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that it's easy for Reid to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? I would venture the answer has something to do with escapism. To elaborate, I once overheard him say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? He said that he is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that he and his chums are the most stuck-up calumniators you can imagine -- and even then, only in your worst nightmares. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that Reid's statements such as "Reid's oleaginous coalition is a benign and charitable agency" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.

Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that Reid is stepping over the line when he attempts to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras -- way over the line. Ever since he decided to diminish our will to live, his consistent, unvarying line has been that dictatorial party animals have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Reid sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering). His magic-bullet explanations are designed to advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively self-righteous. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. To restate the obvious: I think that the portrayal of shirkers in our culture is partially responsible for Reid's suggestions. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Reid does, and that's why even if one is opposed to scurrilous gnosticism (and I am), then surely, my general thesis is that every time he gets caught trying to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his coadjutors always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they aver, he has achieved sainthood. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: Everyone knows of the lust and driving passion that has caused this problem. Reid vehemently denies that, of course. But he obviously would, because this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to make our lives a living hell. Not yet, at least. But if we contradict him, we are labelled mealymouthed fomenters of revolution. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.

Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that I don't believe that Reid has the trappings of deity. So when he says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. He just reported that the media should "create" news rather than report it. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Reid's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology.

When I first realized that Reid's pranks are not normal, a cold shudder ran down my back. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as faddism has existed. Reid's views are utterly otiose, but what makes matters thoroughly intolerable is knowing that Reid's secret police actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these classes of goofy airheads are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world in a lustrum or two. In reality, of course, were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be Reid's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Reid to help him con us into believing that he has the mandate of Heaven to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. Stand with me, be honest with me, and help me act as a positive role model for younger people, and together we'll place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Harry Reid and his pretentious shock troops. We'll get people to sign a petition to limit Reid's ability to cause trouble. I'm counting on you. Thanks for reading this.

Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout

Ummm... (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227887)

Too much coffee this morning, huh?

Naturally (4, Insightful)

Shaman (1148) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226365)

Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?

Re:Naturally (3, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226599)

Of course not, now where is the Linux funded study by a Harvard Business School Professor about Microsoft's standard EULA?

The arguments are pretty sound. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227101)

I take it you didn't bother to read the actual study. If you had, you'd have to agree that what they're saying does make sense.

A lot of it revolves around the decades-old debate between the BSD- or MIT-styled licenses, and the GPL-styled licenses. Essentially, what we find is that those who scream the loudest about giving freedom often are actually the biggest proponents of limiting it. That's what we have with the GPLv2, for instance. It puts some pretty serious restrictions on what can be done with modified code, for instance. It actually takes away a lot of freedom, when we think of freedom as measured for the entire community, and not just the developers/users of the GPL'ed software.

Meanwhile, those who use licenses like the BSD license or the MIT license tend to be more focused on technical excellency. But by not focusing as much on the freedom-related issues, they actually tend to offer far greater liberties when it comes to using, modifying, redistributing and profiting from their work. Their attitude tends to be one of "do whatever you want, just keep our license and disclaimer notices intact". So in the end, everyone in the community has a far greater degree of freedom as to how they want to use, modify, redistribute, etc., the software. Freedom is maximized, as much as is practically so.

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227595)

Right, the GPL restricts your freedom to restrict freedom.

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227815)

Exactly. And thus the degree of freedom for the community as a whole has been decreased by the act of limiting the freedom to limit freedom.

We run into the same problem with those who preach tolerance. Often, those people are extremely intolerant of those who preach intolerance. So on one hand we hear them say how great tolerance is, but we witness their inability to practice tolerance when they're facing those who are intolerant.

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227751)

You seem to miss the point. The GPL is about freedom of the user, not everyone on earth. Developers and users, sadly, can have mutually exclusive ideas of freedom, at least with how things are today.

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227901)

It actually takes away a lot of freedom, when we think of freedom as measured for the entire community, and not just the developers/users of the GPL'ed software.

There are many problems with this sentence, starting with the initial pronoun which appears to refer to the GPL. However, that can't possibly be correct. Were you thinking of copyright instead?

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19228163)

There are many problems with this sentence, starting with the initial pronoun which appears to refer to the GPL. However, that can't possibly be correct. Were you thinking of copyright instead?

chromatic, I respect your Perl abilities. But I think your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking.

First of all, it's poor form to take quotes out of context like you just did. Let's give your quotation a bit more context, shall we?

That's what we have with the GPLv2, for instance. It puts some pretty serious restrictions on what can be done with modified code, for instance. It actually takes away a lot of freedom, when we think of freedom as measured for the entire community, and not just the developers/users of the GPL'ed software.

There. It's clear from the first sentence that the initial pronoun in the third sentence (the one that you quoted) does in fact refer to the GPL.

And no, I wasn't thinking of copyright. Copyright is what supposedly gives the GPL the power to put in place the restrictions on freedom that it (the GPL) does put in place. That is why we only encounter this decrease in net freedom when the GPL is involved, and we don't encounter a similar problem when looking at the BSD or MIT licenses. Keep in mind that copyright law is what gives the BSD and MIT licenses their power, as well.

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19228925)

Copyright is what supposedly gives the GPL the power to put in place the restrictions on freedom that it (the GPL) does put in place. That is why we only encounter this decrease in net freedom when the GPL is involved,
Ok ... no NEED(!keep that in mind,don't want to come off all hippy like) for copyright,no NEED for GPL to restrict anyone from hogging knowledge,thus no GPL and none to bitch about it... call me shallow but that sounds like its exactly the motive of a restrictive GPL you didn't get yeah they're as 'bad' as their counterparts in kinda 'forcing' their beliefs but gee....this is no world of tinklefairies after all

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (3, Informative)

karmatic (776420) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228501)

The GPL and the BSD license both aim to "maximize" freedon - however, the difference is not about communities, or developers vs users.

The GPL is designed to maximize freedom for all recipients - the first user to get the source must offer the same abilities to anyone he chooses to distribute to.
The BSD license is designed to maximize freedom of those who get the software from the original author - almost carte blanche. On the other hand, users of derivative works only have as much freedom as the developers along the chain decide to allow them to have.

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (5, Insightful)

forrestt (267374) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228755)

That isn't how I see it. I liken the software I write to my children. A BSD license is like me saying you can do anything you want to with my child including enslaving him and making him work for your own personal profit. Or perhaps more like using my child to help you create your own child that you will then enslave for your own profit. I do not want my children or their children or their children's children to be enslaved. I am saying that if you want to enslave a child, go create one from scratch, and leave my child alone. You are free to do that. However, if you feel that my child is the best at performing a certain task, and you want to have my child help you perform that task, then you have to promise not to enslave him, or use him to create slaves. To me, the GPL is more free than BSD as is forces freedom to exist from generation to generation. To me, the whole "BSD is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with your code" is akin to "Country Xyzpdq is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with anybody". That argument falls short pretty quickly when people start going around taking your stuff or killing your friends or family. And no, I'm not comparing BSD enthusiast to thieves or killers, only pointing out what I consider to be the silliness of the argument.

I'm also not getting what you mean by "[The GPL] actually takes away a lot of freedom..." How so? If I license my code under the GPL, you and anybody else are free to do whatever the GPL states you are allowed to do with the limitations of what the GPL states you are not allowed to do. Without the GPL, you aren't allowed to do anything with my code at all. In other words, just because I choose to license my code to you under terms other than the GPL doesn't make that license automatically BSD. And if I don't license it to you at all, then you can even look at it.

As far as technical excellence goes, what license one uses has nothing to do with ones proficiency at programming. And if you are truly interested in finding the most technically excellent (man this is starting to remind me of Bill and Ted) way to write your piece of software, I would think you would want to know how it is improved in the future by Company X, something the GPL forces them to let you know if they plan to redistribute it. Therefore, it could be argued that those who use licenses like the GPL are really the ones that are truly interested in technical excellence as they want to see a better way to do what they set out to do if anybody ever figures one out.

Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19229023)

BSD-style freedom is like saying that people can do whatever they want, including hurting and controlling each other. GPL-style freedom is like saying that people can do whatever they want, as long as they don't try to hurt or control others; there are more explicit restrictions but the end result is less overall restriction.

No, but couldn't they wait until it was done!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227103)

But maybe they do fear the GPLv3's value in fighting their patent FUD (one of the things the study hates the most) if they can't even wait until the thing is finished before attacking it?

Or maybe they hope to influence the process and get them to drop that clause given the theory that the vouchers distributed as part of the Novell-Microsoft deal could put them in hot water if they ever decided to assert their patents?

In an off-topic note, does anyone actually know anyone with a voucher? I'm wondering if the problem is theoretical, or if some people actually have SLES vouchers they intend to redeem after the GPLv3 is finalized, so as to tie Microsoft's hands with respect to patent FUD? As of yet, I haven't seen anyone post who has one, nor do I even know how you get them.

Actually, yes, I do (1, Interesting)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227317)

And I base that on what they do with Microsoft Research.

As for the rest of this article, already 95% of the comments are completely worthless "boo Microsoft is so evil" themes. If you want to make an impact in the business world you'd better try and come up with something a little more mature than that.

I read another comment that said "Microsoft-funded means automatic ignore, especially on Slashdot". Close but no cigar. One, did you ever stop to count just how many MS stories get posted to Slashdot? The "editors" know that's a sure way to get loads of angry comments, which translates into page views which translates into $$$. (Given how much Slashdotters love to use that puerile M$ tag, maybe any Microsoft story should now get tagged as $la$hdot flamebait.)

And two, no matter the reaction on /., that does not translate into the corporate world ignoring them. This sort of study, at the most innocuous level, will make little to no impact. It will not incite CTOs the world over to burst into angry vitriolic nonsense of the ilk being shown on Slashdot. Or...it might just strike a nerve with them, and therefore a blow against GPL, open source, Linux, etc.

Think about it.

Re:Actually, yes, I do (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227577)

(Given how much Slashdotters love to use that puerile M$ tag, maybe any Microsoft story should now get tagged as $la$hdot flamebait.)


In a really lame way, that's pretty fucking funny.

Re:Actually, yes, I do (2, Funny)

lilfields (961485) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227739)

I completely agree. However, the use of a $ in MS, is so original, thoughtful and funny and always leads to insightful posts. I think to battle this insightful jargon we should start saying things such as Goog£e, £inux, Appl(Euro sign here), Ci$co or ¥ahoo. We'll use currency diversity, that'll show em!

Re:Actually, yes, I do (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228033)

As for the rest of this article, already 95% of the comments are completely worthless "boo Microsoft is so evil" themes. If you want to make an impact in the business world you'd better try and come up with something a little more mature than that.

Ok, got it :
As the founder as the independent [and self proclaimed] Paris Laboratory of Software Good Practice and Methods, I hereby make the following statement. A recent survey made in a representative sample of the professional programming population gave the following result :
- 76% of programmers consider MS products inferior to unix flavors
- 24% consider it superior

Conclusion of the study : Microsoft products fail short of expectations on their ability to leverage innovative processes in terms of feature enablement.


Okay, small prints for people actually interested in statistics : margin of error of more than 1% on a 4 peoples sample population. Now publish me in "Red herring" and watch this having more effects on the business world than a patch to some OSS project.



Oh, and btw : "Booo evil corporate world, please continue to ignore slashdot"

Re:Naturally (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228091)

What they probably did was find someone whose own prejudices were inclined to give the results they wanted and gave him a bit of money to carry out a survey of a developer community likely to be hostile. A careful bit of encouragement, a little investment (not as much as would be needed for outright lies) and you've got yourself one meaningless study. FUD value: high. General value: zero.

The only thing worth discussing is which developer community was hostile. Who are those that aren't being reached out to properly by the free software community? Is there something we can do to close whatever gulf exists without abandoning our principles?

Surprised Harvard would Sell Their Reputation. (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228125)

Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?

No, but I do expect public companies to tell the truth. M$ is a disgrace.

What's worse is that someone at Harvard would agree to publish such bullshit. Harvard Business School just lost a large chunk of their reputation, if the summary is not itself a lie. No, looking at the paper this guy from Keystone Strategy Inc really has sold his and Harvard's reputation.

Novells next ceo will be Alan MacCormack (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228325)

Harvard Business School professor Alan MacCormack why he is immune from Steve_Balmer_Chair_Throwing()

Typo! (2, Funny)

nillawafer (1018564) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226369)

Oh, no! Not an "atack"!

Re:Typo! (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226871)

Only one tack? I'd have thought Microsoft would be able to afford far more than that. Tacks aren't even effective weapons anyway; sure, with its resources, Microsoft could probably get some really big ones, but then it'd be cheaper and easier to just trade in your obscenely oversized tacks for knives or something. And who the hell verbs 'tack'? Really, none of this makes any sort of sense.

doomed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227411)

<future revealer="Microsoft-funded studies">
      <doomed fate="obscurity" cause="GPL3">
            <Free Software/>
            <Godless Commie Open Source Developers/>
            <Open Standards/>
      </doomed>
      <doomed fate="failure">
            <All non-Microsoft clients/>
      </doomed>
</future>

Re:doomed! (2, Funny)

Obsi (912791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228875)

<you>
<are>
  <so>
   <damn>
     web 2.0
   </damn>
  </so>
</are>
</you>

Re:Typo! (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227443)

What's the big deal about Microsoft tacking the GPLv3 on their bulleting board at the office? Was it covering up the employee who was offering guitar lessons memo?

Whatever (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226397)

I mean seriously, whatever.

I knew it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19226419)

Microsoft is a tack....

In other news... (5, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226455)

A FSF-funded survey concludes that MS sucks!

Anyone can create a biased survey that self-serves their own interests.

Re:In other news... (1)

fsmunoz (267297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226653)

Anyone can create a biased survey that self-serves their own interests.

I doubt that, the studies point the other direction [imageshack.us]

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226723)

You are mistaken. A study by the Jbeaupre Group shows you can't create a biased study.

Re:In other news... (5, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227311)

And anyone can attack a survey based on the institute that produced it.

The real question is, can one attack the survey based on it's merits? Are there flaws in the research methodology or it's conclusions? I'm betting the answer is "yes". But to write off studies based purely on the messenger is nothing but an ad hominem attack, and isn't terribly useful or enlightening.

Re:In other news... (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227955)

Amen. I wish I had mod points.

There are two reasons for this to be done, usually, and Slashdot is often guilty of the former-
A) because they can't see past who commissioned the research, and
b) because there IS nothing to attack in the research.

This applies to ALL research which is attacked this way, but Slashdot is enormously guilty of it. Another good example of the former is the whole "climate change" tempest, pardon the pun.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227333)

Haahaha, this is really sad!

MS is suxxxxxx!!!!!1111

Re:In other news... (1)

overlordmead (879368) | more than 7 years ago | (#19229009)

I have concluded that these(and most other) studies are aactually studies in statistical bias. Firstly, how many studies get canned before being published because the conclusions don't conform to the pre-determined outcome the commissionar of the study wishes? Secondly, all sorts of monkeying around with your data can provide you with whatever outcome you paid for.

Two reasons to discount this crap.

I'm Shocked! Shocked I say! (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226487)

Not that an MS Funded study found results that favor Microsoft...no....I'm shocked that they received an 11% response rate!

Imagine that! Apathy in America?!?!?! Whoda Thunkit?!

I was part of the GPLv3 process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19226495)

And I never got one of these emails. Now to be fair I only stayed on part of the first round of the draft process but I was a member of Committee D which was for smaller F/OSS projects....somehow I feel my working on Wine and ReactOS had nothing to do with the fact I was not invited to be part of this study....

sedwards

Interesting.... (5, Insightful)

N3wsByt3 (758224) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226499)

A MS-funded study says the GPL3 is a badly done job? Then Stallman must be going in the right direction after all!

Re:Interesting.... (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227259)

Careful! It could be a double-bluff!!

Re:Interesting.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19228503)

Careful! It could be a double-bluff!!

But it's so simple. All I have to do is figure out from what I know of Microsoft: is it the sort of corporation who would put the poison into his own OS or his enemy's? Now, a clever one would put the poison into his own license, because he would know that only a great fool would take what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I clearly can't choose the license you've given me. But you have to know I'm not a great fool, so you'd poisoned my license, so I can clearly not choose the GPL either.

Wait until I get going!

Re:Interesting.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227299)

Stallman is from MIT and Harvard is the place that had 5 professors at Enron doing case studies as to why it was a great company and what we could learn from them.

AH! Enron, say what did become of them? They are still the largest energy company in the world?

I could do with a few of the image word!

Problems not just with the study... (4, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226509)

The piece also leaves a bit to be desired. While it states "Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.", it neglects to mention how many. Of course, I can't be fucked actually reading the study (it is in PDF after all...). But other then that, it looks OK.

On to the study it self, I agree with the authors point that far more then 34 people have participated in the drafting of the GPL v3. Not only GNU folks, but major corporations.

If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open. The Free Software Foundation could easily have hidden with some lawyers for a couple of months and then simply presented the new GPL. Obviously all the FSF stuff would go over, as would quite a lot of other stuff that has the V2 or later clause. Most developers aren't lawyers, and I'm sure that they would accept the new GPL, even if they didn't have a say in drafting it (compare version two), so long as it looks alright.

Conclusion, the study is stupid and a waste of time. While I don't use the GPL for my own projects (preferring something simpler), they are quite simple projects. For anything major, the GPL does the job, and will no doubt continue to do the job well into the future.

Re:Problems not just with the study... (3, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226733)

Well said.

My only problem with GPL v3 as a developer (a hat I've long since given up, and never enjoyed wearing) is that it gives FSF license elitists more reason to feel their license is freer, opener, and in all ways better than any MPL, BSD, or Apache license. I'd rather talk to MS sales division about licensing issues than a bloody GPL zealot.

I have no problem with GPL software, or with the FSF philosophy. I just don't need it shoved down my throat every time I ask a question on a forum or a mailing list. Yes, guys, I get it. Now, how about you help me fix this bug?

Re:Problems not just with the study... (1)

beyondkaoru (1008447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227777)

the study itself has a lot of flaws:

it takes someone else's research that separated people into four groups, then merges two groups... for no apparent reason

it had very few (thirtysomething) people interviewed, and many times they say things like "all but two in this category believed somethingorother", when you have to realize that all but two could have been 10, or 5, or 15. it's a decent claim, but using the phrasing he does makes it seem as if it was a grand sweeping truth.

it also doesn't seem to bring up any ideas we haven't already seen, though i guess if we read /. we already put an atypical amount of thought into the subject.

additionally, it is unclear to me what weight mr maccormack, who from the paper seems very much a business type of person and not a software developer at all, has in making a 'developer's bill of rights' for open source folks, especially if he's not a dev himself. (his harvard page says that he has electrical engineering training, which is admirable compared to others who write similar papers, though i have a biased negative-ish opinion of people who go into business after getting an engineering degree)

his business orientation is evident in some of the views he puts into the story, perhaps most obviously in his use of microsoft funded research apparently without a second thought on what bias might exist there...

just a couple of cents.

Re:Problems not just with the study... (2, Insightful)

steve_l (109732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228225)

The authors mailed 300+ people and only 34 replied. From the responses of the people they decided whether they were FSF believers, pragmatists (e.g. BSD people) and inferred the opinions of GPLv3 from that.

I think their conclusion that BSD/apache people won't suddenly embrace GPLv3 is probably valid, but you don't need to do a survey for that. And a survey can't determine which is better, GPL versus BSD, because its such a religious issue.

M$ Undermined the Study Themselves. (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228445)

If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open.

If the purpose was to create Open/Free conflict, they have failed miserably. The M$/Novel deal and M$ saber rattling about patents has done a great job of justifying every sentiment in the first drafts. Community input has clarified the wording and that helps too. The author might have gotten a better reception if he had managed to finish this FUD attack a few weeks ago. As things stand, they have a far more unified free software community. The backfire from all of this is an order of magnitude worse than the SCO case.

M$'s intentions have been laid bare and all of their talk about "building bridges" and "interoperability" and so on and so forth is empty and meaningless. They want to charge money for other people's work and would claim ownership through bogus patents. Is there anyone outside of Fortune who will listen to them now?

Creative spelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19228665)

Does the free software community normally resort to creative spelling, or is that just you?

I've never heard Microsoft refer to open source as "open sores" or "Linsux". Do you figure that lends credence to your arguments?

What MS does not like the GPL3? (2, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226565)

Must be good, send it to print!

Re:What MS does not like the GPL3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227989)

With headlines like "Microsoft inadvertently grants patent immunity to *all Linux users*" [digg.com] , Microsoft's reasons for disliking GPL3 must surely remain a mystery... ;)

really? (2, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226607)

you would think that if microsoft really did think the GPL hindered opensource they'd do well to keep quiet about it to hinder the competition it would have brought- instead they make empty threats and use a flawed study to support their assertion

Re:really? (1)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226801)

No!
Microsoft probably knows that those people considering one of several "free/open" source licences would not believe anything Microsoft says at face value.
So by making developers believe that Microsoft is "against" GPLv3, it is in fact promoting it...

On the other hand, I cannot think of any reason why Microsoft would want to promote GPLv3, but then, who knows?

Greetings, Roel

Re:really? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226969)

So by making developers believe that Microsoft is "against" GPLv3, it is in fact promoting it...
so if they dont say anything the GPL keeps its momentum and if they say something we ignore them and go to GPL anyway? microsoft is getting worried and they think FUD will postpone the inevitable collapse of anything windows.

Huh? (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226631)

...many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL... ...given the small sample size of the study and the number of respondents who contribute to non-GPL projects.

This prevents them from having a valid opinion of the GPLv3? Maybe they have good reasons for not using the GPL that should be taken into account?

I mean honestly, if you survey 2000 GPL fan boys, what do you suppose they will say about the GPLv3?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19226937)

A presumption of bias against the GPL by the sampled population is reasonable here.

Given a large portion of the sample has already chosen a non-GPL license (for whatever reasons), it stands that since the GPL 3 draft doesn't fundamentally change those reasons, they would continue to oppose using the GPL license.

More simply put: if many of the people in the sample didn't like the GPL in the first place, they aren't likely to like it now, either.

The problem is, that doesn't make the sample representative of the Open Source community as a whole.

I agree that sampling fanboys isn't valid either.

But it seems clear here that the sample is skewed, so the results aren't statistically valid.

Re:Huh? (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228069)

1. it would tell which version is liked more, V2 or V3. 2. Yes, it prevents them of having a valid opinion about V3, but it isn't surprising from a M$ funded fud fad. 3. Yes, some non GPL projects got good reasons for not using GPL. But this wasn't the scope of the study. The study was about what people who would use GPL want in it (at least this was the alleged goal). 4. What is a benefit of such a study for M$? They could lie to themselves, but others won't necessarily buy this crap.

Was I the only one who read the headline as ... (0)

the_rajah (749499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226633)

"MS-FUDed Study Atacks GPL3 Draft Process" ?

I'm so glad it was an independent and unbiased study.

Well if such a small percentage responded (2, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226641)

would this not indicate a high degree of apathy which tends to bear out the main point?

Re:Well if such a small percentage responded (2, Insightful)

fitten (521191) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228385)

Good point. It's almost like either they don't care about GPLv3 in general, don't care enough to read and understand GPLv3, or don't understand the differences between GPLv3 and GPLv2. All of which, given that code will be committed to that license policy, potentially blindly, are pretty scary. Does the OSS community trust these people that much that they'll blindly accept whatever license they decree?

(Disclaimer: I tend to release my personally written stuff under BSD unless what I'm working on has other licensing, then it's whatever license that body of work is under.)

This story blows (0, Redundant)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226683)

Another bullshit "study" funded by Microsoft. How is this news?

It's quite shocking (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227153)

That Gartner didn't get a cut of the money.

Re:It's quite shocking (1)

The13thMonkey (1105729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227307)

MS might not have sent him any money, but I be they sent him a free laptop.

Ya but... (3, Funny)

msimm (580077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226687)

The best part is that Microsoft has now become the single best reason *to* embrace the GPL3. And to think I ever had doubted.

So... (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226707)

...exactly what does this have to do with My Rights Online? I'd put it under "Politics" and be done with it.

Bugger Me (3, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226717)

In the past Microsoft sniffed and derided the GPL and anything vaguely open source as communist or just plain non-capitalist and generally plain ignored it. Now they're actually funding studies to tell us how about it is, and not only that, they have an agenda of what parts they don't like about it - namely patent reform.

Considering the rather silly deal Microsoft struck with Novell, and the silly deals they'd like to strike with other Linux vendors to get the message across to the corporate sector that if you use open source software you pay Microsoft for IP, this looks a touch suspicious. Maybe the FSF have touched a bit of a nerve somewhere.

It's incredibly funny and rather unbelievably naive that Microsoft would think that anything like this would sway anyone's opinions, certainly in the same manner as one of their 'Get the Facts' studies or one of those 'Windows Server beats everyone' studies. They really haven't learned a whole lot over the years. For them to claim the open source developers, the people who they've derided and don't have much time for Microsoft either, are under represented just seems like quite an above average desperate move.

Almost enough to make me endorse GPL3 (2, Interesting)

mchallis (462385) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226771)

I haven't made up my mind concerning GPL3, but Microsoft's war against it is nearly enough to sway me towards GPL3. Microsoft is using cross licensing agreements, and attempting to herd Free Software into a commercial vendor only arena (Novell). Once there, they can compete with and or kill it using the usual dirty tricks. So if the question is "Where do you want to go today"? The answer is somewhere free of Microsoft.
MC

Re:Almost enough to make me endorse GPL3 (1)

dmeranda (120061) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227197)

As a developer who also did not receive one of these surveys, I know that I am in fact holding off on releasing free code I've already written particularly because I am waiting for GPL3. I do not want to release under GPL2 specifically because I WANT the extra anti-patent and anti-DRM stuff that GPL3 will add.

If anything, my gripe is that the GPL3 process is taking so long; I've been sitting on some code for over a year. But getting the license right is to me more important than any particular piece of code. But I guess my vote didn't count in the survey, not that I really care.

you lost me at MS funded... (2, Informative)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226783)

in this day and age, and on slashdot in particular, isn't "MS funded" synonymous with "/ignore"?

Re:you lost me at MS funded... (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 7 years ago | (#19229003)

>/dev/null you mean?

I get it... I do, I do understand (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226791)

MS cannot fund any study ever without F, U, 'n' D

11% (2, Insightful)

asninn (1071320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226865)

34 out of 332? That's an *abysmal* response rate and pretty much means that the study is entirely worthless, no matter what the conclusions are or who actually answered.

what a shcoker... (3, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226867)

The new GPL - which will undermine all of M$'s FUD claims over patents because of Novell's vouchers not having dates on them - is thought to be bad by some who was paid by... M$! I'm shocked.

I'm also more shocked, genuinely that Harvard allows people who conduct "studies" like this to be professors... It's just shocking incompetence. I'd be amazed if you could pass an MBA doing shit like this

Re:what a shcoker... (4, Insightful)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228113)

I'm also more shocked, genuinely that Harvard allows people who conduct "studies" like this to be professors... It's just shocking incompetence. I'd be amazed if you could pass an MBA doing shit like this

Come on, this is a business school, they don't know any real math. They think statistics is the art of making up numbers to prove their points.

"A Developers' Bill of Rights", proposed by MS (3, Insightful)

Andy Tai (1884) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226927)

The funniest thing is that the paper is titled ""A Developers Bill of Rights: What Open Source Developers Want in a Software License."

Yes, Microsoft is proposing a Bill of Rights, for open source developers! Can you believe that?

Re:"A Developers' Bill of Rights", proposed by MS (4, Funny)

grcumb (781340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227247)

The funniest thing is that the paper is titled ""A Developers Bill of Rights: What Open Source Developers Want in a Software License."

Yes, Microsoft is proposing a Bill of Rights, for open source developers! Can you believe that?

Okay, I will never - ever - again accuse them of lacking a sense of humour.

See, that's what's missing in the arena of world domination: a bit of drollery. I mean, if an power-hungry megalomaniac can't let his hair down from time to time, where's the point in it?

Re:"A Developers' Bill of Rights", proposed by MS (1)

Smight (1099639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227363)

Haven't you heard?
Microsoft is always looking out for the little guy and wants to see opensource flourish.

NEWSFLASH
MS funded study of cancer deaths and GPL3 found that all one people studied using trying to distribute with GPL3 died of cancer.
The first amendment on the developers bill of rights is that developers should not be forced get cancer.
Just to be safe, amendment two states open source shall be banned for it's ties to cancer.

Where's the S.O.P.? (4, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226953)

OK, I know that fake studies are a part of Microsoft's standard operating procedure for affecting the standards and codes proposed by governing bodies, but where's the rest? Shouldn't Microsoft be giving zero-interest "loans" to RMS, sending Eben Moglen to play golf in Scotland (a fact-finding tour), and buying a powerboat for Linus?

Seriously, though, who gives a crap what a Harvard professor, funded or unfunded, with or without a good sample size, claims the average developer wants? The GPL is not supposed to be populist, it's supposed to achieve a purpose. A purpose that most of the world - heck, even much if not most of Slashdot's readership - has never fully grasped. A purpose that is diametrically opposed to software patents.

ms$ atax gpl3.... (1)

freeasinrealale (928218) | more than 7 years ago | (#19226993)

Who TF invited MS$ to the GPL3 party??

Statistics (1)

Mad Scientist 12 (1074757) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227009)

With 34 replies this assumes at best a 17% error on the results. Now if there were biases in the respondents and or survey the error could be much higher which means this survey tells us nothing... no shock. A network news political poll usually has thousands of respondents, done as objectively as possible, and it still has 4% error.

What about Microsoft license agreements? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227045)

Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.


At least they had a choice. Any guesses on how many developers who didn't like the parade of Microsoft licenses (for the OS, tools, etc) got to choose a different licensing instead of what Microsoft rammed down their throats?

A virgin writing about sex? (4, Insightful)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227079)

Judging by his faculty biography, Alan D. MacCormack is much like the virgin who writes about sex. He writes a lot about software development, but there is no evidence that he has actually done any.

Many will want it (2, Insightful)

Lobais (743851) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227163)

I think it is quite clear that most people who release there source under GPL does so to ensure that they can always have access to it, even after other people have made changes to it.
If a company then can go and make changes to your code, and add patented technology which you are not allowed to used, then you are pretty fucked, right?
Why should anybody not want to be protected against this?

The Developer Demographic Data (2, Informative)

qparadox (1105733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227179)

Here's a summary of the developer data used in the study, see pp 21-22.

Demographic Group
Pragmatists 19
Intellectuals 8
Philosophers 7

GPLv2 / LGPL / GPLv2+Commercial: 20
included: Linux, MySQL, XenSource, Snort, Amanda, JBoss, GCC Toolchain

Non-GPL: 14
Includes:Apache, PHP, Apache Geronimo, Perl, PostgreSQL, Eclipse

Raw Data:
Amanda 2
Apache 4
Apache Geronimo 3
Eclipse 1
GCC Toolchain 4
Jboss 3
Linux Kernel 7
MySQL 1
Perl 2
PHP 2
PostgreSQL 2
Snort 2
XenSource 1

Another poll suggests... (1)

MadMidnightBomber (894759) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227185)

Another informal poll of Linux system administrators - which had me as the sole respondent - concluded that Microsoft will say anything if they think it reflects negatively upon open source. This poll has a margin of error of +inf.

Don't like GPLv3? Use GPLv2 or BSD. (2, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227271)

If developers don't like the licensing changes in the GPLv3, they are always free to use GPLv2, BSD, or any other OSI-approved license. Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.

If developers are upset that GNU projects will go under a license they don't agree with, well, that's just tough. Either use the BSD equivalents, fork the GPLv2 versions, or write your own. The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.

Re:Don't like GPLv3? Use GPLv2 or BSD. (1)

Evets (629327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228529)

Actually GPL v2 gives the licensee the option of using the current GPL license or any future version of the GPL license if I'm not mistaken. I've seen several instances where that line was stripped from the license text - but it's there by default.

In related news... (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227435)

...a study commissioned by Phillip Morris has revealed that people really do want to get lung cancer.

gn4a (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19227559)

conv3r5ation and [goat.cx]

He Just Needs More Data (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227591)

Well, then, perhaps somebody can mail the researcher this thread tomorrow and see if we can't generate more than 34 insightful responses for him. Hey, we want this guy to have good data and make appropriate conclusions from it.

I posted this entry [bfccomputing.com] on my blog the other day - as a small developer unable to compete with massive patent portfolios, I believe that Patents + GPL3 is the only way for Open Source to weather the patent storm.

OSS-Funded Study Atacks MS EULA License Process (1)

ozzee (612196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227737)

I can't wait to hear what someone would say about that...

Oh ... let's not wait

Finding One - Microsoft Values Open Source as a Development Model

Let others develop the code while we steal it.

Finding Two - Microsoft Values Building on Others' Work

Let's face it, we couldn't have dunnit by ourselves.

Finding Three - Microsoft wants Choice in Licensing

Yep, the more open source licenses the better. Especially ones where I get to to use your code without any payback.

Finding Four - Microsoft Likes Interactions between Open and Closed Source

Yep, we love it when OSS code does not work with our code. It keeps our monopoly position strong. We don't have to resort to further criminal acts like we did with windows on DOS7.

Finding Five - Microsoft wants Flexibility

Yep, I don't want to be hamstrung, do I.

Theme Six - Microsoft want Choice, not Mandates

We don't need no stinkin GPL.

Summary

The Micorosoft we interviewed clearly articulated their desire for "flexibility," "choice," and "freedom" for themselves and no-one else.

With 11% response, you can toss the statistics (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19227831)

Since it was my major at college, I think I may safely assure you that an 11% response pretty much only can have 2 meanings:

Either people were afraid of repercussions for answering it, or people were absolutely and completely indifferent to it.

In turn, those that do answer either answer because they know they agree with a certain commonly agreed stance, or they had to push an agenda (and thus didn't answer honestly, but in the way that furthers their own agenda).

Either way, the statistics is best kept in close vicinity to the loo, in case you're running low on toilet paper.

Re:With 11% response, you can toss the statistics (1)

steve_l (109732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228301)

Indifferent to it and all the other OSS surveys you get, normally by some student mining the big OSS SCM repositories and thinking they will be the first person to survey all the developers to find out how they work. Why, its almost as bad as the in-house cross-organisation architecture mailing lists that you end up on if you do closed-source.

Nothing to see here.... (1)

Virgil Tibbs (999791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228055)

Microsoft attempts to discredit GNU/Free Software

Nothing new.

'Nothing to see here move along please'

Thanks for confirming the validity of GPL 3 (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19228897)

This is a nice confirmation that GPL 3 is definitely on the right track.

Always nice to hear Eben is getting it right :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>