Microsoft's trying to play the open source market from both ends, and it's obvious. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith repeated Microsoft's platitudes about wanting to play nice and find areas to work with the open source community, but in reality Microsoft's actions don't back up their words. Smith was called on it during a last week's Open Source Business Conference.
Microsoft is wanting an image makeover with the open source community, while at the same time holding the threat of 200 patent infringements. It leaves the implication you need to be a Microsoft open source lapdog, signing a Novell-like agreement, to stay in good graces with Microsoft.
Lack of announced support for Linix based VMware, Citrix, Xen and Parallels virtualization technologies in Windows Server 2008 again re-enforces the belief that you've got to fold under Microsoft's dominance before you get to play. According to Smith, "We at Microsoft respect and appreciate the important role that open source software plays in our industry". Okay, that's nice but what does that really mean.
Microsoft's promise of more interoperability is just that, interoperability and a promise, not support for creating or benefiting open source software. And Microsoft's Open Specification Promise doesn't facilitate open source software licensing, just a promise to Microsoft chosen released specs, interfaces and APIs in the clear for others to integrate with.
Microsoft loses credibility again and again with the open source community by saying it's more open source friendly but not demonstrating it through actions and aggressive behavior changes. This is a big chasm for Microsoft to cross, one that will have to happen in both steps or even leaps at a time. But small steps only won't convince anyone.
When will we see significant movement towards really supporting open source software? Early signs might be there, but not enough to telegraph to the industry that Microsoft "gets" open source. We're going to need to see a few "leaps" before the smaller steps are believable.
Related link: More Heavy Handed Tactics By Microsoft
Like this? Here are some of Mitchell's recent posts.
SaaScon 2008 - Day 2: Message Bus & Virtualization
Will Microsoft Software plus Services Be Partner Friendly?
SaaScon 2008: Microsoft MIA, Interviews & Commentary
Apple's Trojan Easter Egg - Apple Safari
Top 2: Hyper-V and Apple Security Patches
Mitchell's Hottest Blog Posts: Hyper-V Leaves Linux Out In The Cold, Apple Fixes Open Source Vulnerabilities, What Microsoft Mesh Means To You, Apple iPhone Doomed To Failure.
Check out Mitchell's Converging On Microsoft Podcast. Current Podcast Episode: Security Mike Gets Serious About Security
Also visit Mitchell's personal blog The Converging Network and SSAATY Security Podcast.
Visit Microsoft Subnet for more news, blogs, opinion from around the Web.
Sign up for the bi-weekly Microsoft newsletter. (Click on News/Microsoft News Alert.)
Mitchell Ashley is CEO and Chief Strategist of Converging Network, LLC, providing product and technology strategies to emerging technology companies. A serial entrepreneur, Mitchell has created many successful products and services in the networking, security, convergence, Internet and IT industries. In addition to blogging for NetworkWorld, Mitchell regularly blogs at TheConvergingNetwork and co-hosts the widely popular Still Crazy After All These Years podcast.
|
|
One definition of insanity
One definition of insanity is to continue doing (or thinking) in one particular manner and expecting the outcome to somehow be different.
The goals of Open Source and for-profit software efforts are by definition going to be at direct odds with each other. So wishing it to be otherwise and expecting it to become otherwise is predictably insane. Since the ultimate goal of the Open Source Software movement is the elimination of for-profit software businesses, with the means being the release of competing but "no-cost" alternatives to undermine the profit structures of for-profit businesses, there's no reason for Microsoft, or any other for-profit software business for that matter, to cooperate with them. If your definition of the goal of the Open Source Software movement is in any way different, the movement’s actions have failed to prove it to be so. Sure, there’s the platitudes of “better security” or “better code” because “so many different eyes look at and/or contribute to” the code, but in the end that is just a means (and propaganda) to the end: eliminate the exchange of money for the talent of the code writers.
Why give away that very things which has made them profitable software businesses, those being the innovative proprietary concepts and trade secrets that make their software special and unique, something which is every other industry’s right to protect? In all other industries, that would be considered suicide. The demands made by potential free-loaders that those companies hand over the plans, blueprints and design principles of their patented devices for use in knock-offs of their hard-fought products would be laughed out of existence, if not prosecuted in the courts.
You'll have to admit that there is little evidence, if any, that opening up software belonging to for-profit software businesses to exploitation by open source scrutiny has ever proven to be profitable for that business. There's a lot of evidence that doing just that has caused those companies to lose their shirts, if not their livelihoods.
Replace the word "software" in the "open source" rhetoric with any other human endeavor, and you'll find extremely few, if any, products or services that would tolerate the existence of an "open source" marketplace. At best, other markets' "open source" equivalents are hobbyists, who will generally evolve their hand-hewn and hand-crafted wares into for-profit businesses if they become innovative enough to bring a product to life that the market and people want to acquire.
So why beat on a dead horse? The Socialist Utopia will not come about through a grass-roots effort in the open source software community. People like making a living too darned much.
Sane insanity
Rick, I think you got it wrong in "The goals of Open Source and for-profit software efforts are by definition going to be at direct odds with each other."
Open Source is definitely not against profits! The word Open doesn't mean (can not mean by law) that copyrights, licenses, patents, contracts, etc are not obeyed - it just means that the "source" is open.
Actually it has much the same idea as patents (used to have), free for everyone to see and innovate - not to "steal".
Of course in case of licenses as BSD the source is really free. If borrowing that code you should, of course, give credits where they are due. In case of some other Open Source licenses there are some rules as in any and all proprietary licenses - is that bad? You can see, you can even modify or enhance, but you can't "steal" it. It doesn't force you any other way - read it, write your own, just don't copy it and say it's yours. Same as in closed source but Open is much easier for new ideas. Can't compete - tough but that's business, not technology.