[nylug-talk] Companies demonized as "Scummy" and "Evil" -- WAS: Looking for recommendations

[Bryan J. Smith]

Jay Sulzberger wrote:  
> The object of Microsoft is to establish the following principles:
> 1. Whenever you use a computer you must pay Microsoft a license
> fee, whether or not there is any Microsoft code running on the
> computer.
> 2. Whenever any computer/device communicates with any
> computer/device running Microsoft code, you must pay Microsoft a
> license fee.
> 3. Whenever two computers/devices communicate using any protocol,
> you must pay Microsoft a license fee.

Yes, it's called the distribution-focused model.  Microsoft has never
won on technical merits, only control of the distribution channel.
First it was the PC OEM, where 90% of the core software comes from.
Then it was the retail outlet, where 90% of the after-market software
comes from.  Because the focus on this, they don't have to care about
actually winning marketshare on technical merits.  And they aim to
extract

> If you use SuSE, you act in support of these three principles.

So let's follow that logic ...

Because of the Microsoft-Novell cross-licensing agreement ...
  "If you use SuSE, you act in support of these three principles"

That means anyone who has a cross-licensing agreement is also subject to
the same logic.  I.e.,

  "If you use Sun, you act in support of these three principles"
  "If you use IBM, you act in support of these three principles"

That also means anything also wholly copyrighted by these entities need
to have the same logic applied.

  "If you use OpenOffice.org, a wholly copyrighted codebase by Sun,
   you act in support of these three principles"

  "If you use Eclipse, a wholly copyrighted codebase by IBM, you
   act in support of these three princples"

And the like.

> Do not use SuSE.  Do not use any Microsoft product.

Likewise, do not use Sun or IBM products, wholly copyrighted software
which are developed under a cross-license with Microsoft -- which
includes OpenOffice.org, Java (including OpenJDK/Iced Tea), Mono,
Eclipse, etc...

That is the reality.  You have to apply the same, technical and legally
binded logic equally.  You cannot discriminate.  You have to take the
cross-licensing agreements involved as they apply to various products
that are directly affected by them, period.

Are you ready to do that?  Really?

The prior Sun-Microsoft cross-license goes well and far beyond Novell's
when it comes to major components in a Linux distribution.  Likewise,
IBM still has major agreements in place with Microsoft, because IBM's
services are still entrenched in providing such solutions, and they do
touch many things.  This includes many, many projects that are
Java-based at both IBM and Sun, as there are cross-licenses involved
between Java and .NET as well.

Most specifically, OpenOffice.org was already an issue well before the
Microsoft-Novell cross-license, because Sun wholly owns the copyright on
it, and it (along with .NET-Java) was the cornerstone of that agreement!
So are you ready to ditch OpenOffice.org as well?  Seriously.

Or maybe, just maybe, there is a lesson to be learned from this, and it
was learned long ago ...

  "Are you now, or have you ever been, associated with Microsoft
   and who are your co-conspirators?"

I call this "Linux McCarthyism" at its finest.

Just because I am an extremely strong and long-time advocate of Red
Hat's approach, and do not agree with the IBM, Novell and Sun
cross-licensing agreements with Microsoft, their IP stances at times,
and countless other issues I take with them, it does not mean I am
willing to play the "guilt by association" game.  It's self-defeating
for any Linux community member and contributor to be so.



-- 
Bryan J  Smith              Professional, Technical Annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org  http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
-------------------------------------------------------------
           Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution