Is that really the case? I'm not saying they're not trying to kill some popular open-source projects, but I've also seen a lot of cases where they did publish some good research cases out of goodwill.
Notable examples include (just stuff I already knew about - I'm sure there's lots more in areas I'm not interested in):
- Hyper-V patches for the kernel (ok - they were ugly, etc. - but they were submitted in a working state, so they tried at least)
I really wouldn't be surprised if a lot of bad moves coming from MS were just caused by the legal department not understanding the FOSS issues and writing a new license that is "good enough" for them, then forcing the developers to use it (why would a developer be allowed to question their licensing decision?). There are loads of other projects and papers published by MS which are of a great value to the FOSS community - sometimes they just carry a stupid license. That can be solved by reading the documentation and writing a clean-room implementation where needed.
I definitely disagree that any free software strategy connected to MS is doomed.
It's one thing to recognize that MS may have made a few genuine contributions to free software. It's QUITE another to build the entire free software desktop and server stack on a technology that MS sees as the core of its business, as Miguel has been advocating for years.
The fact that he's disappointed that MS hasn't allowed the free implementations of .NET to compete on an even footing just shows how naive he is.
I'm not sure what options you leave him. When he is disappointed, he's wrong. If he wasn't disappointed, it would be even worse. Why not accept what's happening and hope for a change in the future?
If MS starts executing their patent rights, apparently the whole Linux is illegal in US (they said so!). Operating systems are also the core of MS business. According to what you say, we're also naïve to use Linux. Is that right?
Obviously it would be a lot easier for MS to pursue patent litigation on technology invented entirely in-house at MS (like .NET) than it would be for them to try to argue that Linux itself infringes on their patents. Surely you can see the difference.
TBH no, I don't. For any patent lawsuit you'd have to prove that the technology was invented entirely in-house or in some other way that gives them the right to sue. It doesn't matter whether it's been published before, or not. Didn't stop them from suing TomTom because of FAT, right? It's not Linux that's patented - it's just a number of technologies which are included in Linux. Userland (like .NET libraries) or kernel (like FAT) doesn't make a big difference here.
Not having any reason to sue doesn't stop people either - see SCO fiasco. I do believe that MS can sue the majority of companies without a reason - and win.
As the article states, and Miguel grudgingly admits, the threat of litigation has had a chilling effect on the growth of .NET. So perhaps it doesn't worry you, but obviously plenty of other smart people have weighed their chances and chosen to invest their money and energy instead in technologies like LAMP and Java, just as a lot of us predicted at the outset.
It doesn't worry these people either: http://mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono We didn't get the chance to compare the current world with the imaginary "patent free .net" world. So far it's just talk - who knows how many companies are really worried and how many just prefer other VMs for other reasons. All we hear right now is FUD from MS and FOSS trolls. Some people using Mono just stay quiet and enjoy the possibilities.
Sure - I obviously prefer one side of this argument and I may be completely wrong here :) As long as we're aware of all the potential problems and take time to consider options - let's use whatever meets the requirements. My view is that there are bigger threats from MS than lawsuits over Mono and all equally unlikely to affect me in any way. I guess I'll EOT here...
> Notable examples include (just stuff I already knew about - I'm sure there's lots more in areas I'm not interested in):
Has Microsoft given up on patents related to these technologies?
Because if they didn't, any free software built on them is under threat of patent litigation any time Microsoft feels like it.
There is no other reason for Microsoft to invest in basic research than to build up a patent portfolio that can be used offensively against companies and projects that threaten its market position.
If you came up with the same ideas on your own and built your product based on them, you'd end up in the same situation. You might not even know about it. If you're small enough, they won't care. If you're big enough, someone will sue you whether they have a reason or not. You cannot possibly avoid all patents and are not protected from patents which don't exist yet, but will in the future (you'll be killed by the lawsuit costs anyways).
If you have a problem to solve, there are only so many ways to solve it. If it's an interesting problem you can assume there's a patent covering it already.
What exactly do you gain by evading MS's patents? Is there a reason to worry about patents at all?
In patent infringement, they will sue your users. Since there is nothing like the EULA in free software, the publisher of the product is not liable for your use of it.
Frequently, the threat of patent lawsuits is enough to turn potential users away, specially those with deep pockets.
It is open-source http://singularity.codeplex.com/ But is not properly FOSS. Currently it's available with the Microsoft Research License Agreement. So if you're interested / involved in any managed OS research, I wouldn't recommend looking at it. However, you might be interested in the bootable images.
I would call it "toxic-source" instead of "open-source".
If they ever decide to sue you for patent infringement over your singularity-like kernel, the fact you had access to their source code could be used to imply you infringed on purpose.
I advise anyone who is involved in any open-source project to stay as far away as possible from any Microsoft-originated code and to warn other developers of these risks.
There are many schools that have embraced the study of Microsoft code that are generating a steady flow of "land mines" who could end up employed in FOSS projects and who could conceivably be used as weapons in IP lawsuits.
Call me paranoid, but being paranoid doesn't automatically make me wrong. ;-)
Notable examples include (just stuff I already knew about - I'm sure there's lots more in areas I'm not interested in):
- all work by http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/simonpj/
- Haskell ThreadScope: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/threadscope/
- Singularity, process isolation and language research: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/
- Hyper-V patches for the kernel (ok - they were ugly, etc. - but they were submitted in a working state, so they tried at least)
I really wouldn't be surprised if a lot of bad moves coming from MS were just caused by the legal department not understanding the FOSS issues and writing a new license that is "good enough" for them, then forcing the developers to use it (why would a developer be allowed to question their licensing decision?). There are loads of other projects and papers published by MS which are of a great value to the FOSS community - sometimes they just carry a stupid license. That can be solved by reading the documentation and writing a clean-room implementation where needed.
I definitely disagree that any free software strategy connected to MS is doomed.